Jim Matheson is rapidly becoming one of the least effective members of Congress. A dedicated turncoat Blue Dog Democrat, Matheson – like most Blue Dogs – is a wholly owned subsidiary of corporate America.
From Open Secrets, for his 2008 campaign the top contributors were all PACS:
National Venture Capital Assn $$12,500
Pfizer Inc $10,252
American Academy of Ophthalmology $10,000
American Assn of Orthopaedic Surgeons $10,000
American Bankers Assn $10,000
His top contributors by industry?
Health Professionals
Pharmaceuticals/Health Products
Oil & Gas
Securities & Investment
Public Sector Unions
To give you an idea: Health Professionals contributed $183,000 to Matheson and the Pharmaceutical/Health Products industry contributed $117,000 – for a combined $300,000 from the health care industry (HMOs and Hospitals contributed another $51,000 – making the health care industry by far the largest contributed to Matheson’s re-election). By contrast, the Public Sector Unions contributed just under $58,000. The Oil and Gas and Securities & Investment PACS contributed $183,000 combined. Of the nearly $1.8 Matheson raised, PACS contributed $1.4 Million.
Matheson’s opposition to a vibrant, public option or a single payer reform is firmly rooted in the golden rule – he has the gold makes the rules and Matheson is not about to bite the hand the funds his re-election campaigns.
If you believe in real reform, make your voice heard, contact Matheson’s office and let them know. Be polite, direct and respectful. Tell them you are a constituent (if you are not a constituent of Matheson’s, call your own Representative! Here’s a site to find their contact info.)
Tell whoever answers the phone that you are a concerned constituent, give your name and if they ask, your city and address, then say you want to ask the Congressman to support a vital and strong public option for Health Insurance Reform, one that will compete against private health insurance and help bring costs down; tell them you would also like the Congressman to support HR 676 – the Single Payer bill introduced by John Conyers but his support of a strong public option is also acceptable.
BE POLITE. Be quick. Don’t take twenty minutes of the staffer’s time; don’t expect a major discussion.
When you’re done with that, follow up with an email.
You can go here to send a message via his website. You can call toll free: 1 (877) 677-9743.
Here’s his DC office:
2434 Rayburn HOB
Washington, DC 20515
Phone – (202) 225-3011
Fax – (202) 225-5638
His Salt Lake Office:
240 East Morris Avenue #235
South Salt Lake, UT 84115
Phone – (801) 486-1236
Fax – (801) 486-1417
St. George:
321 North Mall Dr., #E101B
St. George, UT 84790
Phone – (435) 627-0880
Fax – (435) 627-1473
Price/Eastern Utah:
Carbon County Courthouse
120 East Main Street
Price, UT 84501
Phone – (435) 636-3722
Fax – (435) 613-1834
Get to work people! We only have our crappy health care system to lose.
#1 by Richard Warnick on August 4, 2009 - 8:43 am
Rep. Matheson is a sure NO vote on health care reform. Other members of Congress have collected more money, but he can be bought relatively cheap.
Jimmy Kimmel said it: “They call them Blue Dogs because they roll over for the health care lobby.”
#2 by brewski on August 4, 2009 - 9:04 am
Glenden, I want real “reform” and this bill surely is not it.
It includes a provision which is worth $245 billion for doctors because it removes current formulae in place which would lower doctor payments in the future.
It preserves the rule that the Federal government may not negotiate on the price it pays for drugs even while the government negotiates prices for bandages, pencils, tanks, desks and copy paper.
It preserves the irrational tie between your job and your health care.
It raises payroll taxes thus making hiring someone more expensive.
It does not cover 3% of Americans. 3% of 300 million is 9 million.
It does nothing to slow the trajectory of rising health care costs.
If you want real reform, you should be strongly opposed to this bill.
#3 by brewski on August 4, 2009 - 9:15 am
Most revealing committee vote so far:
When Republicans inserted a clause which required all Congressmen and their staffs to personally sign up for the government plan, the majority of Democrats voted against it. It passed on the strength of Republican votes. No doubt the Dems will drop it in conference committee.
#4 by Glenden Brown on August 4, 2009 - 9:29 am
brewski –
I wish this bill were better. I would prefer HR 676 – I think a single payer system is the only long term viable system.
I’m also trying to be realistic. I think a vital and viable public option would be the beginnings of a single payer system. Given the political realities, the current proposals seem to be a step in the right direction.
That said, I would tell anyone reading this to adjust your message – ask to include the right to negotiate prices for prescription drugs.
What are some other things we can include to control costs?
#5 by Richard Warnick on August 4, 2009 - 9:44 am
Yeah, but aren’t those Republicans who claim to hate “government-run” health care all signed up for the gold-plated congressional health care plan, paid by taxpayers?
#6 by brewski on August 4, 2009 - 10:01 am
We have a really unhealthy country in so many ways that is entirely our own fault. A lot of it has to do with the corruption between Congress the USDA and the processed food industry. Have you read “In Defense of Food”?
Here is a partial list, a lot of this reflects my biases:
1. The Federal government should demand a clause in their contracts for drugs which guarantees that no-one else will get a lower price than the US Government except for 3rd world countries. So if Pfizer sells Liptor in Canada for $1 per pill and $5 in the US then the US would automatically get it for $1.
2. Payments to doctors should be based on an annual income projection with $750,000 year net income being the maximum. If any doctor thinks that an annual net income of $750,000 is not enough, then let them go be investment bankers.
3. The government should not cover at all some drugs which are not medically neccessary. Viagra comes to mind.
4. The direct cash subsidy program for corn, soy and wheat should be stopped.
5. All food sold at schools should not be approved by the USDA, but rather by a panel lead by the Surgeon General.
6. We should adopt the same malpractice liability practices as in Canada.
7. Physical Education should be required every day in K-12
Think about who is against these ideas:
Lawyer lobby
Processed food lobby
Drug manufacturer lobby
Doctor lobby
If you piss off these people then you are probably on the right track.
#7 by Glenden Brown on August 4, 2009 - 10:23 am
I should know this but talk more about the malpractice laws in Canada .. .
#8 by cav on August 4, 2009 - 11:10 am
I’m appreciating brewski’s inputs.
#9 by Ronald D. Hunt on August 4, 2009 - 11:15 am
How many lobbies do you think congress can fight at once? your advocating that we should fight the corn lobby the teacher lobby, the doctor lobby, the drug lobby, legal lobby, more grass root tax lobbies against additional educational spending.
The number of lobbies their fighting right now is out of hand. Getting what they have so far is practically miraculous.
“Pissing” off those people represent a swatch of industry worth trillions, It would destroy the party that tried to do it all at once. We need practical solutions not pie in the sky kick the Man in the shins solutions that have no possibility of passing.
We need to reach single payer before we can tackle the issues of single buyer negotiation, which would be the eventual drug cost solution. Single buyer negotiation is why drugs are cheaper in Canada. Of course single buyer has advantages outside of just drugs, hospital stays in japan cost around $10 per day due to single buyer(note the $10 is covered by their national insurance plan).
#10 by cav on August 4, 2009 - 11:36 am
Ronald, the hidden strategy is to manipulate them to where, ultimately, they are just crashing into one another and they implode into the alternate universe they dream of.
It cannot happen soon enough.
Which brings me to the old notion of ‘Love it or leave it’… Imagine – all the wingnuts either drive all the sensible, peaceful people out, or they themselves leave and set up a new country of thier own somewhere. Insanity and greed would certainly prevail.
#11 by brewski on August 4, 2009 - 12:57 pm
Canada has a single-payer health insurance scheme that covers virtually all residents. Most physicians are in private practice and they bill the insurance plans for their services. Being in private practice, they require medical liability insurance. This is usually obtained through a professional organization (CMPA). Fees are lower than in the United States for a number of reasons. Two of these are that Canada’s highest courts have set limits on awards and the country’s liability laws make establishing professional negligence more difficult.
Another is that the physicians’ insurance company defends lawsuits very vigorously.
The vast majority of medical defence in Canada is underwritten by the Canadian Medical Protective Association (CMPA), a nonprofit, mutual defence association of physicians.
The CMPA vigorously defends every action that is in any way defensible, irrespective of short term economic expediency.
In contrast with a personal injury action, where the amount of effort worth expending to defend may be limited by a small quantum of damages, the Association will incur considerably higher cost rather than risk setting malpractice precedents.
#12 by brewski on August 4, 2009 - 1:01 pm
Ronald,
I understand that it is hard to fight so many lobbies at once. But the Pelosi strategy has been not to take on any lobby at all. So the result is that they are in effect paying off the doctors, lawyers, drug makers, food processors, etc etc etc. So all of them get paid off and we end up paying.
I would be happy if they took on just one or two of them.
#13 by Robspierre!! on August 4, 2009 - 1:28 pm
Right about the drugs Brewski, the pharma giants have to petition the government of Canada for the right to sell a drug. The government sets the price wholesale and decide what it can be sold for at retail, no more. If not it won’t be allowed in, and Canada will find a drug like it at low cost to do the job it is intended to do, or develop it themselves. The pharma’s accept this, and market the drug at the agreed price.
We are the country where pharma makes the big bucks, and without the exorbitant price structure of prescription drugs here they would cry foul and claim they won’t have an money for R and D. I’m sure the lobby is fully cranked up right now as we write.
This situation is similar to technology sales there as well, the government often demands that only the most up to date technology be allowed to be sold in the country. They will not allow the constant market incrementalism in technology that we see in “free market’ nations. Dumping old tech in Canada isn’t much allowed.
The lawsuit industry in Canada is limited, due to the set awards for damages the contingency fee structure for lawsuits is rare and most often out of pocket payments for lawyers are how the cases move forward, or with the help of the Legal Services Society of Canada which offers pro bono lawyers for people criminally wronged at the hands of the health care system.
#14 by Todd on August 4, 2009 - 5:04 pm
Matheson has raised nearly $10 million in political contributions over the course of his career. It is a lamentable necessity. For without those resources, there is no question of his — or any other Democrat — even being elected.
If you figure that health care is 16% of our economy, then it would be expected that he would have raised about $1.6 million from that sector over the years.
Nothing I have seen has shown that he has gotten anywhere near that much. Indeed, given that his wife is a pediatrician, I would expect it to be higher, and yet it is not.
Have they been among the largest givers over the past cycle or two? Yes. That is because their issues are coming to the fore.
There is nothing surprising nor sinister about the amounts or timing. I have not seen Jim act in any manner that would inure extraordinarily to their benefit, and indeed, have seen him act in ways to support cost controls that they are probably not too fond of.
Additionally, Matheson does support a public option in the form of co-ops or mutual insurance, but he does not support that it be run by the government itself. Obama has said that the overhaul needed a public insurance option to enforce market “discipline,” but stopped short of saying he would veto legislation without one or that it necessarily be government-run.
Neither Matheson nor Obama support single payer.
#15 by Todd on August 4, 2009 - 5:13 pm
I started my political career lobbying health issues in the late 1980s. I worked for the Party during the Clinton efforts at health reform.
I completely believe that if it weren’t for the Blue Dogs constant bargaining, health insurance reform would be dead already.
I remember the Clinton era too well. They had a Democratic House and Senate and never even got a committee vote.
Obama’s has now passed five of the six committees it needs to move on to a floor vote.
Despite Matheson’s “no” vote in committee, the committee had a passing vote because Jim and his friends stayed at the table until there was a compromise that could obtain a majority vote.
There is still much work to be done. The Senate still has one committee to report out. A synthesized bill put together by the Rules Committee of the differing committee bills in each body, an initial floor vote in each body, and then, finally and hopefully, a conference bill that is hammered out between the two bodies.
Death comes with a whimper. All it takes to fail is for one of these six votes to not happen.
It is not likely to die as the result of a majority of votes against, it will die because they can’t round up enough yes votes to even proceed.
The Republicans have just walked away – or worse are calling for the death of the process.
The Blue Dogs have not. They are still at the table continuing to fight for something they can support.
Matheson is a loyal Democrat and he is not an obstructionist. He is working the process to make sure that in addition to creating improved access for all Americans, it is fiscally responsible.
However, we don’t take just Jim or the Party’s word for his good works on this issue. Obama said that his meetings with the Blue Dogs and Matheson were constructive. Gov. Howard Dean on today’s NPR Talk of the Nation praised the Blue Dogs for their efforts despite having a different position on some aspects of the issue.
No one has been betrayed by Matheson on health care — except Matheson himself by certain segments of base Democrats who really want single payer.
#16 by Glenden Brown on August 4, 2009 - 5:58 pm
Todd – first off, I’m glad you have some history on this issue. The forces opposed to health care reform are not interested in the public good and they will spend whatever it takes to convince people that they are interested in the public good.
The Republicans can walk away because the Blue Dogs have been doing their work for them – watering down a good, progressive policy with a series of conservative compromises to weaken the public option. Given the overall satisfaction with Medicare – a government run single payer system – is higher than those of us with private insurance it seems to me that the congressman’s stance against a government run public option is at best incoherent and at worst ideologically blind.
Given Rep Matheson’s track record of supporting massive, budget busting tax cuts during the last eight years, it seems to me he has little credibility on the matter of fiscal responsibiliity. Like most of the Blue Dogs, Matheson has did precious little to actually fight for a sane national budget – which of necessity will include higher taxes and ending overseas seas and maybe actually confronting our runaway spending on the military-industrial complex – all of which stands that would require a level of political courage I have never seen from the congressman.
To argue that the process is complex and therefore we must be careful is a nonstarter. The Great Society programs, the Civil Rights Act and other important and far-reaching legislation was passed through an equally complex process. A weak, ineffective public option – for instance one that is allowed only as an option for people who can’t get other insurance – will result in a public option that doesn’t work and does conservatives work for them. I would hope a democratic congressman as smart as Jim Matheson would realize that and would not aid and abet that outcome.
#17 by Glenden Brown on August 4, 2009 - 6:06 pm
Also yes absolutely I am critical of the things Matheson has done but don’t get confused. From where I stand, Jim Matheson has tried to compromise with people on the right who are not interested in compromise- he’s either been duped or been a willing accomplice in some of the worst public policy in this nation’s history. Why he seems so dedicated to finding a middle ground on reform with people who hope reform fails is a mystery to me. I hope the congressman will find some way to find his backbone and stand for Democratic ideals – fighting for the little guy against corporate special interests.
Many years ago, FDR gave a speech defending the New Deal and he said (I’m paraphrasing) ‘yes, I have invited the animosity of some people and I welcome their animosity.” He was of course talking about the hatred the rich and powerful felt for him. I would like to see my congressman – whose signs have been in my yard – follow in those footsteps.
#18 by Cliff Lyon on August 4, 2009 - 6:12 pm
Blue Dog ass. Why are the biggest idiot politicians from the south?
#19 by Cliff Lyon on August 4, 2009 - 6:16 pm
I believe Matheson has collected over $1m from the health industry, so the number is about right.
The fact that health is 16% of our economy is outrageous dont you think?
#20 by glenn on August 4, 2009 - 6:29 pm
“Blue Dog ass. Why are the biggest idiot politicians from the south”?
So predictable.
Ah, the cannibalism of the Democrat party has begun.
#21 by brewski on August 4, 2009 - 9:55 pm
Obama:
Lawyers/Law Firms $42,824,802
Securities & Investment $14,788,852
Health Professionals $11,668,755
McCain:
Lawyers/Law Firms $9,919,846
Securities & Investment $8,641,821
Health Professionals $5,255,411
Hmm, looks like the lawyers and doctors and investment bankers are getting their money’s worth from their hired lackey now.
#22 by brewski on August 4, 2009 - 10:18 pm
Pelosi:
Health Professionals $90,500
Insurance $31,000
Lawyers/Law Firms $27,150
Gee, what a surprise.