What a surprise? Huh? A guy who owns an insurance company is against a public option;
Despite his criticism of the unfunded Medicaid expansion, Rounds said he did not want to be misconstrued as opposing health care reform — though he did voice skepticism, shared by many conservatives, about the government offering a public health insurance option.
Of, course, he is speaking as our ‘governor’ not as a ‘insurance man’. Whatever.
Nobody seems opposed to healthcare reform, but nobody has done jack$hit about it. Part of me says if you have kept your mouth shut about healthcare with no effort to make it better while you sit and utilize your government funded healthcare program… you lose any right to bitch when someone has an idea.
Oh they have ideas… just really bad ones.
Of course, Al Gore is 100% impartial when it comes to Cap & Trade despite owning several billion dollars worth of interest in carbon trading firms.
I’m sure everything is on the up and up when the Obama administration rescinded the need for labor unions to report any potential conflicts of interest.
Listen, if the best you can do to shoot down opposition to Obamacare is to cite conflicts of interest, then your philosophical position must be pretty weak.
GL- Huh? Conflict of interest is exactly what will kill healthcare reform. You can’t tell me Thune taking millions in contributions from the industry is what motivates him to be against it? Grow a brain dude. As for using Gore as an example, nice Sy move, Al Gore is no longer a lawmaker, he can do what he wants.
Al Gore? WTF does he have to do with anything…he isn’t a politician and can’t vote for or establish policy.
That said, even though I have seen evidence debunking the myth that Gore is getting rich from the green movement, I’m left wondering if it even matters?
If someone found a cure for cancer in pill form would we chastise them for profitting from the sale of the drug? If someone discovered that milk could increase lifespans by 5 years on average, would we berate them for investing in a dairy farm?
The fact is, what a private citizen does isn’t really a valid comparison to what a politician does. T. Boone Pickens tells us we need to invest in wind energy and burn propane in our vehicles in order to reduce our need for foreign oil, but the reality is Pickens is heavily invested in propane and if his plan actually succeeded, he would make billions – but who the hell cares?
Do you see people out there bitching about Pickens and saying his ideas are crazy just because he might profit a few bucks? No you don’t. Because it doesn’t matter… he is just a man with an idea, and he can endorse it or spin it however he wishes.
Now if Gore or Pickens were elected officials and setting policy which directly benefits their own pocketbooks, or if they were in bed with companies which were financing their campaigns – then it would be a problem.
That is sort of the point here. Is Rounds really against an overhaul of healthcare because he thinks the government plan is too expensive or will be inefficient, or is he against it because it might hurt his personal balance sheet? Considering he isn’t in Congress and his opinion on the matter is no more valid than any other US citizen, I’d have to go with the second choice on this one.
I could be wrong – but when talking about politicians I tend to error on the side of them being more interested in their bank accounts than the well being of the public.
Do you see people out there bitching about Pickens and saying his ideas are crazy just because he might profit a few bucks? No you don’t.
Actually, I’ve heard a few.
Being rich makes you a target. Being really rich makes you a really big target – especially if you’re a republican.
Costner, I agree about Rounds motives.
These are some pretty astounding mental gymnastics that you guys have to go through to try and hold fast to your notion that only Republicans ever have conflicts of interest. And you can say Al Gore is not a public figure all you want… he won a nobel peace prize and every time there is some convoluted climate change bill he strolls off his private jet and addresses Congress and/or the UN and/or spreads a bunch of disinformation.
Seriously. If you guys want to sound intelligent, you need to come up with a better defense of your position than “OMG THUNE IS IN BED WITH BIG OIL/HEALTH/BANKS!”
If you show me a national politician that isn’t bought out, then I’ve got some prime oceanfront property just east of Brookings.
The fact is this: Every politician receives contributions. They have to… running a campaign costs money. And, despite what supporters will tell you about the constitutional travesty that is McCain-Feingold, campaign contribution is a form of free speech.
Wake up. Every single politician in Washington has taken millions in contributions. For example: In the 2008 election cycle, Democrats ended up taking almost 20% more money from the Health sector than Republicans. UH OH! I SURE HOPE THE HEALTH CARE LEGISLATION DOESN’T END UP FAVORING SOME PROVIDERS OVER OTHERS! Like that one time, when Barry requested a million dollar earmark for the hospital Michelle was working at, and then Michelle’s salary more than doubled to about $312,000 per year. (http://bit.ly/ggeuS)
Oh man, what good times THOSE were! Yeah. Rounds and those dastardly Republicans… when will they stop using their political power for their own ends!
(And for the record Pickens is a jackhole. He’s about as anti-competitive as you can get. And Thune? Puh-lease… the guy is about as conservative as McCain… i.e. not much. I say vote ’em all out.)
These are some pretty astounding mental gymnastics that you guys have to go through to try and hold fast to your notion that only Republicans ever have conflicts of interest.
The only mental gymnastics at play here are those which somehow convince you anyone who has posted made such a suggestion.
Go back and read the posts… not a single person is even suggesting it is only Republicans who have conflicts of interest. Then again this particular post was about Rounds, but if you are trying to infer that it falls under the guise of painting all Republicans as having conflicts of interest… well let’s just say that is quite a stretch even for someone who clearly earned a gold medeal for his mental gymnasitics.
And you can say Al Gore is not a public figure all you want… he won a nobel peace prize and every time there is some convoluted climate change bill he strolls off his private jet and addresses Congress and/or the UN and/or spreads a bunch of disinformation.
You really need to work on your reading comprehension. Nobody is saying Gore isn’t a public figure. The statements were that Gore is a private citizen – not a lawmaker, politician, or public official which means he can’t vote for or pass legislation. Thus in this context, it is an impossibility for him to have a conflict of interest.
I realize it is fun to try and pick on Al Gore, but he has nothing to do with the topic at hand. The topic is in reference to politicians (Rounds specifically) being influenced due to the impact to his bottom line. A guy who owns an insurance company will most likely be against a public insurance option just as a guy who owns a waterpark is probably against a public pool that includes waterfalls, slides, and rafts that float down a lazy river.
Thus you can attempt to make this a Democrat vs. Republican issue all day long, but by doing so you clearly have missed the point. Pay attention long enough and you’ll surely see articles that cite other politicians conflicts of interest – and it does’t matter if they are Democrat or Republican, it just matters.