in a decent society clown car senator roberts would be crab walking to his cell...talking to his lawyer on his cel, and getting ready to defend himself against corruption charges...

It is astonishing to me how much servitude large industries can purchase from a senator for a mere $50-$300k per election cycle, and how much that can be worth to the company (many millions of dollars). Senators are clearly underpricing their services, and these have to be among the most profitable investments available to large companies. Sometimes the cynic in me wonders if we wouldn't be better off simply offering open bids on government decisions, with the proceeds going straight to the general fund.

Faiz added, "According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Roberts has received over $172,000 in political contribution from insurance companies over the last five years.

Responsive politics indeed.

Olberman should open his program with this ditty. Nauseating...

You're actually defending the practice of rushing through bills without public analysis?

Pretend you're in the minority for 30 seconds and ask yourself where you'd stand on this issue.

Sometimes the cynic in me wonders if we wouldn't be better off simply offering open bids on government decisions, with the proceeds going straight to the general fund.

By Jove, I think N. Wells has stumbled on to a brilliant idea here.

i love the way trotsky always focussed on the core of the issue...

Are they trying to delay things so that the reconciliation time window will close?

Trotsky's right. (there's a sentence you don't say everyday)

No fair going after dogs and not laps..

The stars need to edit their video.

With...

A little bit of Roberts...
A little bit of McConnell...
A little bit of Kyl...

Only in the wacky world of the wingnut could the work the Senate Finance Committee has done on health care be considered "rushed."

Their entire point has been to delay.

Here's a Democrat standing up in support of sponsors:

http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/09/23/carper-public-defends-secret-phrma-deal-in-exchange-for-support-ads/

but that's the Baucus bill, and it's probably dead.

Heh, at first I thought SB meant Roberts the CJ of SCOTUS ... which I expect him to do as well, albeit less directly.
BTW, how is that corporate/union political speech case going?

I'm as eager as the next guy to see a good, progressive health care reform bill passed (with public option,etc.), but let's be fair. It's totally appropriate to give all interested parties--including the insurance companies--an adequate opportunity to review the bill and comment on it. The Senate staffs don't have a monopoly on expertise in this area and it's quite possible--even likely--that there will be issues or problems that only the affected parties will spot. It's not just the insurance industry; it's also the medical profession, other service providers, the hospital community, AARP, other patients groups--they all should have an opportunity to review and comment.

DRF -- I think the frustration comes from the fact that the health insurance industry lobbyists have had decades of time to comment on this issue. I mean, seriously, what do you expect them to do or say that you haven't heard for the last 40 years?

"Sometimes the cynic in me wonders if we wouldn't be better off simply offering open bids on government decisions, with the proceeds going straight to the general fund."

'By Jove, I think N. Wells has stumbled on to a brilliant idea here.'
Posted by: lobbygow

Yes, yes, yes.
No reason that the internet can't supply a mechanism for the 'little people' to raise money and bid on the outcomes of votes in Congress, too.

So if corporations get the 'right' to funnel money directly into political campaigns, we'll have to change the way our system works.

One dollar equals on vote. All legislative decisions go to the highest bidder, the money directly into the general fund, and common people represented by internet funding to populist lobbies. It could work.

Before the insurance companies get to influence health care reform legislation, they need to demonstrate what value they provide other than sitting between patients and providers and leeching off the system. Seriously, what public good do they provide that couldn't be provided better by a public (not profit-driven) system? Why should they get a seat at the discussion if they can't demonstrate value beyond what they provide their executives and shareholders?

At the risk of failing to jump on the bandwagon, I'm not sure I am entirely opposed to the idea that the people who are likely to be affected by legislation should have a chance to study it before it's voted on.

"The committee, the bill, and the process should just cool their heels, the conservative Kansan said, while insurance company lobbyists have a chance to tell senators what they think about the bill." - SB

Sausage making - at its very finest.