NOT COVERED
If you're one of the nearly 50 million Americans who lack health insurance, all the sound and fury of the current congressional debate over health care reform signifies nothing. The "Patients' Bill of Rights"--Democratic OR Republican version--is at best really just an "Insured Patients' Bill of Rights," for the competing proposals do nothing to expand access to health care for the uninsured. And while the health care issue is extraordinarily complex, the reason for this gap in legislative coverage can be summed up rather easily: uninsured Americans don't have a lobby and they don't make campaign contributions.
When asked last week by a CBS News poll, "On the health care system, what is the biggest problem government should address," the #1 priority voiced by the public was "insuring everyone." Dealing with "HMOs in general"--the central focus of the fight in the Senate last week--was raised by just 8% of those surveyed. But making sure that everyone has health insurance means going after powerful moneyed interests that now dominate the health care business, and by extension, the political debate.
Consider that since 1993, doctors and other health professionals have made almost $94 million in PAC, soft money and individual contributions to federal candidates and parties, nearly 60% to Republicans, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Managed care providers gave $10.5 million over that same period. In just the last election cycle, PAC contributions from health professionals, hospitals, nursing homes, pharmaceutical producers and health service providers totaled $18.3 million, 56% to Republican candidates. Insurance companies gave another $10.4 million, just over two-thirds to GOPers.
All this money and the lobbying that goes along with it has the effect of completely clogging the legislative arteries, blocking any consideration of fundamental solutions to the health care crisis. Each special interest group has subsidies it wants supported and privileges protected. Not surprisingly, a great deal of health-related money flows to the leadership of both parties.
PACs and individual donors connected to the insurance industry and the health professionals sector are respectively the #1 and #3 sources of all the money Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) has raised since 1993. They are the #2 and #4 sources of all the money Majority Whip Don Nickles (R-OK) has raised.
On the Democratic side of the aisle, health professionals and the insurance industry are the #3 and #5 backers of Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) since 1993. And they are #6 and #9 among Senator Edward Kennedy's sources of campaign funds, with the hospital/nursing home sector helping out at #10.
The same pattern shows up in the 1997-98 data for the House leadership. Health professionals and the insurance industry are Speaker Dennis Hastert's top two sources of contributions, with the pharmaceutical sector coming in at #7 and hospitals and nursing homes at #9. And Minority Leader Richard Gephardt (D-MO) is hardly different, with PAC and individual contributions from health professionals his #2 source of funds and insurers #7.
It's as if Congress is a private hospital that only treats paying patients, instead of a public institution open to all.
