Mediaboss Marketing

The health insurance industry is donating big to Democrats even amid criticism of the industry and growing calls for Medicare for All from the progressive wing of the party.

Four big insurance companies Blue Cross Blue Shield, UnitedHealth Group, CVS Health and Cigna and their employees have given about $4.5 million collectively in campaign contributions in the 2020 cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Just more than half about $2.3 million of that has gone to Democrats, including to some of the partys top-tier presidential contenders. The Center for Responsive Politics totals are based on Federal Election Commission data through the third quarter of 2019 and include money from the companies and their PACs, owners and employees and their immediate families. These companies and employees have been giving big, on both sides, in recent cycles.

Historically the industry has given to both sides of the aisle, but the contributions to Democrats are a troubling issue for some progressives and health advocates, who want the party to do more to rein in private insurers and reform the health care market. They worry the contributions will make it harder for Democrats to take a tougher line on insurers despite calls for change.

Insurance companies are using their money to try and influence not only Republicans but Democrats as well. The problem is that they control the whole system, Paco Fabian, director of campaigns at the progressive group Our Revolution, told The Hill.

Theyre influencing both sides and theyre doing it so that regardless of who wins, they continue to influence politics and policy.

Health care reform and the role of insurers has become the center of a fierce fight in the 2020 Democratic primary, with Sen. Bernie SandersBernie SandersBiden alleges Sanders campaign 'doctored video' to attack him on Social Security record Sanders campaign responds to Biden doctored video claims: Biden should 'stop trying to doctor' public record The Memo: Sanders-Warren battle could reshape Democratic primary MORE (I-Vt.) pushing his signature Medicare for All proposal that would get rid of private insurers. Former Vice President Joe BidenJoe BidenBiden alleges Sanders campaign 'doctored video' to attack him on Social Security record Sanders campaign responds to Biden doctored video claims: Biden should 'stop trying to doctor' public record Capt. "Sully" Sullenberger pens op-ed in defense of Biden: 'I stuttered once, too. I dare you to mock me' MORE, though, has criticized Sanders as well as Sen. Elizabeth WarrenElizabeth Ann WarrenThe Memo: Sanders-Warren battle could reshape Democratic primary Environmental activists interrupt Buttigieg in New Hampshire Pence to visit Iowa days before caucuses MORE (D-Mass.), who favors a more measured transition to Medicare for All by first passing legislation for optional government health insurance.

Biden has sharply attacked Medicare for All, saying it would be too costly and unrealistic. Biden and former South Bend, Ind., Mayor Peter Buttigieg (D) have instead pushed plans that give people the option of a government-run health plan without making coverage mandatory.

Sanders last year even urged fellow candidates to reject contributions from the health industry, including insurers.

But the centers numbers show the top-tier candidates having received contributions from companies and employees.

Blue Cross Blue Shield and its employees, for example, have given more than $24,000 each to Biden, Buttigieg and Sanders and more than $16,000 to Warren, according to the centers numbers. President TrumpDonald John TrumpTrump's newest Russia adviser, Andrew Peek, leaves post: report Hawley expects McConnell's final impeachment resolution to give White House defense ability to motion to dismiss Trump rips New York City sea wall: 'Costly, foolish' and 'environmentally unfriendly idea' MORE received more than $4,000.

UnitedHealth Group and its employees have given more than $25,000 to Sanders, nearly $20,000 to Biden, nearly $15,000 to Buttigieg, nearly $14,000 to Warren and more than $6,000 to Trump.

Cigna and its employees gave more than $8,000 to Buttigieg, $7,500 to Biden, more than $7,000 to Sanders, $5,500 to Warren and more than 3,300 to Trump.

And CVS Health and its employees have given $33,000 to Sanders, $20,000 to Buttigieg, about $12,000 to Warren, more than $9,000 to Biden and $5,000 to Trump.

The Biden campaign denied a request for comment, and Warrens and Sanderss campaigns did not respond to The Hills request.

We are proud to have the support of more than 730,000 Americans who have already donated to our campaign and the only promise any donor will ever get from Pete is that he will use their donations to defeat Donald Trump, Buttigiegs campaign said in a statement, adding that the candidates Medicare for all who want it plan would enact some of the boldest, most progressive changes.

Overall, the industrys contributions highlight its strength and influence with both parties.

Insurance companies and their employees understand that hedging their bets and giving money to both Republicans and Democrats is a smart way to stop any kind of health care reform, including, but not limited to, Medicare for All, Lisa Gilbert, vice president of legislative affairs at Public Citizen, told The Hill.

Insurers are so monied that they can outspend proponents exponentially, so there is no reason to choose sides.

Blue Cross Blue Shield and its employees have donated nearly $2 million so far in the 2020 cycle, and 54 percent of that has gone to Democrats, according to Center for Responsive Politics numbers.

UnitedHealth Group and its employees have donated nearly $1.3 million in the current cycle, with 54 percent going to Republicans.

Cigna and its employees, meanwhile, have contributed only $625,000 so far with 52 percent to Republicans and 47 percent to Democrats. And CVS Health and its employees have donated only about $610,000 so far, with 56 percent of that going to Democrats.

We make donations across the political spectrum and to elected officials from both major parties. Donations are by no means a blanket endorsement of an elected officials position on every issue, a spokesman from CVS Health told The Hill.

Cigna told The Hill it had no comment, and Blue Cross Blue Shield as well as UnitedHealth Group did not respond to The Hills request for comment.

Others noted that the insurance industry does not have a notably partisan workforce, unlike the technology industry whose workforce tends to embrace many liberal causes and is often found in blue states.

Margarida Jorge, executive director of the Lower Drug Prices Now coalition, noted that employers of insurance companies dont necessarily oppose Medicare for All.

A lot of people who are working in the health insurance industry and in health care at large actually have really progressive stances on health care and want to see less profit in the system, she said. Just because someone works for an insurance company doesnt mean they share the political ideology of the company.

Still, watchdog groups say those contributions will make it harder for Washington to enact health care reform, regardless of the 2020 outcome.

For years, the status quo of industry has been to line the pockets of elected on both sides of the aisle, said Kelly Coogan-Gehr, assistant director of public and community advocacy at National Nurses United, a union that represents nurses.

Over the past year, we have seen an increasingly aggressive effort on the part of the insurance industry and the health care industry in general to consolidate and to get organized around fighting Medicare For All.

Continue reading here:
Progressives raise red flags over health insurer donations | TheHill - The Hill

It's a conundrum: Thousands of young people - mostly students - have been demonstrating in Iran in recent days. They are protesting the unnecessary killing of their friends on the Ukrainian passenger plane shot out of the sky by the regime last week.

Videos aired in recent days show the majority of these students walking past American and Israeli flags placed on the ground by the authorities precisely for them to tread on.

Yet the protesters did the opposite and even expressed fury at the few who did step on the flags.

Iranian protesters largely walk around the American and Israeli flags rather than tread on them (Video: Twitter)

They have managed to maintain their free and independent thinking despite existing under a brainwashing regime. How?

Let's imagine this happened at UC Berkeley, where many students would love to trample all over these flags.

After all, hatred of the United States and Israel has become part of the identity for those who appear to be progressive and enlightened. Yet it is precisely Iranian young men and women who refuse to participate in such a display of hatred. Hope is not lost yet.

But let us not be deceived; they are not in the majority. There are more young people who choose to stay at home than there are young people who take to the streets. After all, these are demonstrations by hundreds, maybe thousands, not millions. These are protests of the brave.

But what a stark difference between the protesters in Iran and the radicals on campuses in the West. In the West, the radical avant-garde is characterized by a hatred of the West and Israel, whereas Iran's avant-garde is characterized by a hatred of the ayatollahs.

And while the Western avant-garde enters into coalitions of hate with jihadists and anti-Semites, the Iranian avant-garde abhors such dalliances.

Authorities fire tear gas at protesters in Tehran

(Photo: AP)

When the radicals in the West hold rallies of solidarity with the Hamas regime, Iran's protesters demonstrate against the regime's investments in Gaza.

"Is Iran the only adult in the room?" read a headline a few days ago on the website of feminist-radical-leftist movement Code Pink, whose leaders have already held talks with Hamas and the Taliban.

Iran, the article went on to explain, did indeed bomb two Iraqi bases hosting Americans, in Al-Asad and Irbil, but actually made an effort not avoid harming human life. It is only a matter of time before these radicals propose giving Ayatollah Ali Khamenei the Nobel Peace Prize.

But what about the thousands of protesters killed in Iran and Iraq by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and pro-Iranian militias?

Please, dont confuse these people with facts. The most important thing is to raise another cry of outrage against Donald Trump, who ordered the eradication of Qassem Soleimani, while simultaneously calling for peace with the ayatollahs' regime.

The problem is not the difference between Iran's protesters and Western radicals; when it comes to the West, the issue is much broader.

For it was Barack Obama, John Kerry and Federica Mogherini who legitimized the dark regime in Tehran.

Former EU Foreign Policy chief Federica Mogherini with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif

(Photo: AFP)

Not only did they never offer support to the brave protesters against the regime, they even saved it with the 2015 nuclear agreement.

They gave Soleimani the green light to continue his imperialist subversion. They released billions of dollars that gave a vigorous boost to Iran's industry of suppression and death.

Thanks to the nuclear agreement we got more weapons for Hezbollah, more development of ballistic missiles, more arms for the Houthi killers in Yemen.

The gap between Barack Obama and Code Pink is far narrower than it seems. Jodie Evans, one of the founders of the organization, was a fundraiser for Obama.

The president continued to meet with her in the White House even after she met with members of the Taliban. And the women and men of Evans' coterie are unable to utter a single word of support for the valiant protesters in Tehran.

For them, the problem is Trump, not the ayatollahs. The statements that they do make are mainly on lifting the Iranian sanctions.

One has to ask how it is that the West produces so many useful idiots, willing propaganda agents of the dark regime, while in Iran itself there is a generation of young people who are fighting against this reign of terror and for freedom and human rights.

Why the hell are Western progressives turning their backs on the brave young people of Iran?

We are used to this phenomenon when it comes to Israel, where progressives support a boycott of the Jewish state and the removal of sanctions on the Hamas regime in Gaza.

And they are not operating in isolation. They receive funding from the European Union as a whole and European countries separately.

This is the paradox of the radicals: progressives supporting the black-hearted and the racist.

They oppose those who are fighting evil elements, and now they are turning their backs on the Iranian protesters.

Go here to read the rest:
The duplicity of Western progressives - Ynetnews

Progressive groupDemand Justice on Monday applaudedSen. Bernie Sanders for his willingness to release a shortlist of judges he would consider appointing to federal judicial seatsshould he win the presidency in 2020.

The Vermont senator and candidate for theDemocratic presidential nomination told theNew York Timeseditorial board in an endorsement interview published Mondaythat he recognized the importance of being transparent with voters about the kind of judicial branch they could expect under his administration.

"It's a reasonable idea," Sanders said. "I'll take that into consideration. Nothing wrong with that. As to who [my] potential nominees for the Supreme Court would be. Yep."

"Releasing a Supreme Court shortlist would help voters understand how a candidate would deal with one of the most important issues facing the country and mobilize voters around a progressive vision for the courts."Brian Fallon, Demand Justice

In 2016, editorial board member Jesse Wegman noted in the interview, then-candidate Donald Trump enticed conservatives by releasing a shortlist of extreme right-wing judges who he was planning to appoint to federal judiciary seats.

Sanders's willingness to release his own shortlist "is a step in the right direction," said Demand Justice, as Democrats try to offer voters an alternative vision for the country after three years of Trump's presidency.

"Releasing a Supreme Court shortlist would help voters understand how a candidate would deal with one of the most important issues facing the country and mobilize voters around a progressive vision for the courts," said Brian Fallon, executive director of Demand Justice.

SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT

Get our best delivered to your inbox.

Since taking office in 2017, Trump has remade the judicial branch by appointing 187 conservative judges to federal seats, including his addition of two right-wing judges, Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch, to the U.S. Supreme Court.

With one-in-four U.S. circuit court judges now a Trump appointee, a key provision of the Affordable Care Act was struck down by one right-wing court weeks ago. Trump has flipped the court responsible for appeals from Georgia, Florida, and Alabama, which will soon hear several cases regarding voting rights.

"As the field narrows, all presidential candidates should prioritize the courts if they want to show voters they have a real plan to protect any of their other ideas from a hijacked judiciary," said Fallon.

As Common Dreams reported in October, Demand Justice has called on all the Democratic candidates to release lists of their potential judicial nominees.

The group also released its own shortlist for potential progressive nominees, including racial and criminal justice reform advocates Michelle Alexander and Bryan Stevenson; Nicole Berner, general counsel for the SEIU; and Judge Carlton Reeves, an Obama appointee who has blocked and sharply criticized some of the most extreme anti-choice laws put forward under the Trump administration.

"Democrats running for president...should be bold enough to pick someone who's worked to defend civil rights, workers' rights, or reproductive rights," said Fallon last year.

Read more:
Progressives Applaud Sanders for Willingness to Release List of Possible Judicial Nominees Before Election - Common Dreams

They want a president who will get things back to where they were in 2016, not 1950.

| 2:15 PM

One of the questions that has stumped (mostly white) reporters during the 2020 Democratic presidential primary is the overwhelming support Joe Biden is getting from African American voters. While it is true that other candidates garner some support from younger black voters, the older crowd remains firmly in Bidens camp.

Weve heard some helpful explanations of this phenomenon from African American commentators recently, like Charles Blow and Marcus Johnson. But Jason Johnson from The Root went right to the source and talked to a group of older black voters. A couple of things he heard stood out to me. First of all, these folks have been watching the political scene for decades nowand theyve drawn some conclusions.

Senior Week committee members see Trump as a threat and have policy preferences just like everyone else. However, they have seen decades of working class white America voting against their own economic interests if it meant screwing over African Americans, too. So many of them looked for the best candidate for black America this week one you could also sneak by white folks.

There has been a raging debate among Democrats for decades about whether it is possible to win back white working-class voters. More than any other group, African Americans know that racism sits at the center of that discussion. Given that their primary objective is to beat Donald Trump, these older black voters have made an interesting calculation. They are betting on a candidate they can sneak by white folks.

I suspect that one of the things that went unsaid in these discussions is that older African Americans have spent years making that kind of calculation and never succumbed to the idea that they have to be emotionally inspired by a presidential candidate. That leaves them free to be pragmatic on the question that seems to be front and center in 2020electability.

At one point, Johnson gives us a hint about why so many older African Americans are rejecting the arguments made by the more progressive candidates.

Just this week, Yang, again focusing on white voters, said that growth and progress have slowed for all Americans since the 1940s. I thought Yang was supposed to be good at MATH? Literally every generation of black people has done better than the previous one, (even kids in the 90s) but that doesnt mean the 40s were some golden age either. Trust me, we have committee members born in the 40sand by almost every empirical measure black Americans are better off in 2020 than we were in 1940.

Embedded in the minds of most white peopleregardless of party affiliationis the idea that life was better for middle-class Americans in the aftermath of World War II. Progressives hail things like FDRs New Deal and the rise of unions that spurred the hopes of an American dream.

What we tend to forget is that, for African Americans, racism and Jim Crow were alive and well through all of that. So the 40s and 50s were hardly a golden age for them. The trajectory of their lives didnt change until years after the success of the Civil Rights Movement. Eventually, African Americans started to buy into the so-called American dream. Back in 2011, Ellis Cose identified the countrys new optimists.

African-Americans, long accustomed to frustration in their pursuit of opportunity and respect, are amazingly upbeat, consistently astounding pollsters with their hopefulness. Earlier this year, when a Washington PostKaiserHarvard poll asked respondents whether they expected their childrens standard of living to be better or worse than their own, 60 percent of blacks chose better, compared with only 36 percent of whites.

Although many African Americans identify long-standing problems that still plague the communitysuch as unemployment and access to high-quality educationthe black population remains largely optimistic about the future and satisfied with the direction the country is going in, according to a new survey by Ebony magazine and the W.K. Kellogg Foundation.

The rise of that kind of optimism within the African American community coincided with the rise of white progressive angst about income inequality and the way that it was killing the American dream. In addition to the election of this countrys first African American president, that helps explain the disconnect between progressives and black voters during the Obama presidency.

Of course, the racism that fueled the election of Donald Trump turned all of that on its head. But that recent history helps explain why older African Americans would be suspicious about the kinds of deep structural changes proposed by the more progressive presidential candidates. Not only are they betting on Biden being the candidate they can sneak by white voters, they simply want a president who will get things back to where they were in 2016not 1950.

If you enjoyed this article, consider making a donation to help us produce more like it. The Washington Monthly was founded in 1969 to tell the stories of how government really worksand how to make it work better. Fifty years later, the need for incisive analysis and new, progressive policy ideas is clearer than ever. As a nonprofit, we rely on support from readers like you.

Yes, Ill make a donation

Read more:
Why the Progressive Message Isn't Resonating With Older African Americans - Washington Monthly

Welcome to Thursday's Overnight Health Care.

Progressive groups are raising red flags over health insurers donating to Democratic candidates, an HHS proposal on religious groups is getting pushback, and a Trump-appointed FTC commissioner broke with her party on drug prices.

We'll start with 2020 donors:

Progressives raise red flags over health insurer donations

A lot of Democrats are talking about "Medicare for All," which would essentially abolish private health insurance, but that's not stopping donations from the industry to Democrats.

Four big insurance companies -- Blue Cross Blue Shield, UnitedHealth Group, CVS Health and Cigna -- and their employees have given about $4.5 million collectively in campaign contributions in the 2020 cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Just more than half -- about $2.3 million -- of that has gone to Democrats, including to some of the party's top-tier presidential contenders. The Center for Responsive Politics totals are based on Federal Election Commission data through the third quarter of 2019 and include money from the companies and their PACs, owners and employees and their immediate families.

These companies and employees have been giving big, on both sides, in recent cycles, and that has progressives worried

"Insurance companies are using their money to try and influence not only Republicans but Democrats as well. The problem is that they control the whole system," Paco Fabian, director of campaigns at the progressive group Our Revolution, told The Hill.

Read more here.

Vaping illness update: 60 deaths in 27 states

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has confirmed 60 deaths in 27 states linked to the vaping-related lung illness outbreak that began this summer.

As of Tuesday, 2,668 cases of hospitalization or death were reported to the CDC.

The illnesses have been tied to THC vapes that were mostly obtained from informal sources, like friends, family or dealers.

The CDC investigation into the cause of the illnesses has zeroed in on vitamin E acetate, a chemical compound that has mostly been found in THC vaping products. According to experts, vitamin E has been used in unregulated, illegal vaping products to dilute THC oil in order to maximize profits.

Republican FTC commissioner says she supports Medicare negotiating drug prices

There's a somewhat unexpected source of support for Medicare negotiating drug prices: a Republican FTC Commissioner.

"I may touch a third rail here," Christine Wilson, said while speaking at a health care conference in Washington. "I think part of the problem is that the federal government has not been able to negotiate under certain parts of Medicare and Medicaid for pharmaceutical prices."

Context: The remarks from an appointee of President TrumpDonald John TrumpTrump's newest Russia adviser, Andrew Peek, leaves post: report Hawley expects McConnell's final impeachment resolution to give White House defense ability to motion to dismiss Trump rips New York City sea wall: 'Costly, foolish' and 'environmentally unfriendly idea' MORE to the FTC come amid a raging debate over high drug prices. Democrats are touting a bill the House passed in December to allow Medicare to negotiate lower prices.

But President Trump and Senate Republicans have rejected that bill, backing more modest alternatives.

"The federal government, which accounts for I think a third of pharmaceutical spending, is essentially a price-taker, and that seems like a problem to me," Wilson added at a conference hosted by the Council for Affordable Health Coverage, a coalition of health care companies and other groups.

Read more here.

Trump moves to protect money for religious organizations

Nine federal agencies -- including the departments of Justice, Health and Human Services and Education -- released proposed rules that aim to remove what Trump administration officials describe as "discriminatory regulatory burdens" that the Obama administration placed on religious organizations that receive federal funding.

Under the Obama rule, religious health care providers need to tell patients that they can receive the same services from a secular provider, and need to provide reasonable efforts to refer the patient elsewhere if he or she objects to the religious character of the organization.

The proposal drew swift backlash from Democratic lawmakers as well as LGBTQ and abortion advocates, who said it would give providers a license to discriminate. Advocates argued that some people seeking services at religious organizations may feel pressured to participate in religious activity.

They have also alleged the administration is unfairly giving more money to Christian organizations.

From Planned Parenthood Federation of America: "Our taxpayer dollars should go to organizations that provide culturally competent, expert care and services without discrimination -- not to organizations that deny services to vulnerable communities. This proposed rule is dangerous, and it could do serious harm to those who already face barriers to care, including LGBTQ people, women, and religious minorities."

Sen. Ron WydenRonald (Ron) Lee WydenHillicon Valley: Biden calls for revoking tech legal shield | DHS chief 'fully expects' Russia to try to interfere in 2020 | Smaller companies testify against Big Tech 'monopoly power' Lawmakers call for FTC probe into top financial data aggregator Overnight Health Care: Progressives raise red flags over health insurer donations | Republican FTC commish backs Medicare negotiating drug prices | Trump moves to protect money for religious groups MORE (D-Ore.):"This proposed rule amplifies previous actions by not only allowing faith-based providers to turn Americans away, but making it harder for those in need to find a place to go after they are denied services. This change could also tie the hands of local and state governments from stepping in to prevent discrimination."

Read more on the full picture of Trump's actions here.

Report: Progress in reducing racial gap in health insurance has stalled since 2016

While ObamaCare helped narrow gaps in access to health care for racial and ethnic groups, progress has stalled since 2016, according to a report released Thursday.

The rate of black and Hispanic adults with health insurance improved after implementation of the 2010 health care law, bringing it more in line with the rate of white adults who have health insurance.

But coverage gains for blacks and Hispanics have stalled since 2016, along with the overall population of the U.S., according to the report from the Commonwealth Fund.

"It's encouraging to see that the gaps in access to health care for black and Hispanic adults are narrowing over time, but we cannot let the progress we've made slip through our fingers," said Dr. David Blumenthal, president of the Commonwealth Fund.

Takeaway: The researchers note that racial gaps in coverage could shrink further if the remaining 15 states that haven't expanded Medicaid do so.

Read more here.

What we're reading

Pharma execs pitch ideas at #JPM20 to lower drug costs. None of them include dropping their own prices (CNBC)

What the 2020s have in store for aging boomers (Kaiser Health News)

'Donation after cardiac death': New heart transplant method being tested for the first time in the U.S. (Stat News)

State by state

Missouri governorpledges to combat violent crime, blasts Medicaid expansion in annual message (Kansas City Star)

Austin confirms its first case of rubella since 1999, less than a month after finding measles (KVUE)

Legislative mini-session produces little movement on health care issues, despite new call for Medicaid expansion (North Carolina Health News)

View original post here:
Overnight Health Care: Progressives raise red flags over health insurer donations | Republican FTC commish backs Medicare negotiating drug prices |...