Health Insurance Industry’s Strategic Bribery
In Scarface Tony Montana expresses his view that “In this country, you gotta make the money first. Then when you get the money, you get the power.” And of course there’s something to that. But as Ryan Powers demonstrates with this chart, it also works to get the power first. Then when you get the power, you get the money:
The business of influence and access peddling in Washington is often thinly veiled in pseudo-respectable claims that industry groups donate to candidates who they believe are predisposed to agree with their public policy priorities. But I think it is more accurate to say that industries donate to individuals who they perceive as predisposed to being bought. Indeed, if the health insurance industry really based its contribution decisions on who they thought would be more likely sympathize with their desire to keep the health care system as it is, they would do well to always direct a majority of their cash to GOP candidates. But they don’t. [...]
This is hardly a novel point on my part. But I think it’s important to keep in mind as we watch individuals who campaigned on and for the Obama agenda work to block or water down that agenda in the House. While I have not looked at the data, I expect there would be similar trends in the Senate.
Right on. This is why the very same members likely to be concerned that expanding coverage to the poor is too expensive also tend to be the same members who oppose saving money through the introduction of a robust public option embedded in a strong health insurance exchange. There are some visions of “health care reform” that are compatible with the interests of insurers, and the job of on-the-take Democrats is to try to steer legislation into that harbor.
Meanwhile on another level this kind of dynamic just embeds large advantages for incumbent candidates. A public financing scheme would be good for the country and good for progressive politics, but not necessarily good for potentially vulnerable left-of-center incumbent elected officials, so it’s hard to get anyone jazzed about the idea.
14 Responses to “Health Insurance Industry’s Strategic Bribery”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
July 31st, 2009 at 10:03 am
Money is an index of power. It’s usually not useful to distinguish between the two. There are sometimes disparities, but those are almost always rapidly rebalanced.
July 31st, 2009 at 10:07 am
This is all well and good, but sooner or later you’re going to have to start naming names, citing strategic contributions and the resulting subtle changes in voting patterns, and ultimately calling for primary challenges.
Railing against the scourge of “money in politics” is old hat. That’s what the do-good groups do, to absolutely no effect. It must become the case that every check from a health industry outfit is as much a danger as a benefit.
July 31st, 2009 at 10:17 am
But at least voters have a choice: if they don’t like the incumbent who whores for special interests they can vote for the challenger who whores for special interests.
July 31st, 2009 at 10:27 am
Let’s look up the health industry donations to the Presidential candidates. Turns out they donated mostly to a certain Illinois Senator who was running for President far, far more than to a certain Arizona Senator. In fact, even a candidate who lost in the Democratic primary raised more from the health industry than the Arizona Senator raised from the health industry for the entire campaign.
That said, I agree that “I think it is more accurate to say that industries donate to individuals who they perceive as predisposed to being bought.”
July 31st, 2009 at 10:35 am
Al, you might note that in 2000 the ratio of 60/40 was exactly the same, except in favor of Bush. Did they realize that he was most likely to be bought, too?
Instead of scoring facile rhetorical points like you do, Al, I’ll suggest that A) donations to Presidential candidates most likely closely tracks the political polling indicating the likely winner; and B) the numbers you are referencing conflate political campaign contributions from individuals, PACs, and soft-money. At the very least, contributions from individuals should be removed from the calculus in order to find the sort of effect that you are asserting exists.
July 31st, 2009 at 10:46 am
Insurance companies are bribing Congress to leave them alone. The money to be got from Congress is coming from the progressive lobbyists. Get it, Progressives demanding money from taxpayers, insurance companies saying, leave me out of it.
So it it the typical Yglesias intellectual slight of hand, easily caught. Progressives and conservatives, the two dishonest lobbyists in the country.
July 31st, 2009 at 11:03 am
You mean to say that as the potential size of government expands, interested parties give more money to Congress? Well, go figure! Shocking!
I guess the lesson we should all learn from that is that a public option would lead to permanent, massive meddling by Congress persons into the pricing, terms and conditions offered by the public option, and therefore we should strenuously oppose the public option, right? Right? I mean, seriously, now.
July 31st, 2009 at 11:04 am
That isn’t a flaw with the Reps or the Dems, the flaw pointed out is a flaw of democracy itself. That’s why getting the govy involved with the nation’s business, should generally be a last resort, back to the wall, sort of thing.
July 31st, 2009 at 11:27 am
In the second century BC, a Numidian king named Jugurtha famously described Rome as “urbem venalem et mature perituram, si emptorem invenerit” (”a city for sale and doomed to quick destruction, if it should ever find a buyer”).
July 31st, 2009 at 11:54 am
Funny, then, that the other democracies do a much better job on health care and none of their solutions, not even the Swiss (the next worst system to ours by the way in terms of bang for buck), do it by keeping the government out of health care.
The glibertarian insane clown posse is, well, insane. And ignorant.
July 31st, 2009 at 11:55 am
Finally, after posting a call for public financing on nearly every thread where Matt mentions the legalized cash-and-carry bribery scheme known as the American system of campaign finance, it gets a mention. Kudos, Mr. Yglesias.
Personal pet-issue related warm-fuzzys aside, this is a seriously important point. These massive corporations don’t just support their ideological soulmates on the right, they wholly own vast swathes of both parties. The system is broken and the only ones who benefit are the oligarchical profiteers in the top fraction of the top one percent of our population. This is their country, not ours, and it will stay that way as long as politicians can take bribes with a smile and a wave to the cameras.
There is only one solution to this problem, and it’s one with a long and successful track-record in other modern democracies: 100% public funding of all campaigns for public office. No seats bought buy self-financing billionaires, no more Senators from GM, Wal-Mart, AETNA, or Goldmann-Sachs. That’s what real campaign finance reform would bring.
July 31st, 2009 at 12:08 pm
The BIG CARD that Matthew is palming is that fact that Obama and the Democratic Caucus can screw Ben Nelson far more than the insurance companies. What we are having is a failure of WILL.
Obama should turn this over to Rahm Emmanuel –that’s what he’s there for.
I myself would go up to Fort Detrick, borrow a little sample of hoof-and-mouth disease, and dust it around one or two herds.
I would then use the ensuing outbreak as justification to kill every fucking cow, steer or calf in the Great State of Nebraska — as a public health measure.
And I wouldn’t give jack shit to the ranchers in compensation.
Of course, that approach would probably be too low-key and subtle for Rahm.
July 31st, 2009 at 12:15 pm
“The BIG CARD that Matthew is palming is that fact that Obama and the Democratic Caucus can screw Ben Nelson far more than the insurance companies.”
How exactly can they do this screwing, Don? As long as Nelson votes the right way, he’s going to get enough corporate cash to run roughshod over his opponents, so I don’t see how stripping him of seniority or whatever “screwing” you envision is going to change his vote.
July 31st, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Why is it that lobbyists representing corporations are considered evil, while lobbyists who represent Big Labor, The Trial Lawyers’ Assn, and other supporters of the Democrats are considered OK?
Doesn’t matter anyway. The Courts have clearly determined that lobbying and spending money to support political candidates is part of Free Speech and is protected. McCain/Feingold failed miserably and arguably made the situation worse.
IMO the best option at this point is Congressional term limits. The reason money corrupts is because pols need it to get reelected. If they didn’t have to worry about reelection, maybe they would be more willing to buck special interests and make decisions for the common good.