I would be careful about being so certain of others sincerity, or lack of it. Regardless of whether it's free advertising or not, it's another step toward a single payer system.
I'm certain you and I will be offered the option to time travel before we're offered single payer.
I wonder what Pelosi thinks about the prospects of Medicare for all?
It's fucking hysterical to see a Trump voter throwing stones regarding disingenuous political proposals when your candidate promised to repeal Obamacare day one, build a wall with Mexican money, defeat ISIS in 30 days, and on and on. I think you've maxed out the hypocrisy scale.
I would be careful about being so certain of others sincerity, or lack of it. Regardless of whether it's free advertising or not, it's another step toward a single payer system.
I'm certain you and I will be offered the option to time travel before we're offered single payer.
I wonder what Pelosi thinks about the prospects of Medicare for all?
It's fucking hysterical to see a Trump voter throwing stones regarding disingenuous political proposals when your candidate promised to repeal Obamacare day one, build a wall with Mexican money, defeat ISIS in 30 days, and on and on. I think you've maxed out the hypocrisy scale.
I would be careful about being so certain of others sincerity, or lack of it. Regardless of whether it's free advertising or not, it's another step toward a single payer system.
I'm certain you and I will be offered the option to time travel before we're offered single payer.
I wonder what Pelosi thinks about the prospects of Medicare for all?
We are offered the option to time travel every election. It's called voting Republican.
time traveling...I'm going back to 2003 and working my way forward.
“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program…I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.” – Barack Obama, 2003
— In the 2008 Obama-Biden health care plan on the campaign’s website, candidate Obama promised that “any American will have the opportunity to enroll in [a] new public plan.” [2008]
— During a speech at the American Medical Association, President Obama told thousands of doctors that one of the plans included in the new health insurance exchanges “needs to be a public option that will give people a broader range of choices and inject competition into the health care market.” [6/15/09]
— While speaking to the nation during his weekly address, the President said that “any plan” he signs “must include…a public option.” [7/17/09]
— During a conference call with progressive bloggers, the President said he continues “to believe that a robust public option would be the best way to go.” [7/20/09]
— Obama told NBC’s David Gregory that a public option “should be a part of this [health care bill],” while rebuking claims that the plan was “dead.” [9/20/09]
September 24, 2009 through February 4, 2010
Post edited by JC29856 on
0
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,217
time traveling...I'm going back to 2003 and working my way forward.
“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program…I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.” – Barack Obama, 2003
— In the 2008 Obama-Biden health care plan on the campaign’s website, candidate Obama promised that “any American will have the opportunity to enroll in [a] new public plan.” [2008]
— During a speech at the American Medical Association, President Obama told thousands of doctors that one of the plans included in the new health insurance exchanges “needs to be a public option that will give people a broader range of choices and inject competition into the health care market.” [6/15/09]
— While speaking to the nation during his weekly address, the President said that “any plan” he signs “must include…a public option.” [7/17/09]
— During a conference call with progressive bloggers, the President said he continues “to believe that a robust public option would be the best way to go.” [7/20/09]
— Obama told NBC’s David Gregory that a public option “should be a part of this [health care bill],” while rebuking claims that the plan was “dead.” [9/20/09]
time traveling...I'm going back to 2003 and working my way forward.
“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program…I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.” – Barack Obama, 2003
— In the 2008 Obama-Biden health care plan on the campaign’s website, candidate Obama promised that “any American will have the opportunity to enroll in [a] new public plan.” [2008]
— During a speech at the American Medical Association, President Obama told thousands of doctors that one of the plans included in the new health insurance exchanges “needs to be a public option that will give people a broader range of choices and inject competition into the health care market.” [6/15/09]
— While speaking to the nation during his weekly address, the President said that “any plan” he signs “must include…a public option.” [7/17/09]
— During a conference call with progressive bloggers, the President said he continues “to believe that a robust public option would be the best way to go.” [7/20/09]
— Obama told NBC’s David Gregory that a public option “should be a part of this [health care bill],” while rebuking claims that the plan was “dead.” [9/20/09]
time traveling...I'm going back to 2003 and working my way forward.
“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program…I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.” – Barack Obama, 2003
— In the 2008 Obama-Biden health care plan on the campaign’s website, candidate Obama promised that “any American will have the opportunity to enroll in [a] new public plan.” [2008]
— During a speech at the American Medical Association, President Obama told thousands of doctors that one of the plans included in the new health insurance exchanges “needs to be a public option that will give people a broader range of choices and inject competition into the health care market.” [6/15/09]
— While speaking to the nation during his weekly address, the President said that “any plan” he signs “must include…a public option.” [7/17/09]
— During a conference call with progressive bloggers, the President said he continues “to believe that a robust public option would be the best way to go.” [7/20/09]
— Obama told NBC’s David Gregory that a public option “should be a part of this [health care bill],” while rebuking claims that the plan was “dead.” [9/20/09]
Hilliary had a point here: “When Senator Obama ran for the Senate, he was for single-payer and
said he was for single-payer if we could get a Democratic president and
Democratic Congress... As time went on, the last four or so years, he
said he was for single-payer in principle, then he was for universal
health care. And then his policy is not, it is not universal.”
time traveling...I'm going back to 2003 and working my way forward.
“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program…I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.” – Barack Obama, 2003
— In the 2008 Obama-Biden health care plan on the campaign’s website, candidate Obama promised that “any American will have the opportunity to enroll in [a] new public plan.” [2008]
— During a speech at the American Medical Association, President Obama told thousands of doctors that one of the plans included in the new health insurance exchanges “needs to be a public option that will give people a broader range of choices and inject competition into the health care market.” [6/15/09]
— While speaking to the nation during his weekly address, the President said that “any plan” he signs “must include…a public option.” [7/17/09]
— During a conference call with progressive bloggers, the President said he continues “to believe that a robust public option would be the best way to go.” [7/20/09]
— Obama told NBC’s David Gregory that a public option “should be a part of this [health care bill],” while rebuking claims that the plan was “dead.” [9/20/09]
September 24, 2009 through February 4, 2010
WTF is your point?
lol
WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020AT 07/07/2020
time traveling...I'm going back to 2003 and working my way forward.
“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program…I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.” – Barack Obama, 2003
— In the 2008 Obama-Biden health care plan on the campaign’s website, candidate Obama promised that “any American will have the opportunity to enroll in [a] new public plan.” [2008]
— During a speech at the American Medical Association, President Obama told thousands of doctors that one of the plans included in the new health insurance exchanges “needs to be a public option that will give people a broader range of choices and inject competition into the health care market.” [6/15/09]
— While speaking to the nation during his weekly address, the President said that “any plan” he signs “must include…a public option.” [7/17/09]
— During a conference call with progressive bloggers, the President said he continues “to believe that a robust public option would be the best way to go.” [7/20/09]
— Obama told NBC’s David Gregory that a public option “should be a part of this [health care bill],” while rebuking claims that the plan was “dead.” [9/20/09]
September 24, 2009 through February 4, 2010
WTF is your point?
lol
I know... even a concussed chimp can figure it out.
I would be careful about being so certain of others sincerity, or lack of it. Regardless of whether it's free advertising or not, it's another step toward a single payer system.
Sanders bill is medicare for all and it lacks a deficit neutral reserve fund so not only does it need 15 GOP senators and 26 house GOPers it needs a waiver on the budget point of order. We are more likely to see Ted Williams resurrected and in the Red Sox lineup today then the Sanders bill backed by leading Democrats charade come to fruition anytime soon. Ill keep my hopes up, Im only an hour flt from Fenway!
I would be careful about being so certain of others sincerity, or lack of it. Regardless of whether it's free advertising or not, it's another step toward a single payer system.
Sanders bill is medicare for all and it lacks a deficit neutral reserve fund so not only does it need 15 GOP senators and 26 house GOPers it needs a waiver on the budget point of order. We are more likely to see Ted Williams resurrected and in the Red Sox lineup today then the Sanders bill backed by leading Democrats charade come to fruition anytime soon. Ill keep my hopes up, Im only an hour flt from Fenway!
I'm not thinking it's going to happen in the next year, but it will eventually.
Until his base flipped out. Now he's backtracking. This is all very confusing to DJT. He's a transactor by nature. He's agnostic to principle, he just wants a deal where he can "win". It's amazing people didn't realize that. You have to be really obtuse.
Deal or No Deal Chuck "6 ways to Sunday" Schumer: "We have reached an understanding on this issue. We have to work out
details, and we can work together on a border security package with the
White House and get DACA on the floor quickly."
Deal or No Deal Chuck "6 ways to Sunday" Schumer: "We have reached an understanding on this issue. We have to work out
details, and we can work together on a border security package with the
White House and get DACA on the floor quickly."
You should ask the POTUS that you voted for...not Chuck. He's all in for a deal for border security (no wall) for DACA. It's up to Trump and the GOP congress to see if they have the spines to lead, or will get wagged once more by their psychotic base.
Deal or No Deal Chuck "6 ways to Sunday" Schumer: "We have reached an understanding on this issue. We have to work out
details, and we can work together on a border security package with the
White House and get DACA on the floor quickly."
You should ask the POTUS that you voted for...not Chuck. He's all in for a deal for border security (no wall) for DACA. It's up to Trump and the GOP congress to see if they have the spines to lead, or will get wagged once more by their psychotic base.
I didn't ask chuck I quoted him. I'll tweet trump and advise his response. You claimed he was backtracking from a deal.
Deal or No Deal Chuck "6 ways to Sunday" Schumer: "We have reached an understanding on this issue. We have to work out
details, and we can work together on a border security package with the
White House and get DACA on the floor quickly."
You should ask the POTUS that you voted for...not Chuck. He's all in for a deal for border security (no wall) for DACA. It's up to Trump and the GOP congress to see if they have the spines to lead, or will get wagged once more by their psychotic base.
I didn't ask chuck I quoted him. I'll tweet trump and advise his response. You claimed he was backtracking from a deal.
"No deal was made last night on DACA. Massive border security would have to be agreed to in exchange for consent. Would be subject to vote" - DJT
A new study from campaign finance watchdog group MapLight found that since 2010, Democratic senators who have refused to sponsor the bill have, during their careers, raised twice as much insurance industry cash as those who support the legislation.
Steve Elmendorf, the former top aide to then-House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt. He delivered $130,400 to the DSCC while representing insurance giant UnitedHealth Group Inc. and dialysis conglomerate DaVita Inc.
David Castagnetti, the former top aide to Montana Sen. Max Baucus, who was accused of blocking a debate over single-payer during the Affordable Care Act deliberations. Castagnetti delivered $64,000 to the DSCC while representing insurers Humana Inc., Blue Cross Blue Shield of Arizona and the parent company of Oscar Health Insurance.
Jeff Forbes, the former staff director for Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee, which oversees the nation’s healthcare system. He delivered $20,000 to the DSCC while representing the drug industry’s trade association, PhRMA, as well as individual drug companies Abbott Laboratories, Amgen and Genentech.
Tony Podesta, the namesake of the Podesta Group and a top Hillary Clinton bundler, gave $202,476 to the DSCC while representing the American Healthcare Association and Mylan— the controversial maker of the Epipen. Heather Podesta of Podesta + Partners delivered $226,400 to the DSCC while representing Baxter Healthcare and insurer Cigna.
speaking of Anthem, classic Liz. Shower Blue Cross with praise in an attempt to berate Anthem, like they are so different. Is this all Liz does? grandstand
At a certain point, people you disagree with are going to promote things you agree with because it is the most positive for their brand. If you are looking for righteousness as the primary motive for political aspirations, you are not understanding the basis of human nature, and certainly not of politicians - those who serve to structure power to gain themselves more of it.
We do what is best for ourselves, and on a short enough scale as one human life (especially with the age of typical politicians), what is best for us personally typically is not what is best for us collectively. Trump could buy a Hummer, and have gasoline-powered flamethrowers coming out of the back of it, and he will still most likely never personally or materially suffer the consequences of carbon emissions.
If you believe any of this, then you're going to have to ask yourself - if someone you disagree with promotes something you agree with for a reason you disagree with, will you support them? Or will you stay rigid in your stance that anyone whose name contains vowels and/or consonants is insincere and thus unsupportable? If you disagree with my opinion, I'd love to hear why.
I'll answer but first I need a better understanding of what you mean and what you are asking, but before that let me say a few things to clarify and bring those that havent been following along up to speed. First off lets make clear that single payer and medicare for all are not the same, althou most if not all of the links I posted previously use those terms interchangeably. Im not going to get into the differences or similarities, if anyone cares they can research themselves. The point is as I have posted single payer is NOT medicare for all. Second, the point of my posts and repeat posts are to illustrate just how disingenuous California democrats have been when they pushed for single payer legislation under Republican control, knowing it would never pass. Now that Cal Dems have control and can actually pass single payer, they shelf it. Why? Besides control in Cal from GOP to Dem, what changed?
IMO we are seeing the same thing (disingenuous democrats) play out on the national level, certain Democrats are behind "single payer" medicare for all" knowing that it has zero chance of even being called to a vote, let alone passed and signed by Trump (if you think single payer or medicare for all has any chance of being called to a vote stop right here, dont waste your remaining brain cells reading any further). Can I not question the motivations for such actions and offer my opinions as to why this game is played (free advertising, now and in the future, when your name is in the presidential hat)?
Now on to your reply, immediately Im confused as to your choice of the word "brand". I am and have referred to elected civil servants who's job is to serve their constituents, not Kyle Jenner and whatever her job is. Explain what you mean by "brand" in the context of politicians/political processes? Even thou I think your asking me if I will waste my time and efforts and support total horse shit, Ill answer your question as simply as possible, yes I will support ANYONE if they (honestly sincerely fight for) promote something that I believe is right. Ill support ANYONE who (honestly and sincerely) pushes for healthcare as an entitlement versus a commodity, regardless of their reasons. I do not and will not support horse shit lip service. Weeks if not months ago I posted just how horse shitty ironstache and harris are (fyi for the alt-stupid, one is a white male, the other is a black female) My questions: Are you suggestion that one should support harris booker (fill in the next presidential hopeful, gillibrand, kaine, liz) etc because they are behind single payer even thou they are only doing it for political expediency/free advertising/branding to use your term? Why would anyone waste their time or efforts supporting a candidate that is obviously intellectually dishonest / political expedient? Single payer and medicare for all isnt going anywhere and likely never will in our lifetime. Check the political contributions and pac money from health insurance companies, pharma and the like. More-so than money and power those currently in control (and some Dems too) think single payer is socialism, that obama and obamacare are the stepping stone to FREE healthcare for food stampers. (for those that arent following along, please try to stay on topic)
First, let me make sure I properly understand the difference between single-payer and Medicare for All: the former is the elimination of health insurance, as the government carries the tab for the health care provided to its citizens. The latter subsidizes insurance for those who cannot afford their own premiums.
Next, it is astonishing to me how you only perceive disingenuousness within one party - one party with little political sway, and representing the minority of each branch of government today. To deny that this is a political epidemic rather than an epidemic within the DNC furthers division: to criticize a bucket of Democrats asks them to disadvantage themselves and give Republicans a free pass (guess what - that's unlikely). To criticize the bucket of politicians at large and to hold ALL to the same standards is the more reasonable and less divisive way to go.
You're welcome to question anything you want. When you question everything you hear, set the bar so unreasonably high as to be virtually impossible, and spend zero time identifying what "good" actually looks like - don't be surprised when no one gives two shits about what you have to say and most write you off as a naive idealist. And this is coming from a liberal-minded person.
Next, your expectation that your elected civil servants are here to serve their constituents. This is just laughable. If you honestly believe that more than 5% of politicians are here for you, the people, then I've got a bridge to sell you. People ignoring and forgetting about the existence of their moral compasses in the interest of seizing power is a trait as old as our species. In the modern world, power is measured in dollars, and a politician (who controls decisions intrinsically linked to peoples' abilities to profit) is unlimited in his or her right to be a capitalist. How's that for a conflict of interest?
Next topic - a brand (something I really didn't think I needed to explain). It's the ways in which someone or something claims to add value to your life - not the value actually contributed. Does Coca Cola actually make life better and make my encounters with friends more exciting? No, it leads to diabetes. Will Axe Body Spray help me find someone to have sex with? No, but it will make me smell like crap until I shower. You are living in a world where brands are typically more meaningful and resonant to a person than the actual impact a person or thing has on you (likely correlated to our collective stupidity, ignorance, ego, and susceptibility to confirmation bias). Thus, strong brands make outlandish promises, and once you've paid (i.e. through a vote), they break the contract (which was only informal and not legally binding - such as a campaign promise), and reap the benefits. The perception is far more important than the reality, especially when us collectively dumb-shit humans forget and move on so quickly.
What I am suggesting is simple: you spend a ludicrous amount of time criticizing - so how do you feel the words you share actually contribute to the better tomorrow you claim to want?
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
^^Great critique, I just wish it wasn't pointless. As you know, I wrote him/her off as a Leninist long ago. This is a person who simply supports the destruction of existing institutions, and typically disinterested in improving or replacing them with other institutions. It's either that or a Trump supporter who doesn't have the nuts to say so.
^^Great critique, I just wish it wasn't pointless. As you know, I wrote him/her off as a Leninist long ago. This is a person who simply supports the destruction of existing institutions, and typically disinterested in improving or replacing them with other institutions. It's either that or a Trump supporter who doesn't have the nuts to say so.
WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020AT 07/07/2020
^^Great critique, I just wish it wasn't pointless. As you know, I wrote him/her off as a Leninist long ago. This is a person who simply supports the destruction of existing institutions, and typically disinterested in improving or replacing them with other institutions. It's either that or a Trump supporter who doesn't have the nuts to say so.
I really don't believe that he's some kind of destruction-obsessed nihilist, I just think he has unrealistically high standards, and those standards aren't just relating to actions, but also to motives. I can't remember the philosopher who stated that every human act can be traced back to an expectation of personal gain, but I believe we all possess that. To think a politician of all people could be above that, is not a hope grounded in reality.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Comments
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program…I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.” – Barack Obama, 2003
September 24, 2009 through February 4, 2010
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
“When Senator Obama ran for the Senate, he was for single-payer and said he was for single-payer if we could get a Democratic president and Democratic Congress... As time went on, the last four or so years, he said he was for single-payer in principle, then he was for universal health care. And then his policy is not, it is not universal.”
http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/democrats-fought-25-years-over-single-payer-now-many-back-medicare-all-2589117
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/4-theories-to-explain-why-trump-is-suddenly-working-with-democrats/
Chuck "6 ways to Sunday" Schumer:
"We have reached an understanding on this issue. We have to work out details, and we can work together on a border security package with the White House and get DACA on the floor quickly."
I'll tweet trump and advise his response.
You claimed he was backtracking from a deal.
Cory has been a "sitting" US Senator for 4 years
Small donations and a matter of trust.
http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/sanders-prepared-medicare-bill-health-care-lobbyists-bankrolled-senate-democrats
A new study from campaign finance watchdog group MapLight found that since 2010, Democratic senators who have refused to sponsor the bill have, during their careers, raised twice as much insurance industry cash as those who support the legislation.
Jonathon Jones, the former chief of staff for Sen. Tom Carper, a Finance Committee member has not signed onto the single-payer initiative. He delivered $97,000 to the DSCC while representing insurers Anthem Inc.and the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, as well as the trade group Pharmaceutical Research Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) and drugmakers Amgen Inc., Astellas Pharma Inc., AstraZeneca, Merck & Co. Inc., Novartis, Genentech Inc. and Vertex Pharmaceuticals.
Lisa Kontoupes, a former aide to President Bill Clinton and staffer for Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee. She delivered $77,500 to the DSCC while representing drugmakers Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Teva Pharmaceuticals Inc..
David Castagnetti, the former top aide to Montana Sen. Max Baucus, who was accused of blocking a debate over single-payer during the Affordable Care Act deliberations. Castagnetti delivered $64,000 to the DSCC while representing insurers Humana Inc., Blue Cross Blue Shield of Arizona and the parent company of Oscar Health Insurance.
Jeff Forbes, the former staff director for Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee, which oversees the nation’s healthcare system. He delivered $20,000 to the DSCC while representing the drug industry’s trade association, PhRMA, as well as individual drug companies Abbott Laboratories, Amgen and Genentech.
Tony Podesta, the namesake of the Podesta Group and a top Hillary Clinton bundler, gave $202,476 to the DSCC while representing the American Healthcare Association and Mylan— the controversial maker of the Epipen. Heather Podesta of Podesta + Partners delivered $226,400 to the DSCC while representing Baxter Healthcare and insurer Cigna.
Brownstein Hyatt Farber’s PAC, for instance, bundled $307,000 for the DSCC while the firm represents Anthem, the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association and drugmaker Abbvie.
Holland & Knight’s Committee For Effective Government bundled $104,650 for the DSCC while representing BlueCross Blue Shield of Minnesota.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Is this all Liz does? grandstand
Next, it is astonishing to me how you only perceive disingenuousness within one party - one party with little political sway, and representing the minority of each branch of government today. To deny that this is a political epidemic rather than an epidemic within the DNC furthers division: to criticize a bucket of Democrats asks them to disadvantage themselves and give Republicans a free pass (guess what - that's unlikely). To criticize the bucket of politicians at large and to hold ALL to the same standards is the more reasonable and less divisive way to go.
You're welcome to question anything you want. When you question everything you hear, set the bar so unreasonably high as to be virtually impossible, and spend zero time identifying what "good" actually looks like - don't be surprised when no one gives two shits about what you have to say and most write you off as a naive idealist. And this is coming from a liberal-minded person.
Next, your expectation that your elected civil servants are here to serve their constituents. This is just laughable. If you honestly believe that more than 5% of politicians are here for you, the people, then I've got a bridge to sell you. People ignoring and forgetting about the existence of their moral compasses in the interest of seizing power is a trait as old as our species. In the modern world, power is measured in dollars, and a politician (who controls decisions intrinsically linked to peoples' abilities to profit) is unlimited in his or her right to be a capitalist. How's that for a conflict of interest?
Next topic - a brand (something I really didn't think I needed to explain). It's the ways in which someone or something claims to add value to your life - not the value actually contributed. Does Coca Cola actually make life better and make my encounters with friends more exciting? No, it leads to diabetes. Will Axe Body Spray help me find someone to have sex with? No, but it will make me smell like crap until I shower. You are living in a world where brands are typically more meaningful and resonant to a person than the actual impact a person or thing has on you (likely correlated to our collective stupidity, ignorance, ego, and susceptibility to confirmation bias). Thus, strong brands make outlandish promises, and once you've paid (i.e. through a vote), they break the contract (which was only informal and not legally binding - such as a campaign promise), and reap the benefits. The perception is far more important than the reality, especially when us collectively dumb-shit humans forget and move on so quickly.
What I am suggesting is simple: you spend a ludicrous amount of time criticizing - so how do you feel the words you share actually contribute to the better tomorrow you claim to want?
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1