Posted on 10/29/2007 11:00:57 PM PDT by neverdem
WASHINGTON, Oct. 28 — In a reversal from past election cycles, Democratic candidates for president are outpacing Republicans in donations from the health care industry, even as the leading Democrats in the field offer proposals that have caused deep anxiety in some of its sectors.
Hospitals, drug makers, doctors and insurers gave candidates in both parties more than $11 million in the first nine months of this year, according to an analysis of campaign finance records done for The New York Times by the Center for Responsive Politics, an independent group that tracks campaign finance.
In all, the Democratic presidential candidates have raised about $6.5 million from the industry, compared with nearly $4.8 million for the Republican candidates. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York has amassed the most of any candidate, even as she calls for changes to the health care system that could pose serious financial challenges to private insurers, drug companies and other sectors.
Mrs. Clinton received $2.7 million through the end of September, far more than Mitt Romney, the Republican who raised the most from the health care industry, with $1.6 million. The industry’s shift in contributions toward Democratic candidates mirrors wider trends among donors, but the donations from this sector are particularly notable because of the party’s focus on overhauling the health care system.
People in the health care industry say the giving reflects a growing sense that the Democrats are in a strong position to win the White House next year. It also underscores the industry’s frantic effort to influence the candidates, as Democrats push their proposals to address what many polls show is a top concern among voters.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
= gubmint healthcare a done deal.
I can never understand why folks support those who are dead set on doing them in.
Like I should talk, I voted for Bush the second time around and now look what is on deck, the LOST Treaty.
Well, well. All money goes to candidates we don’t want.
Thank you sir. I’m with you and it’s the truth.
It’s going to them because the donors are hoping to buy favor from them. It won’t work, but you can see why they don’t have confidence in our side to put a stop to the rush to nationalized healthcare.
If it’s European, damn it’s good. Our side has become such a bunch of European wanna bees that it sickening to watch any longer.
Even the SCOTUS recites European case law to do as they damn well please.
We just as well join the EU is has become so pathetic.
They are counting on being able to bill the government for anything — like charging Uncle Sam $500 just to look down someone’s throat... abuses like that will become standard.
Drug companies, too, will be reimbursed for providing medicine “for those who can’t afford it”.
Money always bets the winner. There’s not really a lot of loyalty to ideology involved.
Well, they’re nuts. The government isn’t going to pay anyone much. They are going to cut back on doctors, healthcare facilities, services provided, reimbursements across the board and anyone in healthcare that thinks they are going to fair better under nationalized heathcare is just plan bonkers.
Even the wealthy will be penalized, as no physician will be able to provide service outside the government program. They’ll have their licenses suspended or outright revoked if they do.
There are going to be some very shocked people when this comes into effect.
When they Hollywood set can’t get service without leaving the nation, they’ll get the message. By then it will be too late, as our system will be destroyed.
If the Second Amendment is going to be an issue in 2008, and I think it will be, I think you will be surprised. Rationed healthcare in countries with socialized medicine, the doctors plot, etc., will be coming out of our ears, IMHO.
If conservatives make healthcare an issue in the election, then they’ll lose.
A) Right now America is the last industrialized country not to have some form of gubmint healthcare.
B)The uninsured and those struggling to make insurance payments (including employers) are a large voting block.
C)There is no longer a big money lobbying effort against gubmint healthcare.
Why does the New York Times need so many words to say, EXTORTION?
I’m sure that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is getting record contributions from any group you could name (courtesy of the Chinese money pot, and the local laundry).
Odd, healthcare professionals have the most to lose in a government healthcare system. They’ll make less and work harder with a flood of new patients. Contributions are definitely lopsided for Democrats from HMO’s, insurance companies and hospitals and nursing homes. Those are to be expected.
Yes, extortion would be a good word if Hitlery were even asking for their dollars.
What seems more implied is that they want to buy her, and the New York Times seems pleased as punch to point it out.
The left just can’t get out of it’s own way.
Extortion doesn’t look good in print...
It just isn't fit to print.
The left wants to make it an issue, IMHO, and they are blissfully unaware of all the damage that the gubmint already caused. Primary Care residencies are going begging for post doc medical training, and we have to import nurses. It should be obvious.
It’s already an “issue.” How each side addresses it will be an important factor in the election.
Highly interesting percentage for the insurance sector...
I guess they can smell their pie in the oven and are just salivating to get a mandatory piece of it.
Why or why can’t people see/realize the whole system is rigged?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.