"We've come too far and gained too much momentum for our efforts to fail over disagreement on one single issue,"--Tom Daschle to ABC News
Tom Daschle has come out against a public health insurance policy option. The former Democratic Senate majority leader from South Dakota now works as a "special policy advisor" for Alston & Bird, a law firm whose clients are major players in the health care industry. Clients and the amount of reported fees include the American Hospital Association ($80,000) Bayer AG ($120,000), Generic Pharmaceutical Association ($190,000), Health Management Association ($120,000), HealthSouth Corp. ($440,000) and Roche Group ($120,000) among others. The Center for Responsive Politics says that Aston & Bird filed 68 lobbying reports in 2008 on issues pertaining to health care.
Daschle is promoting his own compromise health care bill as part of the Bipartisan Policy Center. He has teamed up with Repugnant graybeards Howard Baker and Bob Dole to push a compromise plan that establishes optional public insurance pools administered by the states. It also mandates that individuals purchase insurance if there employers do not provide it. Daschle estimates it would take four years to achieve universal coverage under the proposal. Among the contributors to the Bipartisan Policy Center is the giant pharmaceutical company Schering-Plough. Its contribution is described as "substantial" on the Center's federal disclosure form. The co-director of the health care project is former Clinton official Chris Jennings, who is also president of Jennings Policy Strategies, a lobbying firm that has earned millions from companies with interests in health care. Clients of Jennings include the Generic Pharmaceutical Association ($2 million in fees since 2001), the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association ($450,000) and Actelion Pharmaceuticals ($320,000). Does Tom Daschle really have any credibility left after loosing his appointment to be Obama's health secretary because he did not report compensation to the IRS? Answer: only in Washington--where the term 'conflict of interest' is an inside joke.
When Democrats walk away from fights they can win they pay for it in votes because people start agreeing with Ralph Nader: there is no fundamental difference between the two parties. 44 campaigned to bring change to Washington by taking on special interests. Yet, in the biggest of showdowns with the massive private health insurance lobby, fifty years in the making, Democratic Congress members are apparently unwilling to use their procedural advantages (50 votes instead of 60), and the unwavering public support for real health care reform (NBC/Wall Street Journal says 76% of respondents want the freedom of a public-private choice). Voluntarily eliminating the public option in order to pick up a few votes would deflate their own progressive supporters who are working hard to pass real reform. Would Repugnants do that to their base? Not!