Is Obama profiting from health care?

This was brought to my attention...Is this true? A 200k pay raise for his wife after he gets elected and 100k in contributions from the hospital. Where I am from they call this pay-to-play...

Note: While his chief rivals for the nomination favor universal health care, Obama does not. Perhaps this sheds some light on this "progressive" not coming out for universal health care (while even ultimate DLCer HRC has, as well as the repuke governor of California) and instead proposing a half measure that will--at best--leave a whopping 15 million Americans uninsured.

==CHICAGO, June 20 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- While 2008 Presidential candidate Barack Obama assures voters that he is fighting to make healthcare more affordable, the second of a series of investigative videos on Senator Obama, titled "The Audacity of Health Care -- Health Care Debate," demonstrates he has done NOTHING to make it more so. In fact, the explosive new video, which can be viewed at http://www.obamatruth.org/, alerts voters that Senator Obama has benefited from the University of Chicago Hospitals marking up their actual costs by 350 percent on the uninsured. The most troubling examples of Obama losing his moral compass on the healthcare issue are his wife, an employee of the hospital, receiving an increase in her total compensation by almost $200,000 a year shortly after he was sworn in and University of Chicago Hospitals executives providing Obama with over $100,000 in campaign contributions over the past few years.

The video tells how Obama who once appeared on the website of the Service Employees Union with the quote "hospitals terrorize the uninsured" has done nothing to stop his hospital, The University of Chicago Hospitals from spending over $10 million on collection fees over the past two years in an attempt to terrorize people, many who are uninsured, into paying bills that have been marked up far beyond cost. This healthcare terrorism continued unabated despite the hospital posting a record profit of $103,642,743 in 2005, a record that they will shatter this year.

While Senator Obama has rightfully criticized the excessive profits made by pharmaceutical companies and large insurance companies, he has done NOTHING about the excessive profits made by not-for-profit hospitals by their price gouging uninsured patients. By not speaking out against the University of Chicago's profiting from the uninsured, Senator Obama has turned his back on his neighbors and reneged on his promise of more affordable healthcare.

For more on the audacity of Barack Obama and his hospital when it comes to affordable healthcare, go to http://www.obamatruth.org/. "The Audacity of Barack Obama" video series has explored how Barack and Michelle Obama are cashing in on the Senator's fame. Media outlets, including the Chicago Sun Times and Sunday Telegraph have reported on the investigative video's findings which resulted in Michelle Obama quitting her controversial position on the Board of Directors of TreeHouse Foods. Obamatruth.org==

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,125970.shtml

I am prepared to believe they are not. I figure that if they were so explosive they would have made it into the mainstream press before the Rezko/Obama corruption did.

it must be True but explored for further verification.

If it IS True..Obama might as well fold up his tent and go back to worrying about "putting the butter away for Michelle."

http://www.akdart.com/body-c.html

Please go ahead and start presenting evidence for their innocence one-by-one or we'll assume guilt...or at least we should start exploring for "further verification."

Is that fair?

1) Did Michelle Obama's salary triple after it became clear her husband was going to become a U.S. senator? The answer is yes.
2) Does Obama's hospital mark up its actual costs by 350 percent on the uninsured?
3) Did Barack Obama receive $100,000 in campaign contributions from the hospital?

n/t

This is a question that i'm sure others have been puzzling about for a while.

Check out the link and i would like to hear your refutation of the "clear cut" facts...

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=%5CPolitics%5Carchive%5C200401%5CPOL20040120a.html

I'm sure Hannity would be proud of your recent baseless smears on our Democratic candidates.

;)

==recent baseless smears on our Democratic candidates.==

This coming from someone who posted a thread "smearing" HRC the other day...

The charge is right here. Defend your "guy"...if you can.

Which "smear" was that? Link please. Seriously.

that has - as is the way with ALL science - been refuted. You'll notice that the studies cited were published in 2003. do the math.

as for this article - quoting the John Locke group. check out who they are and come back here saying they are worth listening to.

as for the allegation that he only took cases that would make him rich....NO. He took cases that would have maximum impact for policy, for cleaning up corporate malfeasance, and the best way to do this is to hit them where the care - the pocketbook.



So, unless Edwards had access to scientists from the future, and he ignored them, then he did nothing wrong.

there's your refutation. happy that you brought it up?

why don't you answer the OP instead of bringing up the John Locke society. come on,now.

neither barack obama, nor ANY OTHER SENATOR, nor even the federal government have any legal authority to tell the university of chicago how much to charge for anything! what a steaming pile of shit.

BO fans were tripping over themselves to flog HRC for not speaking up about Wal-Mart's anti-union policies. Now they see nothing wrong about a vice president at the hospital who happens to be married to a senator who rails against such practices speaking up. BO can't speak against such practices when the cameras are rolling and then make money off those very practices!

:toast:

raise for the wife because he was elected - as the RW Chicago Trib notes below, she got her promotion mid year so course there is a difference between years that sticks out/.

Do folks read the back-up for these smears - it is nonsense.

Indeed the only tangential negative is the crooked neighbor and Obama's purchase of side yard land from him - at the same per sq ft price the fellow had paid for the land a few months before.

The practice of discounts for guaranteed by the insurance company volume is described as gouging the uninsured - and that is indeed one way to look at it - but it is industry wide and it is not a case that Obama's wife joined one of the evil hospitals - she just works for a hospital.

Then the fellow is upset that the hospital added to its building fund reserve - like it is better to ask the taxpayers for building money when it is needed.

What a load of crap.

Chicago Tribune offers greater detail:

Employer: Michelle Obama's raise well-earned

By Mike Dorning, Washington Bureau. Tribune staff reporters Bruce Japsen and David Mendell contributed from Chicago

September 27, 2006

WASHINGTON -- Officials at the University of Chicago Hospitals on Tuesday explained a large salary jump for Sen. Barack Obama's wife shortly after he took office as a normal promotion that reflected expanded duties in her job as a liaison with the South Side community surrounding the medical center.

Michelle Obama was promoted to vice president for external affairs in March 2005, two months after her husband took office in the Senate. According to a tax return released by the senator this week, the promotion nearly tripled her income from the hospitals from $121,910 in 2004 to $316,962 in 2005.

Hospitals spokesman John Easton said Obama's salary was in line with the compensation received by the not-for-profit medical center's 16 other vice presidents.

A tax return for the hospitals covering the 12 months ended June 30, 2005, shows most of the organization's vice presidents earning between $291,000 and $362,000.

Easton said the hospitals had made a determined effort to deepen their connections to the surrounding community, beginning in 2002, when Obama was hired for the new position of executive director for community affairs.

"There was a real initiative by the university and the hospitals to have a real relationship with the community," Easton said. "Over time, she developed a staff. . . . It went from zero staff to Michelle and 10 staff."

Michael Riordan, who was University of Chicago Hospitals president at the time, said he had planned early on for the position to evolve into a vice president's post as a way of showing the organization's commitment to community outreach.

"I knew where I wanted to go with this position," said Riordan, who now is the top executive of the Greenville Hospital System in South Carolina. "I wanted to identify someone to grow into it."

Riordan said Obama's promotion had nothing to do with her husband becoming a U.S. senator.

"She was hired before Barack was Barack," Riordan said. "She is worth her weight in gold, and she is just terrific."

Easton said the hospitals' management had discussed a promotion to vice president with Obama previously but that she had been reluctant to undertake the commitment until her husband's Senate campaign was finished. In part, she wanted to wait until her family had made a decision on whether to maintain their primary residence in Illinois, which they did, and she had a better sense of the demands on her time as a senator's wife, he said.

At the time Obama was promoted to vice president, Easton added, she also had "at least one other, more lucrative offer" from a potential employer, though he declined to identify the competing organization.

Easton said the hospital management believed she merited the promotion based on a series of achievements. They included expansion of the institution's women and minority vendor purchases, rejuvenation of its volunteer program and work she did to help set up a collaborative effort with South Side clinics and doctors' offices to provide primary care for low-income residents who otherwise would seek treatment at the emergency room.

In explaining her salary increase, Easton and a spokesman for the senator both stressed her educational background, which includes an undergraduate degree from Princeton University and a law degree from Harvard.

Obama's new salary is significantly higher than her annual earnings during the seven prior years for which the Obamas have released their taxes. During those years, her wages ranged from a low of $50,343 in 1999 to a high of $121,910 in 2004.

After Obama's graduation from Harvard Law School in 1988, she worked for a few years as an associate at the corporate law firm Sidley Austin in Chicago. Such law practices typically pay lucrative salaries.

But after a few years, Obama moved into a series of positions in local government and non-profit organizations, which typically pay lower salaries.

According to a biography supplied by the medical center, she moved from the law firm to work first as an assistant to Chicago Mayor Richard Daley and then as the assistant commissioner of planning and development.

In 1993 she became the founding executive director of Public Allies Chicago, an AmeriCorps national service program. She later worked as an associate dean of student services at the University of Chicago, a position she held until she was hired by the University of Chicago Hospitals.

Posted by on September 27, 2006 10:00 A

change in salary was dramatic 2005 to 2006

An end of year promotion in 2004 would have made the dramatic change a 2004 to 2005 event - and the tie to the election would have been more obvious as a piece of nonsense.

As to part time - most major corporate lawyers have more than one source of income - so I am not sure what "part time" means in this case.

I believe she still has her board income and may even have a few private clients - whatever the case she works enough to be considered worth a great deal of money, doesn't she? :-)

Surely that is just a coincidence. ;)

doubt that "knowing" a new Senator was not a negative to the decision to promote!

But the company makes that decision. It is not like she made an evil decision.

No doubt if Obama takes the lead this kind of stuff will be planted in the media - smearing wife is job one for most GOPers - and our RW controlled media will be glad to treat the slurs as he said/she said rather than try to analyze them.

:-)

;)

:-)

DMC, you might as well start telling us what they are saying on Faux News and NY Post about the candidates also.

Does this mean that anti-Edwards DU members start using Bob Shrum's book as their source. I really hope not.

I expected better from you DMC.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

as you have a distinct aversion to providing them..

when you post something of substance besides Ad Hominum attacks will be an appropriate time to answer your posts!

I think I saw an Obama t-shirt on Ebay. Must mean no one wants his shirt and his campaign is dying.

Now reporting unfavorable Tellurian postings to DU. Good one Snitch.

and are too lazy to provide it...prefer getting PAID by the post.

Don't you think, I know who, and what you are?

BTW - I am still waiting for your proof on Obama's words on wanting War with Iran and Iraq for 8 more years. Dodging still?

I'm just waiting for you to defend him with a link of evidence, refuting an allegation..

maybe you should learn these two fallacies of logic.

Negative proof http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof

and

Argument from silence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence

So he proceeded to lower his response to AD HOMS...and thus sustained 2 deletions.

:rofl:

All sense of reality has gone "bye bye"...

Seeing as right wing news sources are used against Hillary on an almost daily basis...

Now how many complaints about their use by you will I see if I go back and look at some of those threads...

Funny how the caterwauling about negative posts seemed to pick up only when Obama became a target...

These are the same news sources that promoted Iraq War as a justified war and still do.

Please lets hold ourselves to a higher standard.

On how many Hillary bashing threads that used them?

And it's sad that many seem ok when they're used against someone they don't like.If it bothers you when someone uses them against Hillary it should bother you here too.Sadly,it doesn't.You can't tell me you're really bothered by these sources being used against Hillary when you seem downright happy to see the tables turned and have them be accepted just because they go after a different person.

Many Obama supporters are acting like hypocrites,and I don't blame you for pointing that out.But unless you defend them from such craptastic sources,even though you may not like Obama personally,you will have no leg to stand on when it's your candidate in the bullseye.

You know how I feel about Hillary,but even I've defended her at times from blatant right wing nonsense,and will continue to do so.Even when one Hillary fan thought the second book would be a more accurate portrayal of Hillary I pointed out that the author was right wing garbage.

There's a damn good chance that one of the two,Hillary or Obama,will be our nominee.The two groups should fight each other for it,but rally together when shit like this gets dished out by the Right.Being gleeful that it's finally someone else getting the shaft seems pretty lame when it's someone in your own party.

And this isn't directed solely at you,but to both sides.Seriously people,when I'm the one actually having to defend the Dems here you know it's gone too far. :)

Is the angst around here on negative postings, use of right wing sources etc...seems to have ratcheted up exponentially now that Obama has been the target...

Really, you have to admit, when Hillary is the target we almost never see any dismay at their use, other than from the minority of us here who are her supporters...

Doesn't seem like an honest demonstration of disgust at the use of RW sources, just disgust when they are used against Obama...

Present company excluded...and I would not have posted this...but the reaction is so hypocritical among some that I decided to comment...

Some of the very people who post threads attacking HRC or Edwards resurface in threads criticizing Obama and crying bloody murder...In one case a few days a prominent Obama supporter angrily denounced a "smear" thread against BO (without ever detailing what the "smear" was) and then minutes later posted a thread attacking HRC...It seems "Do as I say, not as I do" is a fundamental principle of the "new kind of politics."

And I agree that not enough people speak up when they're used against Hillary.What worries me though is seeing both sides use the other's actions to continue this kind of stuff,like a demented take on the Israel/Palestinian issue.Each side keeps saying,"Well,they started it" and that excuses them from doing the same thing.

Sorry if it seems like I'm just singling you out.I actually responded to you because you're one of the Hillary supporters that I can have a respectful conversation with.I think the rest have tuned me out. ;)

Let's see them put their money where their mouth is. Are Obama supporters willing to be bound by the same rules they wish to impose on others? I would accept such rules so long as they covered everyone. I don't believe we should be divided in the royalty (Obama supporters) and the rabble (everyone else who must shut up and not ask questions of the Great Leader) here.

Who cares if others follow suit? Do it because it's right. :shrug:

n/t

You always strike me as a fair broker here.

:thumbsup:

personality issue points.

Most elect people based on personality and then hope for the best on policy - with activists putting a bit more into the policy side than most.

Other stuff - the classic GOP slur and slime - should be fought at every turn by those on all sides, IMO.

n/t

:thumbsup:

:-)

the salaciousness of the Obama groupies too lazy to do the own research in an effort to defend their candidate.
Hillary has a well oiled machine in place making it easier for her supporters having information at their fingertips to rebuke those who would attempt to take her down in and invective attack.

We are naive if we are going to bury our heads in the sand when it comes to things like this and then hope that magically the right-wing won't bring it up in the GE. One problem we had in 2004 was that we never vetted Kerry. He won Iowa, we followed him like sheep after that. What happened? If we vetted him we would have discovered the weaknesses that helped cost him the election (swiftboating aside).

P.S. notice how I wasn't crying about the hedge fund story (posted by an Obama supporter, and two NYT hit piece threads were posted by BO supporters, a total of 3 attack threads against Edwards posted by BO supporters just yesterday. Then there is the daily stream of anti-HRC threads posted by BO supporters...I notice I never see BO supporters whine about negative "attacks" in any of those threads, which come almost exclusively from Obama supporters...) we need such stories to get out now, not next September or October.

You need to worry and support your candidate for President and leave the leaders of the pack alone. Leave the lies out of it. Thank you.

Defend your candidate as you should if you expect him to win!

Cheers!

The thread is about whether Obama was unethical and potentially getting a personal financial kickback. You answer this by not defending him or arguing the point at all, but merely launching a totally unrelated attack, then demanding that you're owed a response when you wouldn't give one yourself in an analogous situation.

Why should you be immune to having to defend your champion, yet a Clinton support MUST answer your accusation or be some sort of anti-social creep or creepette?

You literally duck the issue, then demand that a rival must be held to a higher degree of accountability than you. That's a claim of privilege.

It seems that, since Clinton's obviously "dirty" and Obama's obviously "clean", you needn't rebut any accusations, yet your rivals must dance to your merry tune or be somehow morally criminal.

If you expect a Clinton supporter to respond to accusations, respond to the initial accusations yourself. It's called pluralism and fairness, and that's what we mere mortals feel is fair.

That was the point of my post.

I do not think that Obama is "obviously clean." If this particular charge climbs out of the cesspool that it's reported in right now, and to a reputable source, we'll all have to deal with it.

If you scroll though this thread, i think you may just find a debunking anyway.

It is there in the alleged "debunking" (statements from hospital officials who are obviously not going to publicly announce they are buying influence). So will you now deal with it or prefer to believe that an extra $200,000 year in the pocket of a senator who wants to be prez as well as $100,000 in contributions to the same individual buy no influence? After all, he is obviously clean...

Those who don't support Clinton or Obama should just bow down to their superior positions? What kind of monarchic privilege do you claim? Will you still sing this tune if Obama drops to third or worse? Do you know that these are lies? If she got that big a raise at that time, that reeks.

Look at some of the polls; although Obama is in second, in many places he's lost enough ground so he's a point or two ahead of Edwards.

Anyone has a right to criticize anyone; that's what pluralism is all about. Considering the SERIOUS mud-slinging done against Edwards by some of the more vocal Obama supporters, cries of "foul" are a bit silly. It's interesting: the extremists of the Obama supporters are becoming the new Clarkies, bent out of shape about Edwards and thirsting for his demise.

The very idea about bowing down and not questioning our betters is nauseating.

I do agree that it'd be great if people spent more time on positive advocacy for their candidate of choice, but this is dirty stuff and it's human nature to respond in kind.

It is a sad day when there are "Tiananmen Square" Dems who want to stifle dissent. In fact, this thread exists for that very reason. Someone informed me of this via pm. Apparently he or she did not want to post this thread because he/she feared the wrath of the Obama thought police.

The most glorious moment on this board in the 6 years I've posted here was when the Clark supporters came in full-force one evening in late '03. The Dean supporters were left spluttering by being hit with same scorched-earth, screeching tactics they'd bedeviled us with for so long.

Once again, I only speak of the extremists in each of these camps, but the tactics are surprisingly similar, yet tinged with subtleties that reflect the candidate's personality.

The extremist Dean supporters ruled this board through the summer and early fall of '03, deriding ANYONE who was in the federal government at the time and raging like a mob of college radicals. (Which was quite ironic, since he was one of the most conservative of the candidates at that time.) The extremists of the Clark camp burst onto the scene using classic conservative put downs, calling people "whiners" and "losers" and just shouting people down. (This wasn't ironic; Clark initially appealed to the more conservative among us, although that's changed a bit with time.)

The self-proclaimed virtue of the supporters of the outsider is the through-line, and the rest of us are just savages and ingrates for not accepting the obvious moral superiority of the newcomer.

It's going to be an interesting season, but it'll also be quite unpleasant at times, especially if certain groups demand the aristocratic privilege of being above reproach while granting themselves free rein to attack, insult, distort and deride at will.

Mods, I've been rather careful to distinguish these characteristics as belonging to the EXTREMISTS of these three camps, so please bear with this post; I think it's an important dynamic to point out.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

This is the truth about Michelle's Job

http://blogs.trb.com/news/politics/blog/2006/09/mrs_obamas_boss_explains.html

Perhaps they have a clip of the profit margin of the hospital there.

n/t

:thumbsup:

I don't think we should be criticizing any of the candidates spouses for getting a clearly deserved promotion.

That sounds credible...We need to take official statements with a grain of salt. It isn't as if the hospital, or any other entity that does exactly the same thing (BO is not unique in this), is going to say "We gave the spouse of our next senator a $200,000 raise in order to buy a senator." :eyes:

There is monarchical approach of BO supporters on display again, telling others what they should or should not be thinking about, what they are allowed to post about or not allowed to post about, etc. Is this the "new politics" they speak of?

The U of Chicago may be telling the truth. However, the timing is highly suspect and it is naive to believe everything a spokesman says. Like I said, no one ever publicly admits to buying a politician...

;)

I just wanted you to make sure you had the facts right. It was after he took office, not before hand.

:hi:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The name-calling is impressive. :eyes:

You must also believe money has no influence in politics?

Anything at all? What did they get in exchange for paying someone to do a good job to gain favor with someone who was already an ally?
It looks like you got nothing.

that also worked at the university their hospital was affiliated with. Oh my!

How corrupt! I'm sure candidates have raised money from their spouses co-workers pretty much in every election from dog catcher to President. That's not a story.

which is why people give money. And? This is unethical how exactly? Is Obama supposed to give up all influence as a Senator and only raise money from people who have no interest in any issue at all? Get real.

Not to mention that a lot of the money came when he was in the State Senate because he's someone his wife's coworkers support. Still not a scandal.

contributions. Wonder if the OP thinks that's corrupt?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/10/AR2007051002277_2.html

Disclosure forms to be released on Tuesday will show how much Edwards was paid for his work at Fortress, which lasted until December 2006, when he stepped down to run for president. He has received $167,460 in campaign contributions from Fortress employees and their families, his largest sum from a single company.

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2007/06/15/john-edwards-fuzzy-insurance-math.aspx

Judging from the health-care reform idea that Edwards floated yesterday, he's got a little problem with basic mathematics. In a nutshell, here's his thesis: The health-care insurance industry currently spends just 70% of the premiums it collects on actual reimbursement of medical costs. (In investing terms, he's saying that insurers average a 30% gross margin.) Edwards thinks that is too low, and that insurers should spend less than 30% of the premiums they collect to fund administrative costs, and deliver profits to their shareholders. He thinks 15% should suffice, and advocates passing a law forbidding insurers from grossing more than 15%.

On the surface, it's an attractive idea. After all, the primary activity of insurance companies, so far as most of us can tell, seems to be telling their customers: "Pay for this yourself," "No, we won't cover that," and "Here, fill out these forms before we'll ante up for the other thing." These guys are so unpopular, in fact, that I hear in the 2006 "Person of the Year" issue of Time, vampires and insurance CEOs were the only people whose visages failed to materialize in the little reflective silver square. They should easily be able to do that on less than 15% of revenue, and still have cash to spare for some dividends, right? Wrong, and for three reasons.

Oops! No. 1
Edwards' argument has three major flaws. First and foremost, his basic premise is mistaken. According to Yahoo! Finance (citing data from Hemscott Americas), the average gross margin in the "Health Care Plans" industry is not 30%, but 21% -- so right there, we see that 9% of the senator's hoped-for savings don't exist to be saved in the first place.

That's ridiculous. The issue at hand here is whether he's effectively taking a kickback and being bribed on the serious issue of healthcare. What possible bearing does that have on the accusation?

Even if Edwards' plan is slobbering nincompoopery, that wouldn't excuse one of his opponents from being the recipient of graft.

I have no idea whether the accusations against Obama sort out as they seem to on first glance, but your faulty logic is astonishing. Why not just run around in the street yelling "haircut, haircut, haircut!"?

from a rightwing source, either.

You have every right to sling mud, and have no responsibility to defend your champion; that's what you're saying. You refuse to rebut an accusation and rage and demand that others respond to yours. You make up the rules and how dare anyone not heel to your commands.

Here's a clue: people who avoid rebutting accusations and then respond with unrelated accusations sound dishonest. I've admitted that my favorite candidate may have somewhat misstepped, and am waiting to hear more details on the alleged seminars about foreign affairs; I have yet to hear you cop to any mistakes of your guy. Superiority is sickening and fair-minded people see it.

You're no better than Obama is when he fluffs the gaffes and blames his subordinates. Is that what we're in for with this guy? People's supporters tend to mirror many of their own traits, and you're not the only one who feels the god-given right to slash and burn, yet no obligation to be a civil member of society and explain your own positions.

If Obama's playing both sides of the street on the subject of health care and financially benefiting from abusive practices at the expense of the poor, that's a hell of a lot worse than a guy investing in a hedge fund.

Since you're obviously of the aristocracy, just what is your title?

dredge it up from right wing sources.

on the same page.

Group insurance runs a 15% margin for large groups, 20% for small. Individual policies run a 45% margin to perhaps as low as 30% in a bad year.

Edwards 30% refers to individual - and is conservative. Edwards's plan is to move all insurance to large group pricing - the 15% margin world.

Edward's 15% savings is therefore correct (30% less 15%) - and the "Fool" has it's head up its A_s.

There is a negative comment that can be made Edward's savings comments, however - and that is he does not make clear that he is not saving 15% of our current total health spending. He is saving 15% or more of the dollars spent by individuals and even small groups - but that is all. Over half our health care is already government paid - and the part of government paid that is the VA and Medicare get the cost advantage of single payer already. So there is no savings there.

The Edwards response may well be that we should look at the big picture of Medicare/VA having a 3% to 6% overhead and comparing that an average overhead for all "health plans" industry plans of 21% (which sounds low but we'll accept it for now) and we get a potential savings on the health care plan's side of the house of over 15%. Indeed that savings is low per my own calculations and should be more like a 25% potential savings from going to single payer - at least with the dollars spent in that section of the health care financing.

Of course Edwards is not going to single payer and is presenting his universal plan as if it does not save money, but actually costs 100B extra each year - and that too is reasonable as that is the likely extra cost if we insist on using the health insurance companies for anything more than the claim paying function.

profitable web site with good ad revenue - they do not care about much beyond not offending the GOP biased investors that are their clients.

Of course I do not know that my email was ever seen by human eyes.

CNBC's Cramer has as lousy a real return relative to the averages as the Fool, but as least his political comments are reality based.

I am willing to bet that all they are doing re the Edwards comment is repeating a HIAA comment that was made available to them (the insurance lobbyists do not lie, but they also do not tell you how a number was obtained and what the real implication of that number, if there is any, is. I had to write blurbs for a while - or proofread them - so that there was no real lie - but I also had to let them mislead in favor of a policy that the industry wanted - not for the HIAA but for other variations of company groupings/topics that sponsored lobbyists or had tax policy points to make with the Hill - when I was in health I was not a high enough level to deal with the government).

for candidate bashing - here's one for Obama supporters.

Where Hillary is concerned...

Just not as much angst around here about it...


Now that Obama is a target...more angst about "negative postings"

Makes me think its more about their guy being attacked than some altruistic opposition to right wing sources

Hillary gets the worst of it and very much most often.

Or do you only attack the candidate the OP supports when the OP is an Edwards supporter? ;)

While you foment massacres between Clinton and Obama supporters, the teflon candidate is left in peace. Can't have that! :D

Is never an exaggeration?

Oh, thats right. You don't have too. You get paid by the post!

I'm wondering, does Craigslist count as a linked news source. HAHAH. :think:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3333771

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3334246

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3333175

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3330470

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3330498

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3325423

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3330688

One, ironically, dealt with you alleging HRC had a conflict of interest regarding health care (like this thread does with BO...)...What was it that you preach about not criticizing other candidates? :eyes:

Can't say the same about u anymore.

To make it one's life mission to sling any sort of slime they can find is quite another. This has been like a week long slimefest on the part of this OP. And now, by linking to this cesspool of a site and defending it, he has totally "jumped the shark."

The standard by the Obama thought police seems to be anything against BO is a "smear'; anything against anyone else, especially HRC is a "legit critique."

One of TeamJordan's threads implied HRC had a conflict of interest on health care--just like this thread! :rofl:

I wish you wouldn't try to defend this disgraceful OP.

Fox News

Washington Times

Insightmag.com

National Review

Among the many rw sites used against Hillary...I'm not surprised you havenm't noticed as I doubt it bothers you all that much.

Course the Obama Madrassa story I thought you might have remembered as both Hillary and Obama were targeted there (and I defended both)...Insightmag.com, online arm of the Moonie Times...

Not the first or last time that rag has been used against Hillary...

Though i would not put even those in the same boat as this one. At least there's "some" so-called news content (using the term loosely, i know) on those. This is a swift boat type site that exists for the sole purpose of smearing a candidate. It would be like posting a story from --- http://www.hillaryproject.com/ or http://www.againsthillary.com/

I would not have posted this item...and I wasn't gonna get into it...but it really does seem as though it is more accepted around here when RW sources are used against Hillary....

A matter of numbers I suppose, less of us than of Obama supporters...and complaints about this site in particular would not have elicited an objection from me...but general angst about using RW sources when not acknowledging or expressing dismay at their use against Hillary is what drove me to say something...

Perhaps i am guilty too.

I guess we all should work hard to keep things into proper perspective and not cross the line from honest critique to sleazy smear.

The following do not suffice:

Honest critique: Criticism of anyone but Obama
Sleazy smear: Criticism of Obama

;)

Work on it yourself and report back.

If you actually provided a definition you would have to live by it. It would be hard to flout your own standard.

You, and others, want one set of rules for attacks by BO supporters on everyone else and another (shut up and don't ask questions!) standard for criticisms of Obama...

I actually rather like all of them...

I have said here on numerous occasions that I believed Obama would be President someday...I think he really has the It factor going for him. I just didn't think this would be the year, and I think at this point Hillary would be the superior President, I have always supported her, and hoped she would get into the race in 2004.

I have defended Obama on numerous occasions - on the Madrassa smear, against some who didn't like his answer in the first debate on abortion and women consulting with their religious advisor, on his relative experience being a bar to the Presidency (I even posted a picture of Abe Lincoln to make my point), and on his comments with regard to religion and politics that he wa criticized for around here - I don't think the negative stuff coming out about him lately is particularly earth shattering or unusual for anyone in public life...

But, when Hillary is attacked unfairly in my view, I will defend her by trying to set the record straight. But it seems that some people (present company excluded), relish in posting the same discredited stories from discredited sources about her as a way of promoting their candidate, over and over again. Just today I have seen Peggy Noonan quoted verbatim in more than one thread as an attack on Hillary.

So, eventually, if playing defense doesn't work, I am the type that will play offense to get my point across...

I would sincerely love it if the over the top Right Wing aping smears could be eliminated here. Hopefully the vitriol of the past week will get everyone thinking and maybe pull back a bit.

with more people like you spreading their lies, they'll discredit all the democratic candidates in no time

Thanks in advance...

Utterly disgraceful.

I encourage all who are curious about what i mean to stroll over there and judge for yourself. Then answer this: Just how sleazy and *racist* is it and what would ever prompt any DUer to link to it?

I think the OP has jumped the shark now...! Wonder if he'll turn back.

This is the thing I notice over and over. In general, when smearing Democratic nominees, there are links to right wing sources.

It is sad when we have some who are so obsessed with their candidate that they chill dissent with their attacks on anyone who does not worship the Great Leader.

I have yet to see any objection to that, although there was a defense of his wife tripling his income when it became clear BO was going to became a senator. We need to take official statements with a grain of salt...

No comments on the $100,000 of campaign contributions to BO either from the hospital?

http://blogs.trb.com/news/politics/blog/2006/09/mrs_oba...

for spreading more lies and false innuendo?

==for spreading more lies and false innuendo?==

Speaking of lies and false innuendo, can you provide a list of "lies and false innuendo" I have spread? Usually, when claiming something is a lie or false you must show why it is not truthful or accurate. Thanks in advance...

that you're ignoring

http://blogs.trb.com/news/politics/blog/2006/09/mrs_obamas_boss_explains.html

If anyone believes it was just a mere coincidence, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you...

But doesn't that apply to every source you've linked to on DU that attacked Obama? I guess we should just ignore all of your posts then since you link to so many biased sources.

Let's play your game: can you tell me what in the above link isn't true?

We have to assess the facts involved and measure them next to the statement and reach our own conclusions.

Yes, I agree. Obama's own book is a biased source. ;)

What in the above link is not true? No one is disputing that she got a raise when Obama became a powerful national figure. The dispute is about whether it amounted to a de facto bribe (which is what it would be called if this happened to any other candidates' spouse) or was a mere coincidence. It is a judgment call.

That was only 1/3 of the OP. No one is disputing that Obama's hospital marks up actual costs by 350% for the uninsured--something Obama himself rails against before the cameras. No one is disputing the third part, which is the hospital gave $100,000 in contributions to Obama.

Give it up, man.

and almost meaningless. That EX has been transfered to another location in SC..

Theres a "backstory" here that stinks to high heaven. Obama had been at the hospital job for 5 yrs with yrly pay raises. Suddenly her husband is in a position of clout and vavooooom, her salary is tripled. Funneling money through a spouse is nothing new. Bush/Cheney do it all the time. Theres more here than meets the eye..

Believing official statements from the hospital is as naive as believing every statement Tony Snow makes...

No one is disputing that her salary tripled after her husband became a U.S. senator with eyes on the White House. The question is whether this was a mere coincidence. In the end it is a judgment call. I respect BO supporters who think it was just a coincidence but it is naive if that belief is based on official statements. As I said, the hospital is not going to publicly announce it is de facto bribing a senator who may become president!

Theres a "backstory" here. The hospital has nothing to loose even if Obama remains a Senator, and a cool way to funnel money legally into his hands...She didn't get the job based on merit...Old Republik trick..see, Lynne Cheney, Libby Dole, Tom Daschle..etc.. :puke:

:evilgrin: :rofl:

1) Obama's position on healthcare is a concern for those of us who haven't picked a definite candidate yet. For me personally, I'm concerned that he's so intent on getting coverage for children while there's no word (that I've seen) on coverage for uninsured adults and seniors. I very much like a lot of things about Obama, but something like that keeps me from putting my support behind him. Healthcare is one of the top issues of this race and any info at all about the candidates' positions is important to share. If it's false, it will quickly be debunked. If it's true, it's something we need to know to make an informed and intelligent decision.

2) This is not a new item, nor is obamatruth.org the first to cover it. The Chicago Tribune, for one, covered it back in September ("In big jump, Obamas earn $1.67 million" (Sept. 26) and "Employer: Michelle Obama's raise well-earned" (Sept. 27)).

3) For those Obama supporters crying foul: chill out. How many negative posts have you each written about Hillary Clinton and her ties to the medical industry? What about Edwards and his healthcare plan? I won't name names, but you know what I'm referring to - come on, turn around is fair play. You think only your candidate isn't going to be put under the ringer for the next year? The only way you can rightfully complain is to never ever post another negative comment on Hillary, John, or any of the others. I'm not talking about posting "negative" facts - I'm talking about smears. So far, no Obama supporter here has proven the OP false. And, if it is false, please let me and the other undecideds know. But, as of now, all I've seen are emotional and non-factual arguments - the exact same ones you decry when it's in support of anyone else. Get real. (btw, this goes the same for all candidates and their supporters)

https://ssl.tnr.com/p/docsub.mhtml?i=w070528&s=cohn053107

You asked about whether he is going to have universal coverage. Apparently not. Even under a rosy scenario promoted by the Obama camp 15 million people will be left uninsured under his plan (and then apparently they get ripped off at a clip of 350% at Obama's hospital!).

that's been posted a couple of times on this thread:

http://blogs.trb.com/news/politics/blog/2006/09/mrs_obamas_boss_explains.html

There are still many Chicago citizens upset by it (check it out for yourself - this is just what I read). And, it doesn't prove that nothing was untoward - the hospital would have had to have an explanation for it, wouldn't they? Isn't there always an explanation along those lines? I mean, let's be honest here - the hospital had much more to lose than the Obamas when the suspicions first arose.

source originally quoted.

And, more importantly, I'm going by the Letters to the Editor in the Trib. Again (and last time): not the OP.

The "debunking link" says nothing about whether the hospital is marking up actual costs by 350% on the uninsured (something Obama himself rails against when the cameras are rolling), nor does it dispute that the hospital has given $100,000 in contributions to Obama. All the link does is offer statements claiming the $200,000 pay raise for Obama's wife after he became a powerful senator with eyes on the White House was a mere coincidence. It isn't as if they are going to say "Yeah, we decided to pay her $200,000 more so we could buy influence with a powerful, young senator who may become president someday. We admit it for all to know!". No one ever admits to buying influence. We need to make our own judgment based on the facts.

No Obama supporter has disputed the first two charges, despite there being over 100 posts in this thread...the 350% marking up on the uninsured is the real damaging charge if true...

the right way.

No BO fan has even addressed that critical issue. Obama himself rails against it. If this is true, what will it do to his campaign if it turns out that he is living the high life in a $1.6 million house partly because of practices he rails against before the cameras? That would be huge if he ever made it to the GE and we need to find out the truth now, not next fall.

What exactly was a lie? It is a fact, your link confirms it, that her salary tripled after Obama became a senator.

NOt as you suggested. Next time do your research.

Therefore your lie does not hold.

He rails against this before the cameras but then accepts such money?

decided not to accept a transfer of a patient.

http://oig.hhs.gov/fraud/enforcement/administrative/cmp/cmpitemspd.html


May 08, 2006
The University of Chicago Hospitals (UCH), Illinois, agreed to pay $35,000 to resolve its liability for CMPs under the patient dumping statute. The OIG alleged that the hospital failed to accept an appropriate transfer of a 61-year-old male who presented to another emergency department with a complaint of flank pain. UCH had specialized capabilities not available at the transferring hospital and allegedly refused to accept transfer after learning that the patient did not have insurance. UCH then later agreed to accept transfer of the patient only if he provided proof of funds in a bank account. The patient was transferred to another hospital where he died.

HRC has been attacked by BO supporters for not speaking up at Wal-Mart. Shouldn't the same logic apply to the Obamas?

And invest in companies with questionable practices and using loopholes to escape US taxes.