SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for SoyCow8317
All 535 members of Congress, and how much money they got from ISPs
In March, we published a story that showed contributions from the ISP industry to members of Congress who voted to repeal a landmark FCC privacy rule, opening the door to the sale of customer data. It was one of our most popular stories of the year, and many of you asked why we only published contributions to some members of Congress. Incidentally, every one of the 265 members who voted for the measure in March were Republicans. And many of those same members endorse the effort to end net neutrality.
But it's fair to want to see monetary influence across all of Congress. While it is clear that alignment with the ISPs is currently drawn along party lines, the industry's attempt to gain favor with lawmakers is not partisan. Entrenched telecommunications companies liberally spread money and attention to everyone who holds office. Sometimes that influence comes in the form of lavish parties with Olympic athletes and lobbyists, but consistently it comes in the form of contributions to campaigns.
It's impossible to quantify the overall influence of this powerful industry, but we can chart some of it.
Senator John McCain (R-AZ) leads the Senate with $2,554,784. Following him are Senators Ed Markey (D-MA) ($1,692,749), Roy Blunt (R-MO) ($1,283,416), Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) ($1,119,163), Bill Nelson (D-FL) ($1,028,790), and Senate Minority Leader Charles E Schumer (D-NY) ($984,757).
In the House, Representative Greg Walden (R-OR02) received $1,605,986, followed by Reps. Fred Upton (R-MI06) ($1,590,125), Steny H Hoyer (D-MD05) ($1,429,710), Joe Barton (R-TX06) ($1,262,757), John M Shimkus (R-IL15) ($1,044,204), and James E Clyburn (D-SC06) ($1,030,550).
In the Senate, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) took the least from the telecom industry at just $40,219. In the House, Representative Warren Davidson (R-OH08) took just $15 (muffins? flowers? bus fare?) and the next guy up the list took $1,040.
(Score: 1) by pTamok on Tuesday December 12 2017, @10:19AM (5 children)
The point about health care simply demonstrates his [McCain's] deep hypocrisy. He won't touch it himself, none of his friends would either, the thought is laughable. Yet he works tirelessly to make sure that the rest of us, the 'little people' that are called upon to pay for, and sometimes to die for, this mans hair-brained schemes, have no other choice.
Er..Whut?
Is he campaigning for a law to prevent people who use socialized health-care from purchasing health-care services? Provision of socialized health care does not prevent people with the means to do so from either (a) buying health-care directly or (b) buying additional health-insurance. If he doesn't use socialized health-care he is entitled to, and instead buys health services on the open market, he is giving up resources that could have been used on him so they can be used for someone else (who might, possibly, have greater need).
Now, if you want to argue about whether being a member of a health-care scheme should be compulsory or not, that is a different kettle of fish. If you wish to be able to opt-out of socialized health care, please explain why you shouldn't be able to opt out of paying for a military if you are pacifist, or opt out paying for a coast-guard if you live in a state without a coast, or opt out of paying for schools if you are childless. All of those can, and have been debated, so there is a rational debate to be had on healthcare. While people can self-describe as anarchist or libertarian, they don't live in a vacuum, and the rest of society (which could well be in a majority) may well have different views and impose them. That's the deal with living in groups of people. You can certainly campaign for your views, and if you wish, join the Free State Project [freestateproject.org], but please at least acknowledge that people can have opposing views without being idiots. I wish you luck in finding somewhere to live unmolested by government.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by moondrake on Tuesday December 12 2017, @11:57AM (2 children)
In principle I agree with socialized health care. I live in Europe, and we have some of that here. And it works fine I think (and there is not much of the funny 2-tier healthcare system for people with money and people without money).
HOWEVER, at some point, my home country at the time started to force me into paying for its mandatory health-care system. Even although I already had a private insurance (I needed this because at the time I moved around quite a bit between countries and the mandatory insurance would not provide me with coverage I needed). In the end, I ended up officially immigrating from that country to avoid paying double.
So I can see where some of the criticism comes from. It would be nice to be able to opt out in case you have a valid alternative insurance. Of course, the problem is going to be that someone has to decide what kind of insurance is good enough.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by TheRaven on Tuesday December 12 2017, @05:21PM
That's a terrible idea, because you end up splitting the insurance pool into two groups: rich and poor. The state-provided healthcare then is then only funded by the poor people and so, because a large subset of those will have no income and therefore no ability to pay towards it, will be underfunded, which will lead more people to opt out, until eventually you're left with only the people who don't pay any tax using it and no one paying for it.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 12 2017, @06:23PM
Nope, what should be available to you is separate insurance that only covers you when out of the country. Pretty sure you can get that, but I'm the price is probably rather high since traveling is a higher risk.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Tuesday December 12 2017, @03:24PM
There are a few folks like McCain with large fortunes to call on, there are many more that work hard and make enough money to pay for their needs - once.
With Obamacare, we're required to purchase the mandatory coverage with that money. If that coverage doesn't serve our needs? Too bad. Have to buy it anyways. Only enough money to pay for your health care once, not twice? Well, buddy, you're screwed. Why didn't you inherit a few million from daddy?! What's wrong with you?
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 3, Informative) by urza9814 on Tuesday December 12 2017, @09:44PM
And he also has no incentive to improve the system because he's paying for it but not using it. So it's in his interest to cut costs even if that decreases the quality of service. Particularly when talking about the VA -- that means he thinks it's good enough for someone who risks their life for the country, but at the same time his own actions say that he doesn't think it's good enough for HIM. If he just wants to free up resources, he can buy an equivalent plan from a private insurer. If he's buying a *better* plan, then he's just admitting that he thinks he deserves better than what he proposes for others.
It's like if you visited Microsoft's HQ and every single computer there was a Mac. Frees them up to work on things regular users care about instead of focusing on the needs of developers, right? Or it just means their software is garbage and they know it and have given up on fixing it.