Feinstein Hosts Industry Fundraiser Days After Dissing Single Payer
"To the dismay of her constituents, Sen. Dianne Feinstein's (D-Calif.) refuses to get behind a Medicare-for-All healthcare system. And it just so happens that she has accepted massive contributions from healthcare lobbyists also opposed to such a program, a deep dive into her campaign financing has revealed.
Bucking growing momentum in support of a national single-payer system, as well as a trailblazing effort within her home state, Feinstein told San Francisco voters during a town hall earlier this month: "If single-payer healthcare is going to mean the complete takeover by the government of all healthcare, I am not there.".....
.....On Tuesday, the money in politics watchdog MapLight revealed that less than a week after those raucous meetings, Feinstein attended "a fundraising event at the Washington, D.C., office of Avenue Solutions, a lobbying firm that represents major health insurers, pharmaceutical companies and the primary trade association for doctors."
According to reporter Andrew Perez, "Feinstein supporters at the event were expected to kick in $1,000 to $5,000 for her re-election bid." Meaning that Feinstein, who is running for her fifth full Senate term, pocketed thousands from industry groups historically and vocally opposed to a government-run, universal healthcare system—at the same time that a popular push for such a program has never been stronger". - Source
Tags
Who is online
79 visitors
Despite the overwhelming support of her own constituents single payer, Feinstein sells out to the health care lobby (mainly pharmas), Proof positive that Democrats are equally as corrupt and self-centered as the Republicans.
The Republicrat is all smiles.
I think the people can do better than Diane Feinstein. Fortunately she is of elevated age and someday soon she will call it a day in the Senate.
As far as "Republicrats" goes, there is some obvious truth to that. Unfortunately we live in an established two party system. Third parties have a dismal record of success in US elections. The best course is to try and make the Democratic Party more progressive. If enough people got behind the idea, it would happen.
That what happened when they elected Obama and they've lost a lot of seats since then. You guys went off the socialist deep end and middle America is rejecting your cash for clunkers BS.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein is a bit behind the curve when it comes to single payer as are some other Democrats both in the House and the Senate. This does nothing to prove that they are corrupt in any manner, just that they have a different opinion on how best health care can be delivered to all Americans. She is certainly a strong supporter of Medicaid and Medicare, plus the AHA otherwise known as Obamacare. She has always been a strong supporters of making sure that every American is completely covered by health insurance. She just has a slightly more old fashioned or traditional approach to it.
To be as corrupt as the Republicans she would have to support that abortion of a phony "health care" plan that the House squeezed out the other day that would take away health care for at least 24 million of the most needy of Americans just to give $850 billion in tax cuts to the already rich and to medical device manufacturers and she certainly does not. Your characterization of her as "corrupt and self-centered as the Republicans" is specious, false and actually slanderous.
Partisans representing the for-profit duopolies have their own definitions of what corrupt is.
In other words their critics make them up.
There's a little saying,
"Just because you have the right to do it, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do."You can take every politician and if you do some checking ALL of them are pretty much bought and sold by lobbyists.
Having lived in a country with single payer (Australia) I prefer their system in which there is single payer (government) and an option for private insurance. It seem to work pretty well in Australia.
I have a personal dislike for Feinstein and it has nothing to do with her current stance. LOL she and I had some go rounds when she was the Mayor of San Francisco and later when we had a face to face confrontation in of all places, China.
( dons a flak jacket and girds the loins) I think the issue of single payer is one that really has to be looked at in a realistic manner , and one of the issues is the amount of people to be covered and for what.
most comparisons where single payer is used , the population is only a fraction of what the population of the US is .
Austrailia , an example where it works only has a population of about 24 million , most of the European countries that use single payer fall pretty much in the same boat . and something I noticed about Europe , is even though those countries belong to the EU , each member state has their own form of national healthcare, in other words , those states use systems both their people and the state can agree on outside the EU umbrella. It might be worth looking into doing the same thing on an individual state by state basis here in the US.
Before the feds got involved and implemented the ACA, a few states already had in place such programs , California , New York, and of course Mass, which everyone says the ACA was based on ( Romney care).
The reason I think it worked in those cases , and I can be wrong , is if someone disagreed with the programs , they could simply move out of state, or across a state line where the mandates didn't reach them.
Just something to think about is all , so with that ill duck back into the foxhole.
Mark your way off on the population of Australia...It's over 100 million and growing.
As a side note, Roo's, wombats, and Camels are considered people in Australia..
In the future please post accurate information.
I simply went off what the internet said when I googled ( sounds dirty huh?) aussie population, but my point is , people see numbers and think its not possible , but if the numbers are smaller , they tend to at least look at possabilities.
Human population in Australia is about 25 million. Roos don't get socialized health care. Yet.
Oh yes they do..
It's Emu's and Tasmanian Devils that are exempt.
That seems like speciism.
Both have filed lawsuits claiming that exact premise.
The reason I think it worked in those cases , and I can be wrong , is if someone disagreed with the programs , they could simply move out of state, or across a state line where the mandates didn't reach them.
What does disagreeing with a program have to do with anything? A lot of people disagree with military spending. They get no say so as to whether or not taxes they pay goes to military spending, and even moving to another state won't help. There are a lot of costs of government that people pay for through taxes even though they don't want to. People without kids pay for schools. People who don't own a car pay highway taxes. People who don't take the subway pay taxes that go to public transportation.
Health care should be a right in a civilized society. Only the US contests this. Could it be because our legislatures are most susceptible to money?
Mark,
It actually worked in NY because we have such a large tax base, and we also use our lottery ( it really was meant for education.. but you know how that goes).
It is not the size of the country that makes the difference, since everything is proportional. It is that the government negotiates the best prices for meds and other insurance needs. The irony here, is that the US, where most R&D is done, pays the highest amount for these same drugs.
I lived in England, which has a huge population for such a small country (65 million) and got excellent care there. The one thing that I disagree about with England's system, is that it is accessible to anyone, even visitors. I don't feel like paying for non residents.
Once the voters see the real cost of single payer they reject it. I live in one of the healthiest states in the country and Co. soundly rejected single payer last November. This is a blue state and single payer lost by a three to one margin. Vermont also abandoned single payer after closely examining the true cost to the taxpayers.