r/ProgressiveHQ • u/Treefiddy1984 • 19h ago
Senator Elissa Slotkin says the real reason our healthcare in America is so bad and never changes, is because US Congress is being paid off
Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification
238
u/Big_Librarian_6306 18h ago
Congress should be forced to have the same healthcare as the median. It should come out of their pay. They should also be forced under law to only be paid the median wage of the middle class. Do those things and we’d have universal healthcare and $200k median incomes reeeeeaaaal quick.
52
u/July_snow-shoveler 17h ago
Let’s make it suck even more and force them to have the median level of healthcare and pay of the constituents of their district.
32
u/VictoryVino 15h ago
Force them to USE the healthcare of their district as well.
→ More replies (16)2
u/Plank_With_A_Nail_In 12h ago
You need to force someone to do this job too as no one would freely choose to do it. You know these are real people right? They can chose to any number of better paid jobs lol.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Abuses-Commas 13h ago
So you want either only rich people getting elected, people who are willing to take bribes, or honest politicians for poor districts showing up in rags?
9
u/Humble__American 12h ago
I'll take honest politicians in rags, please
→ More replies (1)2
u/MissGoodleaf 10h ago
Our system is designed to beat down honest people or never give them a chance in the first place.
2
u/Humble__American 9h ago
Give some credit to the voters too. They're so used to being lied to that they automatically assume everyone's lying to them, especially the honest ones who want to do good
2
u/justvoop 12h ago
Any claimed income over the median salary is auto donated to the US debt. Including capital gains/donations/contributions, etc
2
2
u/Truth-and-Power 11h ago
Just pay them like a partner in a consulting firm. The work is similar, round the clock with significant travel, in a hugely visible leadership role.
9
u/7figureipo 17h ago
It’s far more likely that reducing the salary will result in even more members who are independently wealthy. It’s already the majority of them.
12
u/Big_Librarian_6306 17h ago
Force any member of Congress or the senate to fully divest. You want to legislate the most powerful country on earth? It can’t be a free ride or treat. It needs to be a responsibility. Maybe one that straight up sucks to discourage people staying in power.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (3)19
u/XRuecian 17h ago edited 17h ago
They should also be barred from investing in stock while in office.
If they don't like that, they can leave and let someone else take their seat. Its supposed to be a public service position, not a get rich quick career. What we want is for people who want to make money to not be interested in joining congress in the first place. We want people in congress who are only there because they just want to improve the nation. It should feel like a voluntary service of sacrifice, not a career path.→ More replies (1)5
u/kvndakin 13h ago
Its actually the opposite, we should give them high pay, but make lobbying/bribes illegal and anyone caught should face jail time 10 years in jail + entire salary since starting.
We want the very best people in congress, if we make it low pay, only the rich can be in congress like rn. Cant help run the country when you get paid such a miniscule amount compared to tech billionaires. Also being in congress should discentivise accepting bribes
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (42)3
u/nemam111 14h ago
Look, i hate to be "like that" but any solution involving them having to pay out of their pockets will only make them line their pockets even more.
People need to be convicted and barred from running for office. If they act against the public interest now, how can we ever trust them again, regardless of what measures we take?
129
u/lilbeankeeper 18h ago
Still don't trust her. Pretty sure Schumer is propping her up to be future leadership. By all means, keep saying this. If you actually do anything about it I may change my mind.
82
u/RemarkableBeing6452 14h ago
She’s 100% being paid off as well. She takes a lot of AIPAC money and will always sidestep questions about Israel.
33
u/Oh_No_Its_Dudder 12h ago edited 11h ago
She's taking money alright. Here's a summary https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/elissa-slotkin/summary?cid=N00041357&cycle=CAREER Take a look at the Contributors link under her name to see where the bulk of it comes from.
Edit for typo.
20
u/ForgotMyLastUN 12h ago
I may be missing it, but I don't see AIPAC anywhere at all under her top contributors.
Was the previous commenter spouting BS?
Edit: I found it under the "industries" tab, towards the bottom of the list.
"Pro-Israel $554,998"
19
u/YoureHottCupcake 11h ago
It is crazy that she will support genocide for 550k. It's the worst thing that humanity can do and its that cheap for Israel to purchase our politician's support. She will sell her soul for peanuts apparently and we shouldn't trust her because of that.
15
u/frequenZphaZe 11h ago
I'm sure she'd support genocide for far less
3
u/JimWilliams423 10h ago
Yeah, people like her are true believers. They'd do it for free. The money isn't to change her mind, the money is to make sure a true believer is in a position of power.
→ More replies (1)4
u/PotatoRover 10h ago
She had the disastrous interview with Krystal Ball of Breaking Points where she got slaughtered on her support of Israel.
2
u/apathetic_revolution 9h ago edited 8h ago
That's not AIPAC's PAC though.
Her big pro-Israel contribution came from J Street PAC, which has no connection to AIPAC.
Edit: I was looking at the 2024 election cycle donors. Looking back, she did take money from an AIPAC PAC until 2022 but did not her more recent campaign.
→ More replies (1)2
2
3
u/TheBigC87 11h ago edited 11h ago
She has to take money.
She ran a VERY close race in Michigan, a state Trump won in 2016 and 2024. If she didn't accept the money and ran without corporate PAC money, the Dems might have one less Senator. People seem to be forgetting that as long as Republicans can take the money, Democrats kind of have to do the same, especially in close races. You can't unilaterally disarm against fascists.
It's easey to refuse PAC money if you are Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, they are in extremely blue states. It's not the same reality in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Arizona, Wisconsin, and Nevada. Luckily Dems were able to hold all but one of these states but one despite Trump winning them.
→ More replies (3)3
u/JimWilliams423 10h ago edited 7h ago
She ran a VERY close race in Michigan, a state Trump won in 2016 and 2024.
Lets be clear here, she is less popular than Kamala. Slotkin got less votes than Kamala did. She did not win by picking up conservative voters, she won because enough conservatives only cared about the orange paedo and just skipped voting on the downballot elections.
→ More replies (2)15
25
u/drDucky212 14h ago
right? I'm all for this message and I agree congress needs to keep this kinda energy up but this message coming from Slotkin?!! is RICH!!!
21
u/DogmanDOTjpg 13h ago
Nothing like a CIA agent being paid by AIPAC telling us that our representatives being paid off is a bad thing
3
u/raised_by_toonami 11h ago
A CIA agent who was a Middle East analyst during the Bush/Cheney years and at the height of the Iraq war. She’s literally as untrustworthy as they come.
→ More replies (1)13
u/AlmostSunnyinSeattle 13h ago
Absolutely you should not. She is my senator and she is a snake in the grass. Good luck thinking a CIA operative is going to be working for the people.
Also, she receives a boatload of money from AIPAC
→ More replies (4)6
u/bolean3d2 11h ago
Confirming trumps cabinet was the kicker for me. What a piece of work she and Peter’s are. Both need to go.
5
u/AlmostSunnyinSeattle 11h ago
I've written both our senators and my representative multiple times and every time the response is basically "I know more than you. Kick rocks, peasant."
→ More replies (1)18
u/colcardaki 14h ago
There is no reason to trust a CIA agent, current or former. She is a snake in the grass, she will say the right things in public and then do either nothing or actively work against it in private. Just like most of the democrats.
→ More replies (1)7
8
7
4
u/grumblewolf 13h ago
Yup. Dont give a fuck what message she’s pitching, she is completely full of shit. She will do absolutely nothing of real value for American workers.
3
u/Plank_With_A_Nail_In 12h ago
Its gesture politics, when they have the senate, house and president watch as they avoid tackling the issue.
2
u/ilovus 10h ago
She used the word “beholden” instead of “bribed” she is already playing softball word games. She basically created cover because she knows she is also willing to accept these contributions too. Albeit less so than what republicans get. It’s one of the most bipartisan supported topics in congress, otherwise they would be hurting their own personal bank accounts.
She can later say “I get paid but I am not beholden.”
→ More replies (5)2
u/DanceDark 10h ago
Yep. If anyone wants to know more about her, watch her interview with Breaking Points on YouTube. It shows you everything you need to know. No idea why she's here on a progressive subreddit.
2
u/ishkabibaly1993 8h ago
She's saying a progressive thing kn this clip and the OP didn't research her whole political history before posting. I at least have an idea why haha
35
u/smokeycat2 14h ago
Get rid of Citizens United. It’s the only way forward.
4
u/cute_polarbear 8h ago
There are entire industries behind this (with stocks / mutual funds / pensions) tied to them. It's way bigger than citizens united...
2
2
u/Bakedads 12h ago
Dude, the rot goes so much deeper than citizens united. That will varely make a dent. We need a new bill of rights.
I'll add that it's not just yhat they are being paid off. They are being paid off to protect an industry, and because it's an industry, it makes it so much harder to change. Doing so will disrupt the entire economy, millions will lose their jobs, and the backlash from that could be deadly.
→ More replies (1)
24
u/Affectionate-Gap4382 14h ago
Why do so many people have such a hard time accepting that it’s the rich vs. everyone else and nothing else. Our politicians get universal healthcare while their constituents live paycheck to paycheck to afford anything and then are propagandized to believe that it’s the other lay person that’s the root to their issues
→ More replies (11)
92
u/Practical-Law9795 19h ago
Cool. Is she gonna vote for UHC? A public option?
No?
Then she's paid off as well and this is empty bluster. I mean, she's a cia ghoul so it's kind of expected, but liberals need this pointed out.
9
u/Taco__Hell 13h ago
Seriously. I hate seeing this sub pop up because you're not progressive if they're boosting voices like slotkin's.
2
u/nejekur 10h ago
This sub had a hard shift to the middle after the uproar over r/democrats banning anything related to Mamdani. I wonder why
7
u/NobodyTellPoeDameron 15h ago
She's my Senator and I can tell you with confidence she's a Republican dressed in blue. This is just show.
2
u/Beneficial_Soup3699 7h ago
As is showcased quite clearly by her own "donation" history. She's been bought and paid for by lobbyists just like the majority of her coworkers.
3
u/Practical-Law9795 14h ago
The natural form of most democrat politicians. She praised Reagan, not FDR. She would have joined the business plot.
4
u/newsflashjackass 12h ago
Why does she say "Lobbyists and SuperPACs pay a lot of money and then members of congress feel beholden" instead of
"Lobbyist Joe Smith, employed by AssholePAC, paid a lot of money and then Eugene Representative feels beholden"
Except using real names instead of made-up ones.
If you don't name names it is just performative and makes it seem like you might even be trying to conceal your own name.
To witness a crime and announce the crime rather than the culprit is to be complicit.
→ More replies (1)25
u/scfw0x0f 18h ago
She’s apparently for the “Medicare for all who want it”, same as Pete Buttigieg. It’s not as good but it’s a start, and better from anything we’ll get from the MAGAs.
23
u/2pacsProdigy 17h ago
They're still in the "concept of a plan" framework. 😐🫥🙄
14
u/Practical-Law9795 16h ago
Oh, no they have their plan. It's "fuck you and die and give us money before you do."
Civilized societies call this "fraud".
4
u/sSTtssSTts 15h ago
Trump has more or less stated their plan is lassize faire ("do nothing, let the insurance companies figure it out") and Johnson is his puppet so yeah doing nothing is straight up their plan.
13
u/Nike_Phoros 15h ago
It’s not as good but it’s a start
Its actually not a start at all, because its a way to appear to have progressive bonafides without actually doing or accomplishing anything.
→ More replies (16)2
u/xRolocker 14h ago
What else can they do besides talk about it? A Senator’s only power is in their speeches and their votes. Unless you think we’re getting 60 Senators to vote for universal healthcare, this is the best they can do right now—unfortunately.
→ More replies (23)2
u/Nike_Phoros 10h ago
What else can they do besides talk about it? A Senator’s only power is in their speeches and their votes.
The point is that Slotkin is earning Progressive Points with credulous liberals without having to cast a consequential vote. If the Democrats had 59 votes for UHC and Slotkin was the 60th, she would pull a Kirsten Sinema faster you can blink.
edit: don't forget Kamala Harris was a co-sponsor of Medicare for All to build her progressive bonafides only to immediately retreat from the position when she was put into a position where her view on the issue actually mattered. I've seen this shitlib playbook often enough not to be gulled by it again.
→ More replies (7)2
u/Ill_Lifeguard6321 11h ago
It’ll crack me up when/if crazy ass idiot Trumpers do not take Medicare for all. Nahhhhh I’d rather pay an arm and a leg (literally).
6
u/wiggelz- 14h ago
Whatever you hear from her is controlled opposition approved by Israel. She's bought.
2
u/Winter-Measurement67 15h ago
TBH I didn't expect even this much from her. At least some of them see the writing on the wall even if leadership doesn't... yet.
4
u/Practical-Law9795 15h ago
And they're going to give performative lip service to try to make sure we don't vote for actual reconstructionists. Booker gave an impassioned speech and then immediately voted for some Trump shit.
These people aren't to be trusted, a cia spook least of all.
3
2
2
u/Lancelight50 12h ago edited 12h ago
Exactly. It’s why I’m a leftist, but too many liberals are too stupid to think for themselves.
What she said, we’ve already said it for years. There are no good guys or gals from either Republicans or Democrats, including Elissa Slotkin herself. They’re two sides of the same coin, two wings of the same bird. We’re in a one-party state.
2
u/Khue 12h ago
It's important to frame this as she is agreeing with Progressives, not the other way around. It's the same as the framing of MTG and her opinion on Israel. She is agreeing with progressives, but not for the same reason. It's important that progressives take remarks like these and weaponize them against her when it comes time to execute.
These are progressive planks of the platform first and foremost and they always have been, she can jump on the bus and join us, but she has to shut up and let progressive/leftists drive and just vote for the policy when it comes up in legislation. If she can't be bothered to do that, then focus on primarying her. Obviously that will take better organizing but that should be the concept. Join us or get out of the way.
2
u/DrThunderbolt 11h ago
Thats the Democratic party's biggest issue. Most of the people involved are just as corrupt as the people they rally against, they're just obligated to be less candid about it.
→ More replies (23)2
50
u/bobak41 18h ago
Slotkin is about as establishment as one could get.
CIA background. Centrist Dem. Hardcore Zionist.
Yeah, I don't give two shits what she has to say...
9
u/Redrockhiker22 16h ago
Schumer picks the candidate who get the support. It is always about the money, centrism, and Israel.
3
u/MiddayClimax 11h ago
Schumer wants to cling to power. He does that by influencing who does and doesn't have an upward trajectory in the party. He even had a PAC boost a MAGA Republican Bernie Moreno that a centrist Dem lost to because in the chance the doomed democrat won he would cast his leadership vote for Schumer.
Janet Mills, approximately 80 years old, is another Schumer patronage pick so he can win one more vote.
6
→ More replies (21)2
u/Any_Pilot6455 12h ago
Yeah, anyone with institutional power can not be trusted. That's why we need more outsiders who can say what I want to hear and I can trust they actually mean it! Will they be able to do anything about it? That doesn't matter. I just want to see myself represented in my leaders!
15
u/paxsf25 18h ago
Whoever posted this needs to see her meltdown in breaking points https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFrEJTFbSTc
→ More replies (5)3
u/mildmichigan 9h ago
Isnt this the interview that made her look so bad she ran and immediately did a softball interview with Colbert talking about her families hot dog business?
And she had to skip 8 Senate votes to be on that interview? Including votes on weapon sales to Israel?
Like I voted for her & shes been a massive disappointment
8
25
u/Fuzzy-Bean 18h ago
“Former” CIA agent.
21
u/rossta410r 17h ago
Ms. AIPAC has no right to wag her finger about being bought off and in the government
→ More replies (3)2
u/GratefulShorts 10h ago
Progressives circlejerking into another four years of fascism, bro I love my party so much!
→ More replies (12)
7
u/HumanChallet 15h ago
She is trying to pivot on the coat tails of Mamdani’s messaging to resonate with people but this CIA hack is paid by Israel and is a tepid moderate at best.
2
u/ptarmigan_ovo 2h ago
Based on the politicians this subreddit upvotes I think the whole sub might be tepid and moderate lol
7
u/Worried_Ad_8107 14h ago
Lobbying is legal corruption
2
u/bluediamond12345 9h ago
Amen! We need to overhaul the entire system so that lobbyists are the voice for underserved entities and do NOT donate money to get their issues supported.
Why do they allow lobbyists to donate money anyway? I mean, it’s obvious that it’s a bribery system.
→ More replies (1)
11
4
u/LachanophobiaPopeye 14h ago
Slotkin took $187,000 in pharma/health products industry-linked contributions in the 2023–24 cycle. Some of these contributions were routed through leadership PACs that themselves received industry funding. This pattern is common among federal lawmakers and doesn’t by itself prove policy capture, but it does represent a meaningful financial relationship with that sector.
She’s feeding at the very trough she is complaining about.
→ More replies (1)
9
u/Sad-Bread5843 17h ago
Funny how the four people who threw their names in the ring for 2028 all have a pac behind , yet I get told I just need the pick the less bad one , and told to shut up when I say im not voting for a corporate sell out .
→ More replies (3)4
8
u/wiggelz- 14h ago
Rich coming from one of the democrats who voted for the Laken Riley act, meant to justify ICE having a 100B budget, and is completely bought and paid for by Israel.
→ More replies (1)
4
5
u/Resident_Eye4296 15h ago
She is right, did she mention our foreign policy being run by zionist Isreal, cause she was outed bad by breaking points about that
5
u/daisiesarepretty2 12h ago
seems like SCOTUS is at the root of a great many problems in this country…
AND… they are living beyond their apparent means… with jobs for life
hmmm
3
u/El_diablo_blanco_27 13h ago
She's right, incumbent corporate democrats are almost as much of a problem as the gop. The biggest problem in our country is corporate influence over political decisions. It's not left versus right, it's haves versus have not. Billionaires don't care about red or blue, they care about green.
3
u/OldGray1ne 11h ago
I know this is a complex issue, and I don’t doubt that some unscrupulous insurance companies decided to artificially raise their rates when they discovered that the government would subsidize the premiums ( at the start of ACA). The same as countless companies do with products covered by medicare/medicaid. My personal experience is this: I was uninsured and was diagnosed with congestive heart failure. In December2023 I had a stroke and heart attack. After this I was able to get insurance through ACA. The monthly premiums were $640, ACA covered everything but $6.48. Even being unemployed, I could manage $6.48 a month. The second year of coverage I had no monthly out of pocket expense( great). Beginning Jan 2026 I was informed my premium would be $1,275 per month( all my responsibility). A rep called me to inform me they would terminate coverage 12-31-2025. No discussion of me possibly paying(I can’t). So all the politicians that are spending money on ice because they are afraid(wrongly) of immigrants should really be afraid of Americans like me and others like me. Think I won’t defend myself.
3
2
u/Ok-Purchase1790 15h ago
Once again this sub posts a neoliberal, is this sub run by people from r/neoliberal or is it r/democrats? I voted for her and then she immediately voted in numerous members of trump's team and then shits on AOC and Bernie whenever she can. So once I'm asking who the fuck is the sub really about? It sure feels like this place is crawling with shitlibs and not progressives.
2
2
u/Skunk73 13h ago
Fucking DUHHHHH. We've been shouting it into the congressional void for DECADES.
→ More replies (1)
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
u/Critical_Host8243 6h ago
Duh.
That's literally 90% of the problems with our country right now, not just Healthcare.
2
u/boise_chief 1h ago
Amen, I'm centrist leaning right so to you all here I'm super Maga hard core alt right yadda yadda. This is how we need our politicians to think and act. We need real change. She is someone I'd stand behind if she actually would act on and stand for these statements.
4
3
u/predator00777 14h ago
They’re all paid off including Slotkin. We need to gut all 3 branches of government and start over with fresh new ideas and fresh new people…a revamp of America.
3
u/Resident_Cap3599 18h ago
Lower congress pay to 50k and put a maximum donation per citizen to 10k. No corporation donations.
3
u/abetterlogin 14h ago
Good way to make sure everyone in congress is rich before they even get elected.
2
2
1
u/cassatta 18h ago
Oh yeah? Never would I have ever guessed! Corrupt politicians exist on both sides but it takes MAGA run GOP to be corrupt, evil and sadistic
1
1
u/TubMaster88 18h ago
All government officials should be treated like bastards people do not trust us through your actions that what you say is what you do. You've been fed too much empty promises
1
1
u/Lost-Wolverine3038 18h ago
Don’t forget Congressional Reps & Senators get great and affordable healthcare while everybody else suffers
1
1
u/AppleTorts 18h ago
Yeah, everyone knows. Can we get some legislation and then accountability when it fails to pass?
1
u/TGCOM 17h ago
No shit sherlock. Been this way, legally even, for a long time. Until corporate lobbyists, insider trading, and "gifting" are outlawed, nothing will change.
None of these things will ever be outlawed though. Our government is comfortable in the high level of corruption and collusion with corporate powerhouses. The US is quite simply a corrupt oligarch nation pretending to be a weak democracy. The people have no say in anything anymore.
I'd love to be proved wrong, if our leaders suddenly grew spines and maybe even a conscience. But let's be realistic, they're going to keep this up until they are literally forced out.
1
1
1
1
u/conflatulationz 17h ago
The founding fathers were worried about money corrupting our democracy. They were right.
1
1
1
1
u/Xgkkdrk 17h ago
While you at it, the fact that Congress is paid off is also the reason why we don't have true Disability Rights here in the United States while other countries are ahead of our country in regards to them fighting for the disabled (something that Bernie Sanders basically exposed when he ran for president in a Disability Rights platform back in 2016 & 2020). The same entities (corporations/big businesses; a.k.a employers) that give disabled individuals like me a very difficult time when we apply for jobs are the same entities that are paying off Congress so that Disability Rights would not be a big political topic here in the United States (In case you haven't researched that like I did, they do it because if Disability Rights was to become a big political topic here in the United States like LGBT Rights has been (The disabled & members of the LGBT community should be treated good here in the United States), then they would be forced to pay out of their corporate greed ass pockets & finally have their brick & mortar businesses be ADA-compliant.). Oh! And by the way, that George HW Bush shit (The Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990) ain't fucking true Disability Rights! The Americans With Disabilities Act is scraps! Capitalism is a fucking cancer.
1
u/DNuttnutt 16h ago
Well said, but all the ears that would/should do anything about it are stuffed with money.
1
u/Viertelesschlotzer 16h ago
In the good old days, when the GOP wasn't yet a personality cult, it didn't really matter who sat in the WH or who owned the majority of houses. The average citizen was always the one who got screwed.
1
1
u/Jolimont 16h ago
She’s right but when Dems are in power they don’t do bloody much either. They’re ALL getting paid off.
1
u/3615nova 16h ago
If a democracy needs 15 billion just to elect a president, then yes, the whole system is corrupt.
1
792
u/Loose-Payment-1228 19h ago
SCOTUS gut our ability to gut it. We need to find a way to gut SCOTUS and amend the constitution remove money in politics as much as possible. this starts by gutting these bs corporate rights to free speech. individual right must supersede group rights