"Sicko", Hillary, and BIG INSURANCE

[welshTerrier2]

are you a FOH? well, you can thank Big Insurance for helping out your candidate ... here are a view choice excerpts from Michael Moore's interview today on Democracy Now with Amy Goodman ... Moore had some very nice things to say about Hillary ... her sucking up to Big Insurance was not among them ... this Friday, Moore is heading up to New Hampshire to publicize information about the extent of candidate complicity with Big Insurance.

here's one excerpt from the transcript of this interview:

So -- but to jump ahead here with Hillary, you know, she’s now -- or at least last year, in last year’s congress -- was the second-largest recipient of health industry money, next to Rick Santorum. He’s gone now. So she may be number one at this point, for all I know. It’s very sad to see that she’s very much -- they’re into her pocket, and she’s into their pocket. And I don’t expect much from her.

and here's another gem:

No, but we are actually going up to New Hampshire at the end of this week. And we are going to release information to the public about just how bought and paid for the candidates are that are running for president and for public office.

AMY GOODMAN: How bought and paid for are they?

MICHAEL MOORE: Well, you’ll have to wait ’til the end of the week to hear the answer to that. But let me just say it won’t be pretty. I hate to say that, but you know what? And again, I mean, I like a lot of the candidates, for a lot of reasons, that are running. But, you know, if we all throw in with them too soon on this without forcing them to take good positions on these issues, I don’t think we’re going to get anywhere. The Democrats have already proven that since the November election, that, you know, they will drag their feet if at all possible. And so -- and, you know, we’ve already seen what Hillary’s position is on this, and, of course, with her position on the war, this makes it very difficult for people who otherwise would like to vote for her, would like to see our first woman president, but simply can’t support somebody who supported the war for so long and who is taking such large contributions from the health industry.

now, if you're still supporting Hillary in spite of this corporate bullshit, at least tell us how you feel about her being in bed with the insurance and health care industries. do you understand that people are dying and being denied care? do you understand that the number one cause of home foreclosures is inability to pay unreimbursed medical bills? talk to that issue instead of whining about all the Hillary haters. maybe they hate her because of the policies she's endorsing.

and by the way, instead of ignorantly shooting your uninformed mouth off about Michael Moore and making ad hominem attacks, why not at least hear the man out ... here's a link to the video of his interview.

[papau]

1. It was not a newsmaker event - the candidates have people in Health making

making political contributions to them

As I recall it was something like 80,000 to Hillary, 50,000 to Obama, somewhat smaller amounts to the others.

It was not million dollar vacations/housing deals/boat "gifts" bribes, it was not control of the media being used to advance their career, it was not independent expenditures ala swift boating to advance their career - as our GOP friends have shown a liking for.

Moore's get Hillary campaign is pretty lame - but his movie Sicko is excellent and does a good job exposing the problems.

[welshTerrier2]

3. a newsmaker event???

if Moore is correct, Hillary was number two last year behind the much hated Rick Santorum for being in bed with the health insurance industry. do you have any concerns that Big Money lobbyists might just be able to buy themselves a wee little bit of influence in the Congress?

or are paid lobbyists raping the American people not really much of a newsmaker event for you?

Hillary might very well be NUMERO UNO on the Big Insurance hit parade. I'll be very interested to see what data Moore releases on this in New Hampshire.

To brush the abuses of lobbyists under the rug, even for Hillary supporters, is a huge mistake. Moore's campaign is not a "get Hillary" campaign; it sounds like your campaign is more of a bury the truth campaign.

Do you agree with Moore that the US ranks 37th in health care according to the WHO? Do you agree with his assertions (in the interview - i assume you watched the whole thing) that countries that removed the profit motive and got Big Insurance out of the health care field provided the best health care to their citizens? and if you do, why would you support a candidate who refuses to propose a plan that eliminates Big Insurance and gets their greedy hands out of health care?

I haven't seen Sicko yet ... but i have seen some pretty sick health care proposals from most of the candidates ... how's this for a plan? the first step in "national defense" should be to ensure that no American goes without quality health care. What good are all those MIC weapon systems if they can't defend the sick and the dying? How about supporting a call to cut the defense budget enough to pay for quality health care for each and every American? Can you get on board with that?

[papau]

14. name a vote OR action that indicates any Dem is in bed with the health insurance industry

Until such time as we get Federal financing of elections, "contributions" will be needed. And folks will be wary as to what those that contribute get in return.

The fact of the contributions is not news. If Hillary was "in bed with the health insurance industry" and this could be shown by some action of hers, THAT WOULD BE NEWS.

I ran the State, Federal Tax Department for Sun Life of Canada's US operation - and indeed was plugged into our lobbying. The insurance industry does not try to buy many Democrats (Gephart was an exception) - and it certainly does not invest in Clinton or Dems for any other reason than to keep the door open so that they can get their point of view heard.

The abuses of lobbyists are not known to me - but I was looking at insurance industry and tax lobbyists. I suspect the Indiana insurance company that forced through the medical savings accounts did indeed bribe a lot of GOP legislators - but I can not prove that. The Bush family lobbyists in the military industrial world are the corrupt lobbyists that you are thinking of - not the insurance industry. The insurance industry controls because about half of the state and local legislators in this country had a try at insurance sales - plus the agents that are still on the payroll are their because of their ability to talk people into positions they were not intending to take - and those agents can paper DC in an hour.

Moore's contribution discussion is a diversion from the problem - and put in only to dump on Hillary - in my opinion. I am sure Moore knows what I have stated above to be true - making him aware that that contribution scene was simply attention getting and should have been followed by a plea for federally funded elections.

As to "the US ranks 37th in health care according to the WHO" that is a statement of fact - that is the ranking WHO gave us. Our system costs a lot and does not provide good public health results.

Indeed Moore is speaking to the choir when he "speaks" to me in the film - I was fighting for single payer back in 93 - and the only voice in the Clinton administration - in the elected Dems in Washington and the unelected advisers that run around there - that was on my side - was Hillary. When we shut Hillary down and got Bill believing the insurance industry would back and HMO/large group approach that would not affect our current profits - the lobbyists met with insurance management to let us know the "good news" - as they got the Harry and Louise mis-information spots ready.

Of the top 3 which one is eliminating the insurance companies? No one. Nor would you want to as we need them to process the claims, just as they are doing now - processing claims for a fee - for Medicare Part B.

Medicare for all makes the most sense - but it also likely to get hung up on GOP cries of "rationing" by government - as if the current rationing by wealth is a better system - getting a list of approved coverages past Congress might well be impossible if it had to have much detail.

DK is the only one pushing Medicare for all, but Richardson extends it to 55, and Edwards has a back door competition with the "medicare like" policy that the Federal government is to offer as one of the choices. Obama goes the make insurance company policies available to everyone route, with Federal subsidy if needed.

Get Big Health Insurance Companies out of the risk taking business and into the claims servicing business makes a lot of sense. But for 2008 I will support a candidate that has the plan relative to the others.

That means Richardson's clean with a lot more Medicare but lacking detail plan

Or Edwards detailed plan with Medicare for all via a back door provision

Versus Obama's make it available to everyone if the want it

versus the to be disclosed in the near future Hillary plan.

Indeed Hillary's detailed expense savings plan of 28 pages is great - and expense savings is the major part of the other folks total disclosed to date health plans..

I have been supporting a call to cut defense and use the money for national health - single payer - since the 50's. We are on the same page on this.

I did like Sicko - but IMHO, it needed an explanation of the need for federally financed elections - or it needed to have that contributions scene tossed. The way it is now, that scene is just an unjustified smear of Senator Clinton.

[welshTerrier2]

17. again, i have NOT seen Sicko

i wasn't aware it had even been released yet.

I'm not fully clear on exactly what your position is. You sound like you support single payer. If so, I am in agreement.

I'm not, however, in agreement with several things you said.

Let's start with federally financed campaigns. Do I advocate unilateral rejection of private contributions given the current state of the law? Of course not. But I do hold each and every candidate responsible if they fail to speak out clearly on the issue and fight for the issue. Has Hillary demonstrated a real commitment and leadership on federally financed campaigns? I'm not aware she has. If she has, she needs to make this a key position.

I have no problem with allowing insurance companies to do some of the "clerical" work; i have big problems letting them decide who gets reimbursed and who doesn't. This is a clear case of the foxes being empowered to guard the chicken coop. You asked for specifics of Hillary's links to these Big Insurance companies that have helped fund her. That's easy. Has Hillary called for legislation that would ban the power of insurance companies to decide on who lives and who dies and who gets reimbursed and who goes bankrupt? If so, please provide the details. The point is that the corruption of big money is just as readily an act of OMISSION as it is an act of COMMISSION. Has Hillary called for making health care for each and every American job one or is she going to just go along with the status quo that let's the market decide? Is health care a right or a commodity? You want specifics? The specifics are her answers to these questions. Perhaps you can provide them.

Do you think Hillary would dare call for significant cuts in military spending to pay for health care? I doubt it. She's too busy posturing. She's too busy showing us all how tough she is. What a waste of money.

So, it seems we agree on the ultimate policies but disagree about the corrupting influence of big money that, in my view, prevents us from being able to achieve those objectives. Federally funded campaigns are a critical step. I haven't seen much leadership from the Big 3 on that.

[catgirl]

31. The release date is June 29th

Maybe some have seen a "sneak preview"? I read that it
was leaked on the internet. Btw, Michael Moore is a Gore
fan. I guess Gore's on the right track as far as has views
on our health care system (and everything else, of course).

[snowbear]

2. This place will be hopping with reviews of that film...

.. after June 29th:



It may get kinda hot in here....

[Forkboy]

5. heh...ya think?

:D

[JTFrog]

4. This is what bugs me about the "top tier" supporters.

"But, you know, if we all throw in with them too soon on this without forcing them to take good positions on these issues, I don’t think we’re going to get anywhere."

Instead of blind support and unconditional defense we should be demanding far more from our candidates or start supporting the candidates that are already doing everything we asked for in November. It's not like there isn't a choice. We should know right from wrong by now.

Screw the media if they think they can buy my vote or sell me a candidate.

[welshTerrier2]

7. that's a great point, JT !!

i've written that many times myself.

too many candidate supporters are FOLLOWERS. instead of demanding more from all the candidates, they jump on the bandwagon and defend their candidate no matter how truthful the criticisms are. their candidates are PERFECT.

as citizens, it our duty to "negotiate" with our candidates to ensure they represent us and what is best for the country and the American people. instead, far too many just play these political games. it's all about winning. there are no issues because they've already sold their souls.

Hillary is called a "corporatist" and they have no idea why anyone would say that. What's amazing is, that these same people can't possibly believe there is no connection between big money and who gets elected and who gets friendly treatment in the Congress. Do these supporters approve of big money paid lobbyists? Do they support publically financed campaigns? Do they actually believe Hillary will act only on behalf of the American people and that all the big money pouring in will not buy a special favor or two ... or three?

[Donna Zen]

6. Not quarrel from me

In fact after talking with a rather conservative insurance professor, I'm more convinced than ever that the solution is Single Payer. He surprised me by bringing up the subject. He believes that any nibbling plans grouped under the nebulous label of "Universal Coverage" will not provide the solution, and in some cases, make the problem worse. Any plan that contemplates pouring more money into the corporate pockets will doom us and waste our current an opportunity to make a meaningful change.

Why will we not get a Single Payer proposal/plan? Well, Moore nails it; follow the money.

OT...but not really: WT2, I came across a piece by Chalmers Johnson. While I suspect you've already seen this, I'll post a link to it anyway:

The range of opinions on this is immense. Even though large numbers of voters vaguely suspect that the failings of the political system itself led the country into its current crisis, most evidently expect the system to perform a course correction more or less automatically. As Adam Nagourney of the New York Times reported, by the end of March 2007, at least 280,000 American citizens had already contributed some $113.6 million to the presidential campaigns of Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Mitt Romney, Rudolph Giuliani, or John McCain.

If these people actually believe a presidential election a year-and-a-half from now will significantly alter how the country is run, they have almost surely wasted their money. As Andrew Bacevich, author of The New American Militarism, puts it: "None of the Democrats vying to replace President Bush is doing so with the promise of reviving the system of check and balances.... The aim of the party out of power is not to cut the presidency down to size but to seize it, not to reduce the prerogatives of the executive branch but to regain them."

Note: Bacevich, while very conservative, argued before the war began against the war. He is a West Point grad. who served in Vietnam. He recently lost his son in Iraq.

For those who are interested, the article can be found here

Earlier in this post, I commented that this article had some relationship to the OP. For me, a compromised, non-representational government can be found at the core of most issues.

[welshTerrier2]

8. devastating post

I had read Johnson's interview but this quote you included is worse than devastating:

"None of the Democrats vying to replace President Bush is doing so with the promise of reviving the system of check and balances.... The aim of the party out of power is not to cut the presidency down to size but to seize it, not to reduce the prerogatives of the executive branch but to regain them."

that's the ultimate flaw in the true bluer argument. they miss the point when they argue that we're saying there is no difference between the parties. that's NOT what I'm saying; that's for sure.

and they miss the point again when they argue that we fail to understand terrible things will happen if we elect republicans. no, that's NOT a point I'm missing; that's for sure. i couldn't agree more.

but here's the point the blindly loyal are missing: we no longer have a government of the people, by the people and for the people and electing Democrats is NOT going to change that UNTIL we start electing candidates who are not financed by Big Money and Big Oil and Big Insurance and Big Defense.

So tell me, which candidates are calling for publically financed campaigns? Which candidates are calling to ban non-Iraqi Big Oil companies from stealing Iraq's oil? Which candidates are calling for a new health care system that cuts out Big Insurance who makes profits by limiting medical payouts? And which candidates are calling for massive cuts in the military budget so that we can start meeting the real needs of the American people like health care for all and education and caring for senior citizens?

Because if you're supporting the BIG CORPORATE SYSTEM and your allowing the BIG CORPORATE SYSTEM to buy you an office, ain't nothing going to change!!!!!!!

Got that ?????????? Is that so complicated ??????????

[Donna Zen]

13. Walking the walk

I hear lots of calling, unfortunately those words are couched in wiggle words. What I'm trying to do is to match the words with the deeds. To date, I'm rather unimpressed.

Riddle me this: why is seeing the need for restoring checks and balances considered a "leftist" position? I would think that honoring the Constitution puts me in the conservative camp. Or what during a less loony time, would have been a conservative aim.

There was another interesting snip in that article:

Even the open DoD budget receives only perfunctory scrutiny because members of Congress, seeking lucrative defense contracts for their districts, have mutually beneficial relationships with defense contractors and the Pentagon. President Dwight D. Eisenhower identified this phenomenon, in the draft version of his 1961 farewell address, as the "military-industrial-congressional complex." Forty-six years later, in a way even Eisenhower probably couldn't have imagined, the defense budget is beyond serious congressional oversight or control.

I had read that Eisenhower had included the word "congressional" in an draft of his famous speech. He was advised to remove the reference since it would be considered too strong a statement that might actually negate the point that he was trying to make. I'm sure the congress critters would have started huffing and puffing. Anyway, I've been tempted to point this out when people cite the quote, but without a source, I've skipped the grief.

Democracy and imperialism cannot co-exist; history teaches us that, over-and-over again. Johnson points to post-imperial England as our possible model for salvation although he doesn't sound hopeful. Neither am I. However, restoring sanity to my poor country will continue to be my driving goal. If people wish to label me a stupid leftist bitch who is a Clinton hater, so be it. I know what I know, and I am what am.

[welshTerrier2]

21. military-industrial CONGRESSIONAL complex

Does Hillary recognize this as a problem? Does she understand that the MIC complex is bankrupting the country. Or is she too busy "looking tough on defense" so that the stupid "McGovern wing of the party" doesn't taint her candidacy? Do the Hillary people know or give a damn about what Hillary says about "defense spending"? I doubt it. Do they care about its effect on all of our lives? Nope. I'm confident they don't. Why? Because I NEVER EVER see them post about her views on this issue.

You say democracy and imperialism cannot co-exist. I say that imperialism, at least American imperialism, is totally driven by GREED. Not greed for power as a goal but greed for money. And so, I equate imperialism with capitalism. And so, my equation is that democracy and capitalism cannot co-exist. Some believe capitalism can be adequately "restrained". I'd love to believe that. It ain't happened yet. We have to awaken the sleeping masses to the loss of democratic institutions. We are supposed to have a government that serves the American people; even those not paying too much attention know all too well that "special interests" determine policy in Washington. How much can we really expect from any candidate who is heavily funded by these "special interests"???

and about seeing the restoration of checks and balances as a leftist position, that's truly comical. it's funny you call it a conservative position. i often do as well. in reality, it's not a "political spectrum" position at all. calling for good governance is not left; it's not center; it's not right ... we've become so polarized that everyone has to have some kind of label affixed to them ...

[Donna Zen]

23. About those checks and balances

Yeah, I was just feeling snarky!

Imperialism has always been driven by greed and lust for power. The Romans wanted British silver, German whatever, and everywhere they went they brought the tax farmers. Taking away others resources by force is an expensive enterprise. Believing that a country can take away freedom beyond its borders and keep a democracy at home, is foolishness. Things start slipping pretty darn fast. That's where we are today.

Capitalism can only exist with restrictions, otherwise it will eat itself.

The 08 season is more obscene than even I had expected. And I'm not hopeful about how this will end.

[Robeson]

28. What a great article....

...thanks for posting that. He summed up the current state of American Imperialism quite well. Like him, I'm not overly optimistic it can be corrected. The sheer size of our imperialism, the assets involved, and the cohesion of those who "run" our system, make it almost impossible to change. As he suggested, there would almost have to be some type of revolution before that could happen.

Thanks again for posting the article....:thumbsup:

[Totally Committed]

29. Absolutely! Single-payer is the only way to go, and we will never get that

from Hillary or any other pro-corporate candidate. They are in too deep with BIG Insurance, Big Medicine, Big Pharma.... and all the "bigs" that pad their war-chests with $$$$$$$$$$.

Great post, Ms. Zen!

TC

[antigop]

9. Actually, according to opensecrets.org Lieberman was #2 in 2006 election cycle

http://opensecrets.org/industries/recips.asp?Ind=F09&cycle=2006

Hillary was #4.

Dodd was #13.

[welshTerrier2]

10. health industry?

to reproduce Moore's exact statement: Hillary, you know, she’s now -- or at least last year, in last year’s congress -- was the second-largest recipient of health industry money, next to Rick Santorum.

the link you provided specifically covers the "insurance" industry.

nevertheless, #4, #2 ... not much difference there I would argue ... look at the names around Hillary on the list you provided:

Santorum, Lieberman, DeWine, Ben Nelson, John Kyl, Jim Talent ... bet Hillary won't publish that list in her campaign ads ...

[Solon]

11. There is something wrong with the list...

Click on the links for the politicians themselves, and the numbers for insurance contributions jump for both Hillary and Santorum. For Hillary it jumped from $381,730 to $513,380, for Santorum it jumped from $477,906 to $650,572

[paulk]

12. her voting record on healthcare issues isn't bad

http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Health_Care.htm

I tend to place more value on voting records than "what if" scenarios. You're going to have to make a better case for her "being in bed" with the insurance and healthcare industries than you have. Please base your argument on actual votes.

Exactly what policy is HRC endorsing that is causing "home foreclosures because of an inability to pay unreimbursed medical bills"? Please be specific.

[welshTerrier2]

15. nice try ... no cigar ...

Moore made it very clear in his interview, and probably even clearer in Sicko, that we cannot solve our health care problems if Big Insurance is part of the "solution".

You want specifics? Exactly what is Hillary's health care proposal with regard to get the greedy paws of Big Insurance out of our lives? What does Hillary say about letting corrupt physicians determine who gets reimbursed and who doesn't.

And exactly what do YOU say about allowing all this money to pour into presidential campaigns from corporations? no problem with that? if not, you've picked the PERFECT candidate.

I don't accept the premise of your argument about "actual votes". Why is that? Because the problem is NOT actual votes. the problem is a failure to lead on the health care issue. the problem is that by not calling for single payer health care, the status quo, which is inhumane, remains in place. It's not Hillary's "actual votes" on health care that are the problem; it's her failure to propose the only path to solving the problem.

So tell, me ... is it true you are NOT concerned about corporate contributions to candidates? is it true you are NOT concerned about the stranglehold that big money and paid lobbyists have on the legislative process? do you really not see a connection between what does, and what does NOT, happen based on all the money pouring into the Congress?

You seem like a bright fellow. I'm sure you know better even if you won't admit it here. BTW, what say you to publically financed campaigns? Has Hillary fought for those?

[paulk]

16. of course you don't accept my argument about "actual votes"

because you don't have an answer to it.

Your post is nothing but a forest of strawmen.

And your usual "the perfect is the enemy of the good" reasoning.

[welshTerrier2]

19. her failure is one of OMISSION, not COMMISSION

do you acknowledge a difference between the two?

and you didn't answer a single question in my post. i responded to your question and you don't seem to want to talk about big money and big insurance and the corruption they bring on the electoral and legislative processes.

and it is sadly simplistic argument to suggest i'm calling for perfection. yes, i'm an extremist and you are perfectly reasonable and sensible. that's great ... i'm not sure that leads to much constructive discussion though.

the statement is that insurance companies, who obviously have a vested interest in maximizing profit, should not be allowed to make life or death decisions about any citizen's health care needs. do you agree or don't you?

[paulk]

24. I responded to your OP with a question that relates directly

to your OP.

"Exactly what policy is HRC endorsing that is causing "home foreclosures because of an inability to pay unreimbursed medical bills"? Please be specific."

A pretty simple question, asking you to back up your allegations.

"Sadly", you did not answer it. Instead you changed the subject. Then you say that no "constructive discussion" can take place because I won't answer your strawmen.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

32. her 'plan' is crap

from what I read there, it would be another peice-meal, help a few here or there but not everyone mess.

PRESCRIPTION DRUG PLAN -- VOTED: YES
Bankruptcy Reform Bill -- did not vote
No Child left behind -- voted: yes


Those are just some of her votes that I have serious problems with

[paulk]

33. interesting -

The Prescription Drug Plan that Hillary voted "yes" on also got 41 other Democratic votes, with only 2 "no" votes.

S Con Res 18 - S AMDT 214

So I really don't understand what your objection to that vote is.

----------------

Hillary Clinton was unable to vote on the Bankruptcy Bill because she was in the hospital with her husband at the time, who was undergoing heart surgury. She gave a speech prior to the vote, indicating that she would have voted against the legislation if she had been able to attend. This has been posted many times already at DU, however, I can link you to the speech if you want.

---------------------

No Child Left Behind - Only 5 Democrats voted against this bill, which is not surprising, considering it was co-sponsered by Ted Kennedy, who is considered by many to be the most liberal member of the Senate. One of the primary criticisms of the bipartisan bill is that the Bush administration has not properly funded it. I don't see how HRC can be criticized for this legislation.

[avrdream]

36. That's a good link, paulk.

Very thorough.

I have to go to work but, if it does the same thing for all our candidates, it's going to be a great research tool.

[wyldwolf]

18. while I'm looking forward to this movie and hope it accomplishes what it was made to do...

...I hate to break it to you, but it won't derail, it won't even dent, Clinton's campaign.

[welshTerrier2]

20. i assume you mean that it should derail her campaign

let me ask you this: do you think insurance companies should be allowed to determine who gets reimbursed for health care and who doesn't?

do you think we should have publically financed campaigns? are you concerned about the influence big money has when it pours into Congress and campaigns or is that good old American capitalism at its finest?

Why do you think that countries like Cuba and Canada and France and Great Britain have much more humane, and better, health care systems, for ALL THE PEOPLE, than the US? I think the problem in this country is GREED and a failure of leadership on the issue.

[wyldwolf]

22. I meant what I said.

[jmp]

25. Were you not around for the HillaryCare fiasco?

She's already gotten her butt kicked in for trying to socialize health care in this country. She learned her lesson. Any "universal" health care coverage is going to have to involve insurance. She is co-opting the opposition for the benefit of the poor.

You may prefer a single payer system, but that's not going to fly. It would get crushed by the insurance industry among others.

1/2 a loaf beats the heck out of no loaf every time.

A principled stand is not going help those people that you say are dying if it fails ... again.

[hippiechick]

26. ... I can see it now ...

President Hillary's "Health Care Reform Force" -- just like Cheney's "Energy Taskforce" made up of industry insiders slicing & dicing policy and fucking the average American every which way but loose. :scared:

Nice. :eyes:

[jmp]

27. You prefer the status quo? (nm)

...

[hippiechick]

34. What would the difference be, exactly?

:shrug:

[w4rma]

30. That's exactly what she did the first time. She was slammed for her secretiveness. (nt)

[draft_mario_cuomo]

35. Why did Obama receive more health industry $$$ than Giuliani and McCain?

A Democrat--especially one who is allegedly a progressive Democrat--receiving more money from the health industry than two leading Republicans? Apply the very logic you guys apply to HRC to Obama--you can bet the corporate donors do. ;)