The Health Care Summit represented an unprecedented event in American political history: never before has a President sat at a table with the Congressional leaders of both parties and carried on a discussion of a major issue before live television cameras. What emerged was in part scripted performances, the usual political posturing, and some overacting, but what also emerged was a clearer picture of the differences between Republicans and Democrats, some meaningful discussion and some sharp exchanges. What did not emerge, to the credit of all who attended, is the ill-mannered bickering that has characterized this Era of Bad Feelings.
While I have criticized Republicans in the past about their conduct, which has spilled over even into the President’s appearances before Congress (remember the shout of “Liar!), for this meeting they were on their best behavior. While I disagree with some of their points and more fundamentally with their philosophy (which I will write about next), their tone throughout the long hours before the cameras was measured and respectful.
If nothing else comes from this event, my hope is that both sides can at least agree to conduct their public business in an equally civil manner, laying aside the talk-radio style rants. If that alone would happen maybe I could then stop writing about the Era of Bad Feelings.
Who Was There
One of the fascinating takes on the summit, which was broadcast live over the White House web site and dozens of newspapers, blogs and others who picked up the feed was a site run by the Sunlight Foundation. It also did something unprecedented, for as each speaker said their piece, the site would show that person’s major campaign contributors in a sidebar. This was to provide some idea of what might be motivating their positions.
Their data came from the best source on the net–Open Secrets, a site if you do not know about, you should. During the Presidential campaign I published a great deal of finance data from their site and found it to be accurate and easy to access. If you want to know who is backing someone in Congress or someone running for Congress you need to go to Open Secrets. It even has a database on state legislators.
Sunlight’s data was interesting, but when I checked it against the actual Open Secrets data I found it incomplete and because of that somewhat misleading. Perhaps in the interest of readability the site only published the top ten lifetime contributors to each person. Open Secrets publishes the top twenty. Adding ten more contributors to the list gives you a much more complete picture.
The second data issue concerns their choice to run lifetime contributors versus 2009-2010 contributors. A lifetime list can be misleading in that for someone who has been in Congress for some time, it gives you aggregate data when what is really needed for analyzing this issue is recent contributions. Senator X may have taken donations from health care insurers ten years ago but what have they taken in this year?
The First Elephant in the Room–The Insurers
Using this year’s data, it is possible to construct charts of who else was in the room during the summit, the major contributors to each Senator and Representative. It is a bit like pulling back the curtain to see what is really going on behind the scenes. What follows are a series of tables presenting these data which I think you will find fascinating.
We start with the insurers. What follows below is a table with the names of the major HMOs and insurers, how many contributions they made and which party who received them. I have included life insurance companies in these data because in a sense they also have a vested interest in what emerges from the health care debate.
As the chart details, Blue Cross was by far the major player in the summit, especially with Republicans–although they also contributed to some Democrats just to keep their options open. The degree Blue Cross was involved in the debate provides an interesting perspective on remarks made by several Republicans about the California Blue Cross rate hike that has angered so many Americans, including the President. As major recipients of Blue Cross dollars the GOP made sure to defend their contributor.
What is also interesting is the number of total insurance contributions to Republicans rather than Democrats. You can make up your own mind about whether you think this is contributing to the GOP’s intransigence on this issue, especially their continued insistence that “the market” be allowed to regulate itself.
Clearly if any Democratic leaders happen to be reading this essay there is ammunition here to nail the Republicans.
The Second Elephant in the Room–The Physicians
If you managed to catch part or all of the Summit you heard a great deal of talk about medical malpractice. It has come up over and over again when health care has been debated, with physicians asserting that malpractice insurance costs are too high and malpractice settlements too generous. The GOP wants to cap malpractice claims at $250,000 which to me is frankly a ridiculous amount to put on a human life, especially in this day when middle level managers in some big corporations make more than that in a year.
Significantly the American Medical Association, which has long fought health care reform, has not spoken out against the health care bill and is on record for the first time favoring reform. But listening to the Republicans at the Summit you would think most physicians hate the bill.
Just as with insurers we can track this elephant in the room by examining contributions by associations representing physicians. The table for this is a bit long as there are a number of them, but again the pattern is striking.
The first thing you notice is all the contributions went to Republicans, which may be why they are fighting so hard for so-called “tort reform.” Now admittedly the major recipients of many of these contributions are also doctors such as Charles Boustany, a Louisiana cardiovascular surgeon.
The second interesting finding in the chart is which practices are contributing to those who attended the Summit. Among the different medical areas, cardiology and orthopedics rank high. The first is obvious–if a cardiologist makes a mistake, there is a good chance the patient is dead. If an orthopedic surgeon makes a mistake there is a good chance someone is permanently disabled.
So there is a certain logic in these professions seeking some relief from malpractice costs, but the $250,000 is patently absurd.
Again, the Democrats have some ammunition here.
The Third Elephant in the Room–The Drug Companies
A major player–and major villain in the health care debate is the drug companies. Here is their chart:
By now you should be seeing a pattern: again the Republicans at the Summit raked in considerably more cash than their Democratic counterparts.
The Bottom Line
The grand total of all three charts of contributions from insurers, physicians and drug companies is an astounding 71 to 21 in favor of the Republicans! Clearly in terms of their financial contributions, the campaign contributors to those attending the Summit stand to gain more if we follow the Republicans’ recommendations for incremental change than if we overhaul the entire system. In the Democrats’ bills all three major players will suffer.
Deep Throat in All the President’s Men said follow the money and nowhere is that more borne out than when we examine the campaign contributions to those who attended the Summit. What is even more disturbing is that several key Republican players including Marsha Blackburn, Mike Enzi, and John Boehner are heavily supported by contributions from the health care industry.
I hope that as you follow the health care debate you will keep these numbers in mind when you wonder why the GOP is digging its heels in about health care reform and why it wants to start over. I also hope that when you see some of these people on talk shows or news reports that you will imagine these charts out to the side and weigh their words along with what is flowing into their pocketbooks.
They say money talks, but in this case it seems to be roaring. The real tragedy would be if it could buy what it is paying for–no meaningful health care reform.
Print Posted by: liberalamerican
