Healthcare corporations spend $3.4 BILLION DOLLARS to control Congress

[Chris]

Health providers, insurers and pharmaceutical companies have taken multiple approaches to winning over the federal lawmakers shaping the legislation. The health sector boosted its campaign contributions compared to the last presidential cycle, to $167.7 million in 2008 from $123.7 million in 2004. The various health industries have also steadily increased their lobbying efforts, from $448.1 million in 2007 to $484.4 million in 2008. So far this year, the sector has paid lobbyists $126.8 million to do its bidding on Capitol Hill. And those expenditures will only increase as the chairs of the five main committees working on health care legislation continue to iron out the details: Will the plan include a government insurance option? Will Congress mandate that all individuals, including the 47 million that are currently uninsured, purchase health insurance? And where will the money come from to pay for the reforms? The health sector--which includes some industries that are diametrically opposed to one another in their answers to these questions--eclipses all other sectors but the financial sector in lobbying spending since 1998, putting $3.4 billion into its efforts.
OpenSecrets | Diagnosis: Reform - Capital Eye

 

[Political Junky]

Health providers, insurers and pharmaceutical companies have taken multiple approaches to winning over the federal lawmakers shaping the legislation. The health sector boosted its campaign contributions compared to the last presidential cycle, to $167.7 million in 2008 from $123.7 million in 2004. The various health industries have also steadily increased their lobbying efforts, from $448.1 million in 2007 to $484.4 million in 2008. So far this year, the sector has paid lobbyists $126.8 million to do its bidding on Capitol Hill. And those expenditures will only increase as the chairs of the five main committees working on health care legislation continue to iron out the details: Will the plan include a government insurance option? Will Congress mandate that all individuals, including the 47 million that are currently uninsured, purchase health insurance? And where will the money come from to pay for the reforms? The health sector--which includes some industries that are diametrically opposed to one another in their answers to these questions--eclipses all other sectors but the financial sector in lobbying spending since 1998, putting $3.4 billion into its efforts.
OpenSecrets | Diagnosis: Reform - Capital Eye

Gee, I wonder why they'd spend that much money.

 

[veritas]

Gee, I wonder why they'd spend that much money.

 

[Care4all]

there is no question the insurance industry is spending boocoos to prevent a public option and a nonprofit coop option....they do NOT want us to have a choice of not having to deal with them...or the competition.

they spent boocoos to stop hillary care as well...

 

[KittenKoder]

Health providers, insurers and pharmaceutical companies have taken multiple approaches to winning over the federal lawmakers shaping the legislation. The health sector boosted its campaign contributions compared to the last presidential cycle, to $167.7 million in 2008 from $123.7 million in 2004. The various health industries have also steadily increased their lobbying efforts, from $448.1 million in 2007 to $484.4 million in 2008. So far this year, the sector has paid lobbyists $126.8 million to do its bidding on Capitol Hill. And those expenditures will only increase as the chairs of the five main committees working on health care legislation continue to iron out the details: Will the plan include a government insurance option? Will Congress mandate that all individuals, including the 47 million that are currently uninsured, purchase health insurance? And where will the money come from to pay for the reforms? The health sector--which includes some industries that are diametrically opposed to one another in their answers to these questions--eclipses all other sectors but the financial sector in lobbying spending since 1998, putting $3.4 billion into its efforts.
OpenSecrets | Diagnosis: Reform - Capital Eye

Gee, I wonder why they'd spend that much money.

Couldn't be because as long as the government controls all the products that they don't want any more competition ... naw, that's just crazy talk.

 

[Care4all]

Health providers, insurers and pharmaceutical companies have taken multiple approaches to winning over the federal lawmakers shaping the legislation. The health sector boosted its campaign contributions compared to the last presidential cycle, to $167.7 million in 2008 from $123.7 million in 2004. The various health industries have also steadily increased their lobbying efforts, from $448.1 million in 2007 to $484.4 million in 2008. So far this year, the sector has paid lobbyists $126.8 million to do its bidding on Capitol Hill. And those expenditures will only increase as the chairs of the five main committees working on health care legislation continue to iron out the details: Will the plan include a government insurance option? Will Congress mandate that all individuals, including the 47 million that are currently uninsured, purchase health insurance? And where will the money come from to pay for the reforms? The health sector--which includes some industries that are diametrically opposed to one another in their answers to these questions--eclipses all other sectors but the financial sector in lobbying spending since 1998, putting $3.4 billion into its efforts.
OpenSecrets | Diagnosis: Reform - Capital Eye

Gee, I wonder why they'd spend that much money.

Couldn't be because as long as the government controls all the products that they don't want any more competition ... naw, that's just crazy talk.

please explain?

 

[KittenKoder]

Gee, I wonder why they'd spend that much money.

Couldn't be because as long as the government controls all the products that they don't want any more competition ... naw, that's just crazy talk.

please explain?

I'm tired of explaining it, so here's the really short version:

1. The government decides what businesses can operate in the country.

2. Businesses have to pay "fees" for almost everything.

3. Only the most wealthy of businesses last long, those which start off with more money specifically.

Works in the healthcare industry as well.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Socialized medicine does not work well. It never has. Government programs HAVE NEVER run well. They all waste money. It is in the design of the beast.

If a Government program actually saved money their reward the next year would be a smaller budget. Thus no agency EVER tries to save a penny. It all MUST be spent. I know first hand how it works.

Government run programs quickly become organizations bent on proving they need to exist. They become bloated with administrators and perks. They are slow and cumbersome. Hide bound and completely lacking in innovation or initiative.

Government run programs ask for more money every year. If they involve disbursing or over seeing the spending of money on citizens they develop more and more costly paper work, they are riff with fraud if they are not over controlled as to be next to useless.

If the Government takes over health care you can be assured that with in 3 years the costs will have doubled and will double every few years after that. The paper work will get more and more byzantine and complicated. Cost overruns will happen every year. Rationing will soon follow a take over by the Government.

It is THE worst idea ever put forth.

Guess what guys, you all point to the VA and the military health care system as some shining example. It is not. The VA is crippled and outdated. They operate on a shoe string budget and the policy is to find a way to deny procedures and services. With massive waiting lines and long waits for appointments.

The military is similar but has to service the active military so it shunts non active and dependents off to civilian sources as much as they can. Medication and procedures in the VA and the military medical system are years behind the civilian sector. New procedures take years to be approved and then implemented into both systems.

 

[Care4all]

Couldn't be because as long as the government controls all the products that they don't want any more competition ... naw, that's just crazy talk.

please explain?

I'm tired of explaining it, so here's the really short version:

1. The government decides what businesses can operate in the country.

2. Businesses have to pay "fees" for almost everything.

3. Only the most wealthy of businesses last long, those which start off with more money specifically.

Works in the healthcare industry as well.

so the health insurance companies, who are regulated by our govt, do not want any competition due to the fact that they are regulated and this is why they are spending billions to kill the public option and the nonprofit coop option?

i still don't get it?

they are even against a nonprofit coop option?

If our government is as inefficient as some say, why do the insurance companies even think the gvt option, will be any kind of competition at all?

Why is it that our government bids their inside cost analysis for particular things against the private sector and in many cases the private sector wins the bid...many air traffic control centers are now contracted through the private sector while many are run by the FAA still...even in Iraq, there were more private sector contractors than actual combat soldiers...at one time the military did all of those tasks and the private sector won out...?

I guess I see hypocrisy in general..... that in this scenario, where the gvt is footing a great deal of our healthcare costs already, theough tax deductions for the employer and employee over 7.5% of gross, and through CHIP, healthcare for children, and through medicaid for the needy and through Medicare for the elderly, and through university grants for research and development etc etc etc already...only directly or indirectly paying insurance companies for a good deal of it, that the the gvt shouldn't compete against the private sector on this....let the better man win instead of cutting off our noses, before the race begins?

let the best man win....or let them both survive, which is certainly possible.

 

[Chris]

Everytime you pay an insurance premium, you are paying your insurance company to lobby Congress, so they can deny you coverage and charge you more money.

Is this a great country or what?

 

[oreo]

The LAWYERS union throws MILLIONS at Democrats & since 2/3's of this current congress are confirmed ambulance-chasers-WE WILL NEVER GET TORT REFORM--

Our doctors & medical professionals pay thousands of dollars per month for mal-practice insurance because of this. They then have to pass this bill onto us--the consumers.

 

[KittenKoder]

please explain?

I'm tired of explaining it, so here's the really short version:

1. The government decides what businesses can operate in the country.

2. Businesses have to pay "fees" for almost everything.

3. Only the most wealthy of businesses last long, those which start off with more money specifically.

Works in the healthcare industry as well.

so the health insurance companies, who are regulated by our govt, do not want any competition due to the fact that they are regulated and this is why they are spending billions to kill the public option and the nonprofit coop option?

i still don't get it?

they are even against a nonprofit coop option?

If our government is as inefficient as some say, why do the insurance companies even think the gvt option, will be any kind of competition at all?

Why is it that our government bids their inside cost analysis for particular things against the private sector and in many cases the private sector wins the bid...many air traffic control centers are now contracted through the private sector while many are run by the FAA still...even in Iraq, there were more private sector contractors than actual combat soldiers...at one time the military did all of those tasks and the private sector won out...?

I guess I see hypocrisy in general..... that in this scenario, where the gvt is footing a great deal of our healthcare costs already, theough tax deductions for the employer and employee over 7.5% of gross, and through CHIP, healthcare for children, and through medicaid for the needy and through Medicare for the elderly, and through university grants for research and development etc etc etc already...only directly or indirectly paying insurance companies for a good deal of it, that the the gvt shouldn't compete against the private sector on this....let the better man win instead of cutting off our noses, before the race begins?

let the best man win....or let them both survive, which is certainly possible.

Medicaid and Medicare are continually reducing what services they cover, sot eh government isn't doing a good job with that anyway. Soon all they will cover is emergency services (if the rate of reduction continues about 2015). Medicare already covers less than half medical bills, unless you also have Medicaid you still have to pay a fortune. So those are very bad examples.

Obama's plan will ruin the insurance companies yes, but it will also ruin our coverage as a populace, which is the point you are missing (and many are ignoring). What is happening is Obama is feeding on the "screw big business" rants and people buy into it, ignoring the fact that it will screw us as well. A real solution is to deregulate it. Though many have bought into the propaganda that deregulation is bad, it's a good thing. It's the excessive regulations that made the mess in the first place, allowing one groups of people to determine who can operate in the country. The one thing people are forgetting is that they are pushing to put all the power into the hands of the group that did this in the first place.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Health providers, insurers and pharmaceutical companies have taken multiple approaches to winning over the federal lawmakers shaping the legislation. The health sector boosted its campaign contributions compared to the last presidential cycle, to $167.7 million in 2008 from $123.7 million in 2004. The various health industries have also steadily increased their lobbying efforts, from $448.1 million in 2007 to $484.4 million in 2008. So far this year, the sector has paid lobbyists $126.8 million to do its bidding on Capitol Hill. And those expenditures will only increase as the chairs of the five main committees working on health care legislation continue to iron out the details: Will the plan include a government insurance option? Will Congress mandate that all individuals, including the 47 million that are currently uninsured, purchase health insurance? And where will the money come from to pay for the reforms? The health sector--which includes some industries that are diametrically opposed to one another in their answers to these questions--eclipses all other sectors but the financial sector in lobbying spending since 1998, putting $3.4 billion into its efforts.
OpenSecrets | Diagnosis: Reform - Capital Eye

Finally chris makes a post that i dont want to yell at him for as I agree the health care industry, like many others, gives a ton of money to BOTH parties in congress and that has an effect on their decisions that is bad for the american people.

 

[veritas]

The LAWYERS union throws MILLIONS at Democrats & since 2/3's of this current congress are confirmed ambulance-chasers-WE WILL NEVER GET TORT REFORM--

Our doctors & medical professionals pay thousands of dollars per month for mal-practice insurance because of this. They then have to pass this bill onto us--the consumers.

If we got rid of the INSCos, a whole slew of lawyers would be out of work. The greatest portion of our legal system is concerned with and bogged down by insurance suits. INSCos have armies of lawyers. A single payer system would unclog our courts and make tort reform a reality through attrition.

 

[Navy1960]

The success of GE depends significantly on sound public policies at the national, state and local levels. Governments, through advancing their legitimate regulatory and political interests, affect the commercial environment in which GE operates. Every day, issues vital to our ability to recognize value for the company’s stakeholders are debated and decided in the U.S. Congress, in state legislatures and in local forums across the country — issues such as trade, taxes, energy, healthcare, environment and legal liability, to name a few
GE Citizenship: Political Contributions, Government

The union adopted a new amendment to its constitution at last month’s SEIU convention, requiring that every local contribute an amount equal to $6 per member per year to the union’s national political action committee. This is in addition to regular union dues. Unions that fail to meet the requirement must contribute an amount in “local union funds” equal to the “deficiency,” plus a 50% penalty. According to an SEIU union representative, this has always been policy, but has now simply been formalized.
Hot Air » Blog Archive » Where did the SEIU get $150 million for politics?

In my review of 2008 UAW PAC contributions, I found that the PAC contributed a total of $1,111,250 to 182 lawmakers who voted “Yes” on the auto bailout. The UAW PAC also contributed a total of $111,500 to 18 lawmakers voting “No”. (Also, seven lawmakers who did not vote received a total of $32,000.)

Auto Bailout and UAW PAC Contributions — Sunlight Foundation Blog

In the last two election cycles, MoveOn.org Political Action Committee spent more than $58 million in pro-Democrat political advocacy, according to Federal Election Commission records

FOXNews.com - MoveOn Gravy Train Makes and Breaks Political Fortunes - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum

In the 2001-2005 election cycle, the DNC and its affiliated committees (which includes numerous local committees and committees formed to coordinate expenditures for specific districts or races) raised a total of US $162,062,084, 42% of which was hard money. The largest contributor, with US $9,280,000 was the Saban Capital Group, founded in 2001 by Haim Saban, who also founded Fox Family group. Fred Eychaner, the owner of Newsweb Corporation, gave the second highest amount of money to the DNC and its affiliates, US $7,390,000. The third largest contributor was Steve Bing of Shangri-La Entertainment, who gave US $6,700,000.[5]


This table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2008 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.

Because of contribution limits, organizations that bundle together many individual contributions are often among the top donors to presidential candidates. These contributions can come from the organization's members or employees (and their families). The organization may support one candidate, or hedge its bets by supporting multiple candidates. Groups with national networks of donors - like EMILY's List and Club for Growth - make for particularly big bundlers.

Top Contributors to Barack Obama | OpenSecrets

The [health-care] sector gave nearly $170 million to federal lawmakers in 2007 and 2008, with 54 percent going to Democrats, according to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks money in politics. The shift in parties was even more pronounced during the first three months of this year, when Democrats collected 60 percent of the $5.4 million donated by health-care companies and their employees, the data show.
Grassley raises money from health-care, insurance industries « Iowa Independent

So the original post was supposed to imply that somehow those in favor of Govt. healthcare are somehow immune from donations from corporate interests? I see , interesting concept but too bad it's an incorrect one. The fact is alomst every single industry lobbys congress for one reason or another and to basically use a blanket statement that one industry is bad because they do the same thing that every other industry is being a bit selective to say the least.

 

[Chris]

Health providers, insurers and pharmaceutical companies have taken multiple approaches to winning over the federal lawmakers shaping the legislation. The health sector boosted its campaign contributions compared to the last presidential cycle, to $167.7 million in 2008 from $123.7 million in 2004. The various health industries have also steadily increased their lobbying efforts, from $448.1 million in 2007 to $484.4 million in 2008. So far this year, the sector has paid lobbyists $126.8 million to do its bidding on Capitol Hill. And those expenditures will only increase as the chairs of the five main committees working on health care legislation continue to iron out the details: Will the plan include a government insurance option? Will Congress mandate that all individuals, including the 47 million that are currently uninsured, purchase health insurance? And where will the money come from to pay for the reforms? The health sector--which includes some industries that are diametrically opposed to one another in their answers to these questions--eclipses all other sectors but the financial sector in lobbying spending since 1998, putting $3.4 billion into its efforts.
OpenSecrets | Diagnosis: Reform - Capital Eye

Gee, I wonder why they'd spend that much money.

So they can keep denying sick people coverage and overcharging the healthy ones?

 

[KittenKoder]

Health providers, insurers and pharmaceutical companies have taken multiple approaches to winning over the federal lawmakers shaping the legislation. The health sector boosted its campaign contributions compared to the last presidential cycle, to $167.7 million in 2008 from $123.7 million in 2004. The various health industries have also steadily increased their lobbying efforts, from $448.1 million in 2007 to $484.4 million in 2008. So far this year, the sector has paid lobbyists $126.8 million to do its bidding on Capitol Hill. And those expenditures will only increase as the chairs of the five main committees working on health care legislation continue to iron out the details: Will the plan include a government insurance option? Will Congress mandate that all individuals, including the 47 million that are currently uninsured, purchase health insurance? And where will the money come from to pay for the reforms? The health sector--which includes some industries that are diametrically opposed to one another in their answers to these questions--eclipses all other sectors but the financial sector in lobbying spending since 1998, putting $3.4 billion into its efforts.
OpenSecrets | Diagnosis: Reform - Capital Eye

Gee, I wonder why they'd spend that much money.

So they can keep denying sick people coverage and overcharging the healthy ones?

Why are the few insurance companies able to act like the government so easily?