Healthcare lobby spending millions against reform -Using Your Money Against You

[kaiser soze]

Found this on the Guardian, why little coverage in the U.S., hmmmm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/01/lobbyists-millions-obama-healthcare-reform

America's healthcare industry has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to block the introduction of public medical insurance and stall other reforms promised by Barack Obama. The campaign against the president has been waged in part through substantial donations to key politicians.

Supporters of radical reform of healthcare say legislation emerging from the US Senate reflects the financial power of vested interests ‑ principally insurance companies, pharmaceutical firms and hospitals ‑ that have worked to stop far-reaching changes threatening their profits.

Here's your blue dog democrat fighting reform - pocketing $$ from those who pay the insurance companies. Slimy piece of shit, I hope he is exposed to the bone.

The committee this week twice voted against including public insurance in the legislation, with Baucus opposing it both times.

Baucus took $1.5m from the health sector for his political fund in the past year. Other members of the committee have received hundreds of thousands of dollars. They include Senator Pat Roberts, who last week tried to stall the bill by arguing that lobbyists needed three days to read it.

Yeah, so the insurance companies will throw millions into lobbying but yet continue to raise premiums and deny claims. Why aren't REAL Americans fighting this? Oh - there's a socialist communist marxist terrorist in office :rolleyes:

[valvano]

unions are spending millions of its members money for reform / public option (even though they face being taxed for "Cadillac" level health insurance)....and your point is??

[kaiser soze]

I guess you missed my point which I already stated, no need to waste typing anymore for you.

U.S.A hater

[travesty]

American corporations lobbying politicians is hardly news. That's the way it works here. Of course the companies affected by this legislation are going to lobby to make it favorable to them. This surprises you, or anyone else?

You have to keep in mind that the US health system accounts for about 1/7th of the US economy. That means a shit load of people, and therefore a shit load of constituents, are employed by this industry, Namely insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies. Just because politicians take pause and consider that drastic changes to the system will likely have very negative effects to many of their constituents does not mean that they are weak or spineless. In fact it's just the opposite. Maybe some of these politicans are doing excatly what they should and considering the welbeing of their constituents above party politics. Having health insurance doesn't mean much to somone who lost their job to get it unless it covers starvation.

Anyhow it just reinforces the point that no matter how much a politican promises you during the campaign, once they get to Washington it's all about the dollars, not the change.

[Echewta]

Yup. Unless Obama really wants to get crazy on Congress and can bring some serious heat, we will continue to use Emergency Rooms for the uninsured which is so much cheaper than a low cost health plan.

[yeahwho]

Yup. Unless Obama really wants to get crazy on Congress and can bring some serious heat, we will continue to use Emergency Rooms for the uninsured which is so much cheaper than a low cost health plan.

Exactly... with millions, literally tens of millions of employed people without health coverage now being joined by record millions of unemployed we will be spending billions of tax dollars and stressing our emergency services to and beyond the max this Winter.

Unless our collective US representative body can quit sucking off the Health Insurance lobbyists (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/health-care-reform/2009/07/health_care_continues_its_inte.html), you know the $1.4 million spent a day by Health care and insurance companies to lobby our representatives.

That's a fuck of a lot more money than those 40+ million without healthcare are spending.

[Echewta]

I don't know about where you all live but hospitals in Los Angeles come and go. Especially the "public" ones.

[Schmeltz]

You have to keep in mind that the US health system accounts for about 1/7th of the US economy. That means a shit load of people, and therefore a shit load of constituents, are employed by this industry

I think it's much more important to keep in mind that it also accounts for 7/7ths of the population's health needs. So what's under consideration is actually the wellbeing of all the constituents, everywhere, all the time. But of course private insurance companies aren't concerned about that wellbeing; they are concerned about their profit margins. Hence they would much rather spend hundreds of millions of dollars ensuring that they don't have to compete with a system geared toward providing care to their potential payees, than on actually providing that care themselves.

It really is a sickening, primitive system you people have down there. I cannot imagine why anybody would want to defend it or keep it around. Any change would seem to me to be a good thing.

[travesty]

Exactly... with millions, literally tens of millions of employed people without health coverage now being joined by record millions of unemployed we will be spending billions of tax dollars and stressing our emergency services to and beyond the max this Winter.

Unless our collective US representative body can quit sucking off the Health Insurance lobbyists (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/health-care-reform/2009/07/health_care_continues_its_inte.html), you know the $1.4 million spent a day by Health care and insurance companies to lobby our representatives.

That's a fuck of a lot more money than those 40+ million without healthcare are spending.

So what happens you take all of those people out of the Emergency rooms and put them in doctors offices? Won't the doctor's offices then be taxed to the point of breaking? The current healthcare infrastructure is not capable of assimilating 47 million new patients at the drop of a hat. More than likely many people will still go to the emergency room because it will be even harder to get a regular doctor's appointment than it is now. The only difference is that those emergency rooms visits that were once billed at cost to the hospital's balance sheet will now be billed to the insurance companies at the absurd "reasonable and customary" prices that they use. Not only that but the insured are now going to be paying the equally absurd "emergency care" co-pays that all insurance plans have. Where's the victory in that for any one?

Obviously over time we could grow the infrastructure and everything will level out but that is going to cost big $$ and take quite some time. In the meantime who suffers? How many people that aren't suffering now will? How far does the level of care for everyone decline before it starts getting better? How does it effect countries like Canada and others whose doctors will likely flee to the US to fill the need for physicians and at the same time make more $$ than they would under a single payer system? (From the sounds of it I don't think Canada can afford to lose any more doctors.) I don't know the answers to these questions and it doesn't seem that anyone else does either.

I've said it all along that people are looking at the healthcare issue one of two ways; either A) Healthcare is a basic human right or B) healthcare is a service.

I happen to believe that the entire US of America is founded and runs on the fact that everything is a business and at the end of the day...it's all about the dollars. You can bemoan it and cry foul and unfair but every fiber of our culture and scoiety in the US revolves around $$. End of Story. If you demand that your government think outside of that structure.... this is likely not the country for you.

[travesty]

I think it's much more important to keep in mind that it also accounts for 7/7ths of the population's health needs. So what's under consideration is actually the wellbeing of all the constituents, everywhere, all the time. But of course private insurance companies aren't concerned about that wellbeing; they are concerned about their profit margins. Hence they would much rather spend hundreds of millions of dollars ensuring that they don't have to compete with a system geared toward providing care to their potential payees, than on actually providing that care themselves.

Please! The insurance companies are salivating at the idea of 47 million new customers coming through the door cradling a great excuse for short term losses to the shareholders and a reason to trim bloated expenses and salaries. Know this, private sector companies will ALWAYS, ALWAYS win in a fair competition with the government. The government has never proven itself to be creative, flexible or cunning enough to compete on the open market without taxpayer funded subsidies. Barring the complete overhaul of the system into a single payer system, the insurance companies are going to come out ahead. The reason they are spending $1.4M a day is to keep up with the changing bills. Regardless of what is in those bills (again barring single payer) they can make it work to their advantage and they are spending the money to make sure they do.

You don't really think that insurance companies are opposed to a "basic public plan" do you? By the time the private insurance companies get done marketing their competitive "basic plan" no one in the world is going to want to be on the "public plan". Us taxpayers aren't going to give the government $$ for competitive marketing of this public plan are we? We better not.

At the end of the day the great hope for change, The One, has given up on ideals and his party is just trying to save face at this point. Both just want to pass SOMETHING. It's obvious that it is irrelevant what it looks like now as the promise of real change has been utterly abandoned by those who never had the fortitude to deliver it in the first place.

[D_Raay]

Are you not seeing the great opposition being mounted by the private sector?
If they really welcome it, as you say, seems strange doesn't it. They don't want a change because it IS all about profit to them. The government, on the other hand, would be beholden to the constituents (at least until they figured out how to get their hands on it too).

Capitalism is predicated on endless growth, the same predicate of the cancer cell.It sees no value outside of profit. Everything outside of profit is called an 'externality'.Our economy, which is invented, is often described as a pie. This pie will not only not grow without end, it is going to shrink dramatically.At some point everything we do will determined by the externalities we have previously ignored.

[yeahwho]

I've said it all along that people are looking at the healthcare issue one of two ways; either A) Healthcare is a basic human right or B) healthcare is a service.
I'm looking at this as a consumer who has health insurance and pays a pretty penny for it. I'm willing to pay even more if it is proven that rather than my middle man ( the health insurance industry) making unreal profits, I know that my fellow countrymen will enjoy the same benefit I enjoy.

The Health Insurance industry supplies only one service, whether or not the money I give them should be spent on me. And then how little of the money I give them does get spent on me. They've never once done anything else.

That is how I look at it. I see a bloated top heavy financial empire who spends over a million dollars a day with 6 lobbyists for each US representative deciding what millions of citizens deserve in the way of their health, it isn't about anything other than that.

When more people show up at doctors offices more medical professionals will be working at doctors offices, like my sister who is school right now to become a medical professional.

[travesty]

When more people show up at doctors offices more medical professionals will be working at doctors offices, like my sister who is school right now to become a medical professional.

Good career choice right now, no doubt.

I don't see how replacing insurance companies with the government is eliminating the middle man. Even in liberal Democrat dreamworld you might eliminate the profit motive but the middle man still exists. In the big picture even a government plan is still somewhat $$ motivated in that it has to either be self sustaining (break even)or losses subsidized through taxation. Both scenarios require an accounting where the bottom is line is considered in policy decisions. Then you are adding the burden of public opinion and legislation to every decision as well. Just consider how much shit is flying about abortions being covered. Consider this, what if stem cell research finds a cure for diabetes but the procedure used to harvest those stem cells is somewhat controversial. If we wait for the government and the public to decide if we are going to live with the bad to get the good, it may delay introduction of that cure for a long time. I think I'd take a profit driven middleman in that scenario over a lethargic government bureaucrat everyday of the week. You can not discount the adaptability and innovation that only a free market can provide even though those qualities are $$ driven.

Keep in mind it is not just the insurance companies spending all that money on Capitol Hill. It's also Pharma and Tech firms that realize government funded healthcare puts a big crimp on their R&D and thus future product development.

Let me say this, if we are not going to a single payer system, then what's the point of a whole new government program? Couldn't you just make some regulations requiring private companies to offer a "basic plan" without limitations on who can buy it and then open up the marketplace nationally? Most states are already telling insurance companies what services have to be included in any plan they offer so what's the problem with even more regulations? If you rigidly tell the insurance companies what they can and can not do yes some will fail but most will figure out how to survive within the shape of the law. They always have and they always will. I am just not understanding what a government option will do that a few more tweaks to the system couldn't accomplish, other than giving the Democrats some meaningless, symbolic victory to dance around the maypole about. Not to mention strapping the masses with another bloated goverment agency which will be one more financial well to dip into when the administration comes up short on the budget (re: Clinton and Social Security) without having to admit they need to raise taxes.

[travesty]

That is how I look at it. I see a bloated top heavy financial empire who spends over a million dollars a day with 6 lobbyists for each US representative deciding what millions of citizens deserve in the way of their health, it isn't about anything other than that.

Well you have a VERY bloated, top heavy financial empire telling you what you deserve in the way of National Defense, Police security, Fire Abatement (we've been through this so don't freak out again), education for your children, transportation infrastructure etc, etc. The government is not the market leader with any service it provides.

What's the difference? If you say that our government is not driven by profits I am seriously going to have a seizure from laughing. If you are OK with everything being "just good enough" then the government is the provider for you.

[yeahwho]

Well you have a VERY bloated, top heavy financial empire telling you what you deserve in the way of National Defense, Police security, Fire Abatement (we've been through this so don't freak out again), education for your children, transportation infrastructure etc, etc. The government is not the market leader with any service it provides.

What's the difference? If you say that our government is not driven by profits I am seriously going to have a seizure from laughing. If you are OK with everything being "just good enough" then the government is the provider for you.

I'm just curious, do you work for an insurance company?

[travesty]

I'm just curious, do you work for an insurance company?

NO. Thankfully. I have my own business. I work on boats and yachts (which sucks BAD right now). However I do have some friends who work for insurance companies.

Look I'm not saying that the insurance companies are the best thing ever. They obviously have some problems that are contributing to and exacerbating other problems within our country. Things have to get fixed and if you remember some other threads I am actually more in favor of a straight single payer plan. THAT is something to debate and riot at town hall meetings over. That is real change. That is what we need. I just think that it has gotten so watered down that there really is no benefit to having a government run plan. The incredibly low bar they have set for this reform can be accomplished without one. I just feel like the Dems continue to push purely for bragging rights.