Skip to main content

Another note from the lobbyist-free Obama Administration: lobbyists helping write health care reform

From AP:

WASHINGTON — Stormy weather in Congress is threatening President Barack Obama's health care overhaul, but some see a silver lining: the lobbyists are still mostly on board....

The industry groups have invested heavily to make sure their views get taken into account. The health care sector gave $167 million in campaign contributions to congressional candidates in the 2008 election cycle, according to the watchdog group OpenSecrets.org. Health care companies poured $484 million into lobbying efforts in 2008, and are on pace to exceed that this year.

Separately, the drug companies have offered up $80 billion over 10 years to reduce prescription costs of seniors if a deal goes through, while major hospital groups agreed to a $155-billion reduction in Medicare and Medicaid payments to free up funds that would help subsidize coverage for the uninsured.

The political infighting on Capitol Hill has strengthened the hand of the health care groups, since liberals have been thwarted so far in their attempts to win speedy passage of the legislation through the House and Senate.


Lest there be a temptation to say, Well, that's just campaign contributions to Congress, not the President, we should recall that candidate Barack Obama received $1,262,224 in contributions from the health care industry in 2008, along with $11,532,962 from health care professionals, $43,440,058 from attorneys and lobbyists, and $3,167,003 from commercial banks.

That's, uh, over $59 million to the Obama campaign from parties with a special interest in heatlh care reform.

[Note: if you don't understand why commercial banks like Goldman Sachs have an interest in health care reform, you haven't been watching closely.]

So if all you single-payer advocates are wondering why you aren't at the table, the answer is simple: you didn't pay for the chair.

Health care "reform" will probably pass sometime this fall, but those of you who think it will (a) cover everybody or (b) seriously reduce the profits of insurance companies or big pharmaceutical companies should think again.

Maybe President Obama will at least kiss his supporters at the end of the process.

Comments

Delaware Watch said…
So you don't like lobbyist giving money to political candidates, eh? Well, why don't you put your support where your mouth is by supporting publicly funded elections? That way we can substantially reduce the influence of big business on government.
Dana,

1) I am pointing out the hypocrisy of the candidates who purport to be "for the little people" while accepting millions in lobbyist money. Had Barack Obama not made the repeated campaign promise to keep his administration lobbyist-free I would have no bone to pick here.

2) You fall into the fallacy of assuming that, having identified a problem I must choose only the solution you favor--State-funded elections.

Frankly, it is the State that has created the two-party duopoly and frozen out all third parties from meaningful participation.

At the moment, I have little problem with the relatively instant accessibility to the knowledge of who has bought whom.

Popular posts from this blog

The Obligatory Libertarian Tax Day Post

The most disturbing factoid that I learned on Tax Day was that the average American must now spend a full twenty-four hours filling out tax forms. That's three work days. Or, think of it this way: if you had to put in two hours per night after dinner to finish your taxes, that's two weeks (with Sundays off). I saw a talking head economics professor on some Philly TV channel pontificating about how Americans procrastinate. He was laughing. The IRS guy they interviewed actually said, "Tick, tick, tick." You have to wonder if Governor Ruth Ann Minner and her cohorts put in twenty-four hours pondering whether or not to give Kraft Foods $708,000 of our State taxes while demanding that school districts return $8-10 million each?

New Warfare: I started my posts with a discussion.....

.....on Unrestricted warfare . The US Air force Institute for National Security Studies have developed a reasonable systems approach to deter non-state violent actors who they label as NSVA's. It is an exceptionally important report if we want to deter violent extremism and other potential violent actors that could threaten this nation and its security. It is THE report our political officials should be listening to to shape policy so that we do not become excessive in using force against those who do not agree with policy and dispute it with reason and normal non-violent civil disobedience. This report, should be carefully read by everyone really concerned with protecting civil liberties while deterring violent terrorism and I recommend if you are a professional you send your recommendations via e-mail at the link above so that either 1.) additional safeguards to civil liberties are included, or 2.) additional viable strategies can be used. Finally, one can only hope that politici

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba