Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Hillary was right again. Obama did the bidding of insurance companies, lobbyists in Illinois

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 09:25 PM
Original message
Hillary was right again. Obama did the bidding of insurance companies, lobbyists in Illinois
This explains why he was such a puppet for lobbyists, the insurance companies, and special interests when it came to what is ironically his signature achievement in Illinois,

-snip-

When he was an Illinois state senator, about 40 percent of Obama's campaign cash came from political action committees, corporations and unions. He has since sworn off taking money from Washington lobbyists and PACs. "We've never walked away from that. He's said it's time to change that," Hildebrand said.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iCYE-aoszl20u4f4-u6pMV4k0U0QD8UB6T8G1

-snip-

Over the next 15 months, insurers and their lobbyists found a sympathetic ear in Obama, who amended the bill more to their liking partly because of concerns they raised with him and his aides, according to lobbyists, Senate staff, and Obama's remarks on the Senate floor.

-snip-

By the time the legislation passed the Senate, in May 2004, Obama had written three successful amendments, at least one of which made key changes favorable to insurers.

Most significant, universal healthcare became merely a policy goal instead of state policy - the proposed commission, renamed the Adequate Health Care Task Force, was charged only with studying how to expand healthcare access. In the same amendment, Obama also sought to give insurers a voice in how the task force developed its plan.

-snip-

Obama later watered down the bill after hearing from insurers and after a legal precedent surfaced during the debate indicating that it would be unconstitutional for one legislative assembly to pass a law requiring a future legislative assembly to craft a healthcare plan.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/09/23/in_illinois_obama_dealt_with_lobbyists/?page=full


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Chomskyite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 09:29 PM
Response to Original message
1. How much are you getting for doing this job?
Seriously?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 09:29 PM
Response to Original message
2. Nice try, but no...
Hard Truths and Half Truths on Health Care

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/0...

snip//

That said, I also thought at least one Clinton accusation was off-base. It was this one:

You know, if you look at the recent article about Senator Obama's work on health care reform in the Illinois legislature, it's a very interesting piece about how he basically did the bidding of the insurance companies during that effort.

During the debate, the Clinton campaign circulated this Boston Globe article as proof of the charge. The article examines something called the “Health Care Justice Act,” which Obama co-sponsored and which passed during his final year in the Illinois state Seante. And, as that article establishes, Obama held discussions with representatives of the insurance industry and made some changes on their behalf.

But the Globe piece tells only a small portion of the story. I looked into this episode (along with some of Obama's other health care reform efforts) as part of an article that's in our current print edition. The full text is available to subscribers only, but I can give a few relevant paragraphs here:

From 1997 to 2004, as a member of the Illinois Senate, Obama advocated several proposals to make medical care more accessible--culminating, three years ago, in a bill designed to force the creation of a universal coverage system for Illinois. And, while none of these efforts come even close in scale to what he's promised to try in Washington, they do provide a window into the governing style he would pursue there.

Time after time, Obama brought adversaries into the process early, heard out their concerns, then fashioned compromises many of them ultimately supported. In other words, he used the very strategy he's been describing on the campaign trail--the one giving people like me such angst. And yet, if you talk to liberals in Springfield, the ones who've spent decades fighting for universal health care, you don't hear a lot of disappointment with him. As far as they are concerned, Obama's signature inclusiveness was always a means to an end--a way to push the limits of reform rather than accept them. And, they say, it worked.

In 2002, when Democrats won back control of the Senate, Obama became chairman of the Health and Human Services Committee. And it was from that perch that he adopted his other noteworthy health care cause, a measure called the Health Care Justice Act. The brainchild of grassroots activists tired of fighting losing battles to create a single-payer system for Illinois, the act, as originally proposed, would have created a task force, empowered it to develop a universal coverage plan, and then forced the legislature to vote on that plan. Predictably, it aroused the ire of insurers and other business interests, who, by all accounts, lobbied to derail the effort. "They--the insurers--pushed really hard," says Jim Duffett, executive director of the Campaign for Better Health Care, the group championing the plan. "They also tried to use other people to push him really hard."

Publicly, Obama used hearings to rally voter support for universal coverage. Inside the statehouse, he pursued a two-track strategy. He made common cause with doctors and hospitals, two groups that had become more sympathetic to universal coverage because of the financial burdens charity care placed on them. This gave cover to moderates who wanted to support the bill, while increasing pressure on the insurers to fall in line. At the same time, Obama carried on discussions with the insurance and business lobbyists directly, eventually granting them two key concessions: He altered the makeup of the task force to make it more industryfriendly and dropped the provision requiring a vote from the next year's General Assembly. "We had significant concerns and looked to Senator Obama, who is an extremely bright and accessible individual," Phil Lackman, who represents the Professional Independent Insurance Agents of Illinois, told me. "My experience is that he is willing to listen to anybody willing to talk to him."

It's those kinds of statements that lead to stories, like one that The Boston Globe published in the fall, noting that "Obama's own experience in lawmaking involved dealings with the kinds of lobbyists and special interests he now demonizes on the campaign trail." But, whatever the contrast with Obama's campaign rhetoric, reformers in Springfield say the concessions worked out just fine. As it turned out, binding a future Assembly to vote on a measure was probably unconstitutional anyway. And the presence of insurance representatives on the task force may have actually bestowed it with additional legitimacy. Although those members would end up filing a dissent to the task force's final report--which was issued after Obama had moved on to the U.S. Senate--press attention focused on the majority recommendation. And that recommendation was just what many advocates hoped (and opponents feared) it would be: a comprehensive plan for universal coverage, financed and overseen by the state government. "He didn't back down," says Duffett. "There was no mandate , but that was a constitutional issue. ... We got everything else we wanted."


Duffett's quote is important because he is among the state's most prominent and committed advocates on behalf of universal health care. (For the wonks out there, he's the Illinois equivalent of Ron Pollack.) If Obama were in the pocket of health care lobbyists, he'd be the first guy to complain. But Duffett has only good things to say about Obama. Very good things, as a matter of fact.

--Jonathan Cohn
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Ah - no - he worked to prevent single payer at the bequest of the insurance lobbyists - and said so
The legislation would have made it official state policy to ensure that all residents could access "quality healthcare at costs that are reasonable." Insurers feared that language would result in a government takeover of healthcare, even though the bill did not explicitly say that...."Barack is a very reasonable person who clearly recognized the various roles involved in the healthcare system," said Phil Lackman, a lobbyist for insurance agents and brokers. Obama "understood our concern that we didn't want a predetermined outcome."

In one attempt at a deal, Obama approached the Campaign for Better Health Care with insurers' concerns, asking if the group would consider a less stringent mandate than requiring the state to come up with a universal healthcare plan. The coalition decided not to bend, said Jim Duffett, the group's executive director.

"The concept of the Health Care Justice Act was to bring the sides - the different perspectives and stakeholders - to the table," Duffett said. "In this situation, Obama was being a conduit from the insurance industry to us."

During debate on the bill on May 19, 2004, Obama portrayed himself as a conciliatory figure. He acknowledged that he had "worked diligently with the insurance industry," as well as Republicans, to limit the legislation's reach and noted that the bill had undergone a "complete restructuring" after industry representatives "legitimately" raised fears that it would result in a single-payer system.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThatPoetGuy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Quoting Jonathan Cohn? You guys are funny.
Obama supporters have a hard time understanding that there are things that are "true."

When Jonathan Cohn points out that Obama's plan leaves 15 million poor people uninsured, Obama's supporters call him a liar and a shill.

When Jonathan Cohn agrees with Paul Krugman that Obama's health care plan is weaker than the plans of Hillary and Edwards, Obama's supporters call him a disgrace, corrupt, a liar, a shill.

When Jonathan Cohn says that Barack Obama was NOT bought off by the insurance industry, all of a sudden you guys are quoting his articles in full.

Here's a clue: Jonathan Cohn is right on all three of these statements. Barack Obama's plan is weaker than the others, it will leave poor people out in the cold, and Barack Obama is not in the pocket of the insurance industry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 11:02 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. link does`t work
since i actually live in illinois i do know what he has done and why. but it`s useless to discuss how and why things are done the way they are here in illinois.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackORoses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 10:00 PM
Response to Original message
5. Did you know that Jackson was a real Asshole?
He pushed the powers of the Unitary Executive just like W has.
Hillary hopes to do the same.

Not if the People have anything to say about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 11:04 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Who founded the modern day Democratic Party?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackORoses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 01:03 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. FDR
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jensen Donating Member (866 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 04:53 AM
Response to Original message
9. Has anyone seen "Sicko"? How quickly "We" forget!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 04:59 AM
Response to Original message
10. And she does exactly the same thing
Both are big money candidates. What did you expect?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 05:05 AM
Response to Original message
11. Sadly, you are simply
one of DU's prominent provocateurs. You really are not much more than that.

Obama was intstrumental in legislation decreasing the power of lobbyists both in Illinois and in the U.S. Senate.

You distort constantly. You cherry pick. Malice oozes from every single post you write about Obama. And you write about 10 OPs a day regarding him.

I don't know why you hate Obama. Yes, hate is the right word. I don't even want to know what it is. Perhaps you have a problem. Perhaps you just hate him for doing so much better than your candidate.

In any case, you are not even remotely credible on the subject. In fact, you're the absolute opposite of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oasis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 05:08 AM
Response to Original message
12. K and R. I'd like to see a few more comments before we put this baby to bed.
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 05:51 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC