Sen. Grassley: “Bipartisan” means “no public option”

- Image by Getty Images via Daylife
Aw, c’mon, Senator.
72% of Americans want health care reform to include a “public option.” Nearly three-fourths of the nation. Including more than half of all Republicans.
Sen. Grassley, however, insists that the “public option” must be killed if there is to be a “bipartisan” bill.
But wait. Isn’t America already bipartisan on this? Even Iowans, Mr. Grassley’s constituents, support a public option 56% to 37%.
Mr. Grassley wants the Senate to ignore what a bipartisan majority of American people want in order to get what a minority of U.S. Senators want.
Ah. Then, he’d maintain, we’d have something bipartisan. In Washington. Hooray for that.
|
By the way, Senator Grassley is the 6th-largest recipient of health care industry money in the U.S. Senate.
Looks like the industry’s getting what it wants from Mr. Grassley.
Looks like Americans—and Iowans—aren’t.
Related articles by Zemanta
- Americans Want Real Health Care Reform. Help Us Make Congress Understand (crooksandliars.com)
- What you can do to support the public option (mydd.com)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=d5e652b3-accd-4123-9207-a39ea2118017)

to this blog







[...] Sen. Grassley: “Bipartisan” means “no public option” (masbury.wordpress.com) [...]
Telling the Expedient Lie
September 1, 2009 at 9:43 am
[...] Sen. Grassley: “Bipartisan” means “no public option” (masbury.wordpress.com) [...]
Dazzling: Olberman indicts elected officials on healthcare-funded campaigns « The Least, First
August 17, 2009 at 3:48 pm
[...] Sen. Grassley: “Bipartisan” means “no public option” (masbury.wordpress.com) [...]
Deep Brain Diary » Blog Archive » Grassley Defines the Meaning of “Bipartisanship”
August 17, 2009 at 11:42 am
[...] Sen. Grassley: “Bipartisan” means “no public option” (masbury.wordpress.com) [...]
Contributions from Health Sector to Lawmakers Increased 7 Percent in Second Quarter | linkthe.com
August 14, 2009 at 7:41 pm
Unless you follow the money, you won’t get his stand. Unless you EXPOSE the money, neither will your fans: According to MAPLight.org, which follows Money And Politics, Sen. Grassley has received $1.5 million in campaign contributions from health-related industries that could be hurt by a public option.
His bi-partisan colleague on this, Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT), received $2.5 million from the same corporate interests. The Billings Gazette reportedly found that Baucus raises $1,500 a DAY from the medical-industrial complex, more than any other Democratic senator.
He’s collecting it even as he forges the legislation that could protect or hurt them. Does anyone think he is NOT on the phone asking those private health care institutions what they can live with until the heat is off, and how to placate the public while minimizing loss of profits to his fiscal benefactors?
Conflict of interest doesn’t get more blatant than this. As you can see, these lawmakers have to choose between their voting constituencies and the private interests that finance every election – in effect, their very careers. It’s easy when voters aren’t paying attention, but on this front-page issue both Grassley and Baucus are walking a tightrope.
Their constituents have to ask them publicly and often: How can they possibly work for what 72% of the public wants when they are indentured servants to their perennial sponsors?
Dale Mead
June 29, 2009 at 6:32 pm
A very good question – thanks! Senator Grassley has to decide whether to protect the insurance industry or the voters, and the industry pays his campaign bills. At the moment, it appears they’re getting plenty of bang for their buck.
It could be the beginning of his demise.
Monte
June 30, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Good blog! I
nirumi
June 26, 2009 at 5:52 pm
Thanks!
Monte
June 27, 2009 at 10:11 am