The best Senate money can buy
The share prices of the pharmaceutical and health insurance sectors were all in positive territory during Monday trading despite the passage of health care legislation in the House of Representatives that would dramatically curtain profits to these two sectors of the health care industry.
The House legislation would create a public option likely to place severe pressure on health insurance company profits. The bill would further permit the federal government to negotiate greatly improved deals for Medicare and Medicaid patients at a dramatic cost to the pharmaceutical industry.
So, why are investors in these industries so happy?
Because they know they are in control of the best Senate money can buy.
Let’s begin with Senator Joe Lieberman, Independent of Connecticut and the most dangerous man to the chances for meaningful health care reform in the U.S. Senate.
As you no doubt know by now, Lieberman, who caucuses with the Democrats, has threatened to vote with the Republicans to filibuster any health care bill that includes a public option. This, despite the fact that a September Quinnipac Poll taken in Lieberman’s home state reveals that 64 percent of his constituents say they favor a public option. That number includes 88 percent of Democrats, 61 percent of Independents and 28 percent of Republicans.
But it seems that Lieberman doesn’t think much of the collective intellect of the people who sent him to the Senate, which could explain his decision to turn his back on their judgment. Check out what the Senator had to say in an interview with New Haven, Connecticut television station, WTNH:
You know, I think there actually is a lot of misunderstanding about the public option. I think a lot of people think the public option is going to provide free, or really low cost insurance. It’s not. And because it’s going to be another government entitlement program it will add to taxes, it will increase premiums to people who have insurance now and it will add to the national debt and make it a lot harder to save the great health insurance entitlement program we have now, which is Medicare,” Lieberman responded.
Via WTNH-TV
Nice. Senator Joe apparently believes that the people in Connecticut are dumb enough to expect that the public option will provide them with free health insurance coverage.
Could it be a coincidence that Lieberman’s conscientious objection, as stated in the above quote, matches the precise argument made by the insurance companies who are battling the public option? Maybe not, considering that the insurance industry happens to be the largest employer in the State of Connecticut and a huge contributor to Lieberman’s campaign coffers.
And should we take notice of the fact that Lieberman has been a leading supporter of spending trillions of dollars on foreign wars that, from almost all perspectives, offer very little in the way of tangible benefit to either his constituents or the nation as a whole? It’s nice to know that Senator Lieberman has his priorities straight.
Apparently, trillions in war appropriations will not harm the nation’s financial prospects but spending under a trillion, over ten years, on health care will drive the country into bankruptcy. Maybe I should move to Connecticut because I too fail to possess sufficient brain power to understand how this math works out.
It doesn’t take much of a stretch to see that Lieberman’s position stands to gain the votes of 65,000 insurance workers in Connecticut. In a state of 1.95 million registered voters, that’s a healthy little chunk of support. And then there is the eternal gratitude of some of the largest political contributors in the nation. Imagine what they will owe Sen. Lieberman if he becomes ‘the man who blocked health care reform.’
Of course, we can’t discuss this topic without giving a mention to another prominent opponent of health care reform, Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Indiana). This is a man who owes in excess of 25% of his personal fortune to the money paid to Mrs. Evan Bayh, a director of Wellpoint - the nation’s largest for-profit health insurance company. As discussed in many posts here at The Page, Mrs. Bayh has earned in excess of $2 million dollars from Wellpoint since she was appointed to the board (a post awarded her after the election of her husband to the Senate) and stands to gain quite a bit more in the years to come based on the stock options she currently holds.
These cases are just the tip of the iceberg. The Senate has been bought and paid for by these special interests and proponents of meaningful reform must face this reality.
The victory in the House made for a pleasant weekend, but meaningful health care reform continues to hang by a thread. So, keep those cards and letters flowing – especially if you live in Connecticut or Indiana…or Iowa…or Montana….or Louisiana…or Arkansas…

Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.












Clean elections anyone? Term limits?
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=N00000616&type=I
(Lieberman is merely one of…well, you do the math.)
john -
In response to another comment. See in context »Out here in California, we’ve learned that term limits really don’t work. They lead to an inexperienced legislature that, just when the hang of it, are on their way out and looking for their next job. Term limits ended up having a lot to do with California’s problems.
I think you’ll find a better solution rests in Campaign finance and conflict-of-interest reform. Sadly, SCOTUS is getting ready to blow the doors off of corporate contributing to political campaigns that will seal the control of government by corporate America for generations to come.
John- one more comment, to accomplish term limits in federally elected office would take an amendment to the Constitution. States could not do it with respect to their senators and congressmen as it is controlled by the US Constitution – not state constitutions. It is for this reason that senators, like Joe Lieberman, and congressmen cannot be recalled in their states when they act against the interest of their constituents. Only the senate can throw out a senator. Same for the House.
In response to another comment. See in context »[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Mario Tankovic and Tweets Tube, sue groves. sue groves said: The best Senate money can buy http://bit.ly/10i1wJ [...]
It takes time for term limits to work. The career
politicians need to be cleaned out, then ordinary citizens will start to run for office. Only then will politics be clean.
The only infallible, unstoppable, guaranteed way to get a truly new Congress is :
NEVER REELECT ANY INCUMBENT! AND DO IT EVERY ELECTION!
Don’t let anyone serve more than one term. Some of the reasons to do this:
• It gives us a one-term-limited Congress without using amendments
• It encourages ordinary citizens to run for Congress
• It would be supported by 70% of the country who want term limits for Congress
• It is completely nonpartisan
• If repeated, it ends career politicians in Congress
• It opens the way to a “citizen Congress”
* It would open a torrent of fresh ideas to improve our government
• It ends the seniority system that keeps freshmen powerless
• It doesn’t cost money. But you MUST vote! Just don’t vote for an incumbent
• It is the only guaranteed, infallible, unstoppable way to “Throw the Bums Out”
• It takes effect immediately on Election Day
• If it doesn’t work, do it again and again! It will work eventually
NEVER REELECT ANYONE IN CONGRESS. AND DO IT EVERY ELECTION!
nelson lee walker of tenurecorrupts.com
send for your free NEVER REELECT bumper sticker
Well, we’ve had lots of time to clean out the career politicians in California. There hasn’t been anyone left in our legislature from pre-term limits for a very long time. The problem is that you still end up with career politicians in the making. Rather than having experience, they are rookies who have their first job in politics and don’t get enough time to become good at it.
In response to another comment. See in context »I used to like the idea of term limits but experience teaches a great deal. It really doesn’t work – if California is an example.