This is a diary in response to
This is why Edwards is right, and Hillary is wrong on Health Care.
There were many factual errors in the diary about both Clinton and Edwards in the receiving of campaign contributions. Allow me to explain.
The claim about receiving "healthcare contributions" is misleading because subgroups within the healthcare group are conflicting with each other. In this group there are insurance companies that hate the idea of a universal healthcare plan, as well as groups that would like to see a universal healthcare plan such as hospitals, nurses, and doctors.
In the diary I am responding to, the claim was that Hillary Clinton received $2.7 million, Barack Obama received $2.2 million, and John Edwards received a "meager" $600,000 from the healthcare industry.
More below the fold....
But when you break down the campaign contributions they go like this:
Hillary: From health professionals: $1,645,565. From insurance: A "meager" $503,360.
Obama: From health professionals: $1,245,594. From insurance: A "meager" $395,290.
Edwards: From health professionals: $404,580. From insurance: Also a "meager" $121,257.
So the claim that insurance companies are suddenly sucking up to the Democratic party out of nowhere is complete b.s. Mitt Romney received over $600,000 from the insurance companies alone . Guilliani received $506,810, and McCain received $248,008.
Hillary has been the target of the media for sometime now on her campaign contributions from the healthcare industry, routinely claiming the falsehood that she is receiving money from the insurance companies by the truckload. Media Matters recently debunked this claim based on her 2006 contributions:
According to an updated Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) analysis of Clinton's campaign contributions -- which includes the contributions Clinton received for the entire 2006 cycle -- if contributions from individuals who are employed in the health care sector are excluded, Clinton would not even make the list of the top 25 congressional recipients of contributions from the health care industry for the 2006 election cycle. It is only when contributions from individuals are included that Clinton jumps to second place. This information and these rankings are updated on a quarterly basis by the CRP.
Also, there was also the claim in the diary that Edwards "is right on healthcare, and Hillary is wrong". This is misleading as well. The healthcare plan for Hillary and Edwards are essentially the same. John’s own wife said so:
Mrs. Edwards also said that she sees almost no differences between Clinton's health care plan, unveiled Monday in Des Moines, and that of her husband.
"I don't call it Senator Clinton's health care plan," Edwards said. "I call it John Edwards' health care plan as delivered by Hillary Clinton. The truth is that anyone who tries to describe Hillary's health care plan will run through every material part of John's health care plan.
"I just have to wonder, if John released his plan at the beginning of February, what took her seven and a half months to endorse it? We're glad for the endorsement."
For the record I haven’t picked someone who to support for the primary, although I’m leaning towards Edwards at the moment. But if you’re going to bash Hillary, do it for the right reasons. Do it because she can’t seem to ask a simple question. Do it because she was for the Iraq war up until she announced her candidacy. But don’t say that Edwards’ healthcare plan is better than Hillary’s. Even Edwards would disagree with you.
P.S. Every Dem candidate save Kucinich has emphasized the use of private insurance companies. Kucinich is the only one who is calling for medicare for all. And the amount of money he’s received from insurance companies: Nothing. He did, however, take $5,100 from pharmacutical/health products. Now that’s meager!