Banning lobbying could save American democracy
(Image from politicalgraffiti.wordpress.com)
The hirings are part of a record-breaking influence campaign by the health-care industry, which is spending more than $1.4 million a day on lobbying in the current fight, according to disclosure records.
via Former Lawmakers and Congressional Staffers Hired to Lobby on Health Care – washingtonpost.com.
The American people are now competing with a giant cash machine that pumps over a million dollars a day into preventing a public healthcare option from ever becoming a reality. According to the most recent CBS/New York Times poll, 72% of Americans want a government-run healthcare system, and yet those Americans don’t have the reach and access bought by the private healthcare industry.
In the United States, players only get to ante into the democracy game if they have enough cash, and while the problem of corporate meddling in government isn’t uniquely American, other countries have created measures to preserve their democracies by keeping lobbyists away from elected officials.
Stephen Harper, the Canadian Prime Minister, introduced the 2008 Federal Accountability Act, including the Lobbying Act that was designed to regulate the behavior of lobbyists. The act created an independent office of the commissioner of lobbying who reports directly to Parliament, and whose job consists of investigating lobbyists’ activities. The Lobbying Act also increased the penalties for violations by doubling the fines to $200,000 and increasing potential prison time to up to two years for serious violations of the law. One has to assume the behavior of our $1.4 million/day lobbyists would land them in jail for decades.
Additionally, the act calls for monthly reports of any arranged meetings between senior officials and lobbyists. Such a provision would surely give healthcare money hogs like Chris Dodd (D-CT), Max Baucus (D-MT), Arlen Specter (D-PA), and Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) simultaneous aneurysms, but a Constitutional amendment regulating lobbyists might also save democracy.
The Lobbying Act prohibits former designated government officials from acting as consultant lobbyists for five years or carrying out lobbying activities on behalf of a company or organization as an employee after leaving the public service. If the United States adopted a similar act, it would finally put an end to the Washingtonian “revolving door” culture between public and private sector.
America needs a similar act to prevent creatures like former Clinton Treasury Secretary, Robert Rubin, from spending decades at Goldman Sachs before becoming chairman of Citigroup, which got a $300 billion taxpayer bailout from Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson. Rubin is one of many former government employees that oozed into the private sector, but kept a rolodex of government officials’ phone numbers clutched tightly to his bosom. But in this case, shit also slides uphill. Just as frequently, private sector manipulators are appointed to public office as we see this time with Hank Paulson, the former CEO of Goldman Sachs. Putting a banking lackey like Paulson in charge of the bailout may seem insane, but that’s only because it is. It is totally bat shit insane for a democracy to behave this way, but it makes sense for a corporatocracy where the ebb and flow of money between the private and public sector takes precedence over the will of the American people.
Now, the Corporatocracy is in full swing again with the healthcare debate, and the private sector will continue to win as long as they can buy a seat at the table. The rest of us poor suckers will have to keep hoping we eventually die peacefully in our sleep so we don’t burden our families with any outrageous hospital bills.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
Allison there are few points in your piece that trouble me. In the first place more and more of the players are stepping up to the plate regarding the public option and it looks like a near certainty that a public plan is going to be included in the final bill. I guess you didn’t see Sen. Schumer on Face The Nation yesterday (http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/schumer-promises-public-option-in-healthcare-bill-2009-07-05.html)so I don’t really understand how you can imply that a public plan is not going to happen.
I think you are conflating two issues, lobbyists and hiring practices. You imply that there is something nefarious underway in the person of Robert Rubin but offer no facts to back up your premise. You call for an amendment to the Constitution to regulate lobbyists and do not address the serious First Amendment issues such regulations would create. Corporate speech is just as protected as individual speech, this is a long settled argument in our country. Frankly I don’t think this issue rises to the level of constitutional amendment. We don’t change the Constitution to regulate activity we don’t like, it’s purpose is to form the structure of our government and define the relationship between the people and their government.
And lastly you let off the hook what I feel is the true culprit in the issue, the voter. Our electorate in this country compared to many in the world is lazy and woefully uninformed. As the health care debate is proving, when the voters speak up the voters win, not the corporations.
Brian – I’m aware of Schumer’s statement. It’ll be interesting to see what the “public option” covers, exactly. I haven’t seen the details reported anywhere. For example, Mary Landrieu (D-LA) was the co-sponsor of a bipartisan bill from Ron Wyden, which requires the federal government to create a public option in any state that lacks a variety of insurance options. Technically, that is “including a public option,” but it wouldn’t cover many Americans.
It’s a conflict of interest for officials to drift between public and private sector life, and then benefit from their connections in their prior occupations. Do you really not see a conflict of interest when Goldman Sachs employees serve in government positions and then go back to their private sector banking lives where their corporations are then the recipients of taxpayer bailouts? I really suggest you read Matt Taibbi’s excellent article in Rolling Stone over here to see how corrupt this whole system is.
I find it interesting that corporations want to be protected like individuals, but skirt other responsibilities thrust upon average citizens. Some corporations dodge paying taxes by shielding their revenues in tax havens, they are privy to an array of tax breaks from the federal government, and they are permitted to poison the environment. Yet, somehow, they are also the “victims” when it comes time to accountability.
In response to another comment. See in context »popurls.com // popular today…
story has entered the popular today section on popurls.com…
[...] Banning lobbying could save American democracytrueslant.com [...]
[...] Allison Kilkenny has a satisfying rant about how banning lobbying might just save American democracy. The American people are now competing with a giant cash machine that pumps over a million dollars a day into preventing a public healthcare option from ever becoming a reality. … In the United States, players only get to ante into the democracy game if they have enough cash. Close Bookmark and Share This Page Save to Browser Favorites / BookmarksAskbackflipblinklistBlogBookmarkBloglinesBlogMarksBlogsvineBuddyMarksBUMPzee!CiteULikeco.mmentsConnoteadel.icio.usDiggdiigoDotNetKicksDropJackdzoneFacebookFarkFavesFeed Me LinksFriendsitefolkd.comFurlGoogleHuggJamespotJeqqKaboodlekirtsylinkaGoGoLinkedInLinksMarkerMa.gnoliaMister WongMixxMySpaceMyWebNetvouzNewsvineoneviewOnlyWirePlugIMPropellerRedditRojoSegnaloShoutwireSimpySlashdotSphereSphinnSpurlSquidooStumbleUponTechnoratiThisNextTwitterWebrideWindows LiveWorlds MoviesYahoo!Email This to a FriendCopy HTML: If you like this then please subscribe to the RSS Feed or Email Feed.Powered by Bookmarkify™ Please Bookmark/Share » If you liked this, you might also like these related posts:Tiptoe, through the LobbyistsDemocracy in ActionThe Democracy of HumorAre Politicians Failing Our Lobbyists? This was written by Iron Knee. Posted on Monday, July 6, 2009, at 11:53 am. Filed under Irony. Bookmark the permalink. Follow comments here with the RSS feed. Post a comment or leave a trackback. [...]
[...] Banning lobbying could save American democracy True Slant [...]
Brian,
how could there be constitutional issues with restricting free speech rights of corporations when one is discussing a … constitutional amendment. Wouldn’t a constitutional amendment trump whatever nutty decisions the supreme court made regarding corporate personhood back in 1886.
Take away corporate personhood and a corporation becomes nothing more than a state chartered private project able to hire staff and forced to pay taxes. I’m all for it. Corporations are not people. If they don’t have the right to vote, why the hell should any of the constitution apply to them as if they were real, live, human beings?
“Brian – I’m aware of Schumer’s statement. It’ll be interesting to see what the “public option” covers, exactly. I haven’t seen the details reported anywhere. For example, Mary Landrieu (D-LA) was the co-sponsor of a bipartisan bill from Ron Wyden, which requires the federal government to create a public option in any state that lacks a variety of insurance options. Technically, that is “including a public option,” but it wouldn’t cover many Americans.”
I’m a little confused here Allison, your piece infers that there will be no public options because the lobbyist are making sure of that. Now you concede there will be a public option but am convinced it will disappoint, siting the actions of a few law makers. Seems to me you’re cherry picking what’s going in the sausage making process to back up your premise.
It’s pretty simple: There is no national “universal” option thus far because of healthcare lobbyists. Fairly easy-to-digest.
We’ll have to see how “universal” the Schumer option is.
In response to another comment. See in context »Maynard this would never rise to the issue of constitutional amendment, nor should it.
“We’ll have to see how “universal” the Schumer option is.”
Exactly! We have yet to see anything yet.
Right, which is why my article was titled, “Banning lobbying could save American democracy,” and not “I predict Charles Schumer’s public option won’t extend to every American.” If lobbying practices continue as they have traditionally, democracy will suffer, which was the whole point of the article.
In response to another comment. See in context »Brian:
Who is the one not discussing a constitutional amendment? If you read Ms. Kilkenny’s text, that’s exactly what she discusses. Right here:
“Such a provision [like the Canadian Lobbying Act] would surely give healthcare money hogs like Chris Dodd (D-CT), Max Baucus (D-MT), Arlen Specter (D-PA), and Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) simultaneous aneurysms, but a Constitutional amendment regulating lobbyists might also save democracy.”
Did you read the article you’re challenging?
I don’t think depriving one group’s right to petition their government serves anyone in the long run. Do you plan on banning all forms of lobbyists or just the ones you don’t like? I know you would like the drug and insurance companies banned. How about the Sierra Club, or what about HRC, or NOW, or NARAL are they still allowed to lobby under your proposed constitutional amendment?
I honestly believe that we are all better served by open and full disclosure, not tossing anyone’s First Amendments rights out the window. Considering the wide scale coverage of just how much cash is flowing and how the public is responding tells me the system is actually working this time. Which brings me back to my original point, the responsibility when push comes to shove falls to the electorate.
Yes maynard I read it, and no reason to be insulting because I hold a different view.
Brian,
I’m not insulting you because you hold a different view. An insult would be a personal attack. Like, “Brian in NYC ate Allison’s underpants! Nya! Nya!” Instead, I posted a comment saying that a constitutional amendment is a perfectly reasonable approach to changing rotten settled law by the SC. You replied by saying, we’re not discussing a constitutional amendment. So I quoted the part of this article where the author did just that: Discussed a proposed constitutional amendment.
So, am I to understand that your problem is that you disagree with her proposal? OK. Then your complaint is not with facts as presented in this content, but is instead a policy dispute over ideology. Just so we’re clear.
“Instead, I posted a comment saying that a constitutional amendment is a perfectly reasonable approach to changing rotten settled law by the SC.”
No, it’s not. I don’t think you go dicking around with the constitution to take away anyone’s right, it’s never been done and hopefully never will. We make laws to regulate public behavior. And I’ll eat my hat if you could find one constitutional expert or scholar who doesn’t agree with me on this point. What propose in my opinion violates the same constitutional principals that a marriage amendment would, same coin, different side of it.
i can`t agree more with you, this curse we have called lobbyists is a virus that must be dealt with Immediately with no mercy, those people think they are running a business but it`s a country and a nation we’re talking about here. Their loyalty is only to those who pay.
Hi Brian,
“No, it’s not. I don’t think you go dicking around with the constitution to take away anyone’s right, it’s never been done and hopefully never will.”
OK. Now we’re at an impasse over opinion and ideology. I disagree with you. I suspect the author of this blog post disagrees with you too, as promoting a constitutional amendment to limit corporate lobbying is what this article discusses.
And you’re right, plenty of lawyers and judges – including SC judges – would disagree with both me and the author of this article. They can bite me. All that matters is if a 2/3 of the federal legislature or 2/3 state legislatures are willing. It’s an entirely political process for an entirely political problem.
I want one thing, you want another. Welcome to democracy.
“Corporate speech is just as protected as individual speech”
Unfortunately individuals are not potentially immortal and most of us do not have millions to spend lobbying government, nor can we afford to hire lobbyists and PR folks to speak for us. A company does not vote, a company should have no right to lobby government or donate to political campaigns. If private individuals (be they CEO’s or Janitors) wish to donate or lobby, then that is perfectly fine. On their own time and with their own money. The vote of a CEO carries as much weight as the vote of a janitor. Why should lobbying be any different?
“All that matters is if a 2/3 of the federal legislature or 2/3 state legislatures are willing.”
Well that’s the first step of the process, then you have to ratify it, no small feet!
It is hard to argue Allison’s primary point which is that money in politics has robbed the American people of its government. I do believe that is true – however I’m wondering why Allison – and all the commenters-have chosen to (a) focus the point on the health care debate and (b) lay the problem solely at the feet of the lobbyist (although I certainly do not excuse their role in the corruption of government.
If we really want to get the money out the game, we should be starting with campaign finance. While it is true that much of the money paid out in exchange for influence comes from corporations and other businesses, it is delivered via the finance of campaigns. As it stands right now, it would be difficult to end this practice for the same reason it is difficult to end lobbying – First Amendment rights. But it is doable if there is a national will to make it happen. So far, it isn’t there (although I cannot imagine why.)
Brian is correct in pointing out that the special interests have played a cleaner brand of ball in this go-around in the health care debate. It remains to be seen how much they accomplish behind the scenes in blocking certain elements of the effort to achieve reform. I’m not entirely sure why Allison wants to put Chris Dodd in the pack of thieves as he is actually leading the drive for the public program. There are others I might have chosen.
And, just a point of correction, Robert Rubin’s career at Goldman Sachs took place prior to entering government – Citygroup came after.
One point that I do want to make – I’m not sure we should be so hard on the notion of highly placed business executives going into government just as maybe we should not be so hard on highly placed government executives going into business. There is something to be said about getting the best and brightest into government. I’m not sure I would favor a government filled with nothing but government “professionals”. And why should we not expect people who leave government to avoid using their talents in business? When it crosses the line into corruption of government based on money, that is one thing. But talented people should be encouraged to spend time in government as that will benefit us all.
I chose to focus on the healthcare debate because it’s timely, but I totally agree that we need campaign finance reform and publicly-funded elections. I’ve argued for that very change many times in the past.
Correct. That’s actually what I wrote: “America needs a similar act to prevent creatures like former Clinton Treasury Secretary, Robert Rubin, from spending decades at Goldman Sachs before becoming chairman of Citigroup, which got a $300 billion taxpayer bailout from Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson. ”
Surely, you aren’t arguing that the “best and the brightest” have been leading the economy and government for the past few decades. If this is the best job the “best and the brightest” can do, there’s not much hope for the country.
In response to another comment. See in context »“Why should lobbying be any different?”
Because what you propose is not sound law and both liberal and conservative courts have upheld the principle. Folks like it or not the law does matter.
I think you have confused two entirely separate issues.
1) Who can be a politically appointed regulator (as opposed to those who move up through civil service) and what jobs they can take after they leave public service. This goes to the revolving door issue.
Law covering this sort of thing already exist but it would not bad idea to strengthen them.
2) Who can be a lobbyist or what lobbyists can do is an entirely different issue, albeit related. There are existing laws about that as well which, one could also argue could be strengthened.
The simple fact of the matter is that every American has the right to petition their government. If I write a letter to my elected representatives in Washington, that’s lobbying and it is protected by the constitution. If I pay someone to do the same thing for me, it is no different.
Lobbyists have power not because they are lobbyists but because they represent people who have power. Being a lobbyist goes not automatically give anyone any influence. Just ask anyone who has every lobbied for a non-profit or community based organization (which I have). You get attention to extent they need your help or fear your influence with voters. Lobbyists are merely conduits for power and influence, not the source.
I did intend to have two separate points in my article. The laws already on the books for “regulating” the revolving door policy are so weak they’re laughable, but yes, I concur that strengthening them might be a good idea.
Of course, but conflating corporate lobbying with the rights of average Americans to call their Congress representatives is really intellectually dishonest. I’m not talking about non-profit lobbying, and I’m not talking about the right of average citizens to petition their government. I’m talking about corporations with billions of dollars and hundreds of lobbyists manipulating Congress reps, and using donations to bribe them from forming policies demanded by the majority of Americans.
In response to another comment. See in context »Restricting access to our representatives is the most undemocratic idea that I have ever heard of. Please think about what you are suggesting. I agree that corporations have far too much influence in government, but I agree with the gentleman who suggested that voters need to oust members of congress when they pander to big money interests. EVERYONE should have the ability to freely exchange ideas with representatives in Congress. Once you limit that access, you cease to be a democratic nation. We cannot run around picking and choosing who can and who cannot influence government. I don’t like those a-holes either, but there are democratic principles involved here that should not be tampered with.
Also, we need to remember that congress approves all appointments. It is up to the voters to decide whether or not the people who approve those appointments should serve additional terms. I think that people need to pay closer attention to what’s happening in Washington. That is the only way to really change things.
Also, I agree with you on Matt Taibbi. He is doing some serious work uncovering the ties between corporations and government. I would also recommend his article entitled “The Big Takeover” that was printed back in March.
If you believe that corporations have too much influence in government, then we’re in agreement. As I mentioned already, anyone arguing that I am somehow conflating corporate lobbying with the rights of average Americans to call their Congress representatives is really being intellectually dishonest. I’m not talking about non-profit lobbying, and I’m not talking about the right of average citizens to petition their government. I’m talking about corporations with billions of dollars and hundreds of lobbyists manipulating Congress reps, and using donations to bribe them from forming policies demanded by the majority of Americans.
Corporations are not people. They’re immortal cash cows that dodge fair taxation and sometimes poison the environment. They are immune to government regulation, and it’s only when they’re threatened with accountability that they claim the protection afforded to individuals under the First Amendment.
The Founders could never have envisioned the multinational conglomerate behemoths corporations have become today. That’s why we need new regulations and partitions between the public and private sector. Otherwise, corporations will continue to buy off public officials and our “democracy” will remain a corporatocracy.
In response to another comment. See in context »> > “Why should lobbying be any different?”
> Because what you propose is not sound law and both liberal
> and conservative courts have upheld the principle. Folks like
> it or not the law does matter.”
Brian, what you write is a classic tautology and circular reasoning. Basically, your argument amounts to: “One should not change settled law on corporate personhood because it is settled law from long ago, therefore it must be the correct constitutional interpretation that corporations be considered citizens with all the rights that entails under the law because … it’s settled law.” This circular logic thoroughly ignores the constitutional mechanism to correct BAD SETTLED LAW. Further, it makes the implied claim that old legal precedents are – by definition – correct precedents.
Many claim this is not so. Like me. I claim that Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad is a rotten precedent. I want to see that changed. And I don’t think this Supreme Court would agree with my assessment. Therefore, the only path open to citizens who believe one or more branches of government has swayed out of the realm of The Public’s consent is to force a challenge through the political process. Which is exactly what a constitutional amendment is intended for.
I see no reason why nonliving privately owned institutions should have any constitutional rights whatsoever. I understand that you and I disagree on what is the appropriate remedy. Hell, you might not even think there’s a problem to be solved here. But a lot of people disagree with you, and the politicians who have created this oligarchical mess we citizens now face.
Well it as very well and good to talk about these distinctions but as a practical matter, how would one actually write a bill in the manner that you would like? It sounds so simple but it is actually very difficult. It is like outlawing earthquakes, it is an excellent idea and you can do it but would it really accomplish anything? It is as the Germans “It is all in the how”. Would the new anti-lobbying law say that any organization that makes a profit cannot lobby? They are represented by non-profit trade organizations.
The real issue is that some sectors of society have power. Lawyers and lobbyists are just tools that those with power have at their disposal. People and organizations with power will find ways to use their power.
You are confusing the means of power with the source of power.
Exactly briano (nice nick btw
)
This is exactly why I brought up my point about groups like the Sierra Club, HRC, and NARAL. This issue here is restricting the speech of those you disagree with it. As long as we know who’s contributing what to whom the rest is in the hand of the voters.
Actually, Brian. You misunderstood the point of the article. If you can show me where I said non-profit lobbying is the cause of America’s woes, I’ll apologize promptly.
In response to another comment. See in context »“If you can show me where I said non-profit lobbying is the cause of America’s woes, I’ll apologize promptly.”
No, now I think you’re misunderstanding my point, my point is you can’t block lobbying from one group unless you do it to all groups. Turning a profit doesn’t not block one rights under the Constitution.
Sure you can. It’s as easy as stipulating that for-profit entities can’t lobby public officials. Or, at the very least, regulators need to keep track of who is doing the lobbying, when meetings between private and public officials occur, and how much money is being poured into lobbying efforts. The American people have a right to regulate what kind of (and with how much frequency) lobbying of their public officials occurs. Otherwise, the democratic process is overtaken by the richest, most influential players.
In response to another comment. See in context »That’s not true. I agree with you on your point that corporations have too much influence in government, but I disagree with your suggestion that limiting access to government will save democracy. Again, you cannot pick and choose who can and who cannot contact their representatives. It is up to voters to be informed about what their elected reps are doing once they sit. The founders would agree with me on that, I know that for certain.
I think that Brian in NYC is saying that it is up to us to decide who is in charge and I agree with that. People need to pay attention and we simply don’t. The government should not go around telling one group that it won’t listen to them. How could you even regulate that?? All that would happen is that those dealings and corruption would be better hidden. It would probably actually accomplish the opposite!! It would get worse!!
You act like the American people democratically voted for representation by corporate lobbyists. If that happened, I would agree that the overwhelming presence of corporate lobbyists in Washington is a triumph for democracy. Unfortunately, only the richest players get intimate access to government officials, which is not the goal of a true democracy.
Now, if you’re arguing that we vote for what lobbyists get to influence our government officials, I’m all for that! I think non-profit lobbyists will fair very well in that election.
In response to another comment. See in context »Agreed. There are for profit groups and non-profit groups alike who have a lot of power and have a lot of influence in government. This is not strictly a corporation issue.
Alison my problem with your premise is that you want to pick and chose who gets to speak. I’m sorry but I think your wrong.
I hate to do a copy & paste job, but my response to Briano applies here, too. Don’t confuse the rights afforded to individuals with the rights afforded to representatives of corporations. Citizens have rights, but corporations don’t. Corporations are not people, and whoever they employ are mere extensions of the corporation. We’re not talking about mom and pop Johnson petitioning their Congressperson at the steps of the Capitol to help save their farm. We’re talking about enormous private healthcare corporations fighting 72% of the American people’s desire for a government run healthcare program.
In response to another comment. See in context »Lobbyists have as much right to those members as you or I do. That is all I am saying.
But corporations don’t. Corporations are not people, and whoever they employ are mere extensions of the corporation. We’re not talking about mom and pop Johnson petitioning their Congressperson at the steps of the Capitol to help save their farm. We’re talking about enormous private healthcare corporations fighting 72% of the American people’s desire for a government run healthcare program.
In response to another comment. See in context »Here’s an idea: only real human constituents should have the right to lobby congressional members. If you’re a member of a congressional district, or you’re a citizen of a state in this union, you may write a letter, stop by that member’s office, or a Senator of your state, and lobby him or her with whatever legislative solution to whatever problem you pose.
If you’re a private company, you do not have that right. Not even if the business is chartered in a state or congressional district of the Senator or Congressperson in question. It’s that simple. In this way, there are no individuals called out within the legislation (or constitutional amendment) and thus there is no abuse of equal protection.
Because nonliving corporations are not citizens and they never were.
This is my point, exactly. I think sometimes individuals extend their own freedom of expression protections to corporations, which is extremely dangerous. Corporations are immortal entities backed by billions of dollars and hundreds of lobbyists. They wield enormous influence and power, and yet they consistently skirt regulatory and judicial laws applied to average citizens. Decades of deregulation have allowed corporations to run amok and it’s time to rein them back in.
In response to another comment. See in context »Why not simply make an end run that will be good for America in so many ways: Term limits. Career politicians get cozy with money because they intend to be in the game for life. Limit that life to 2 terms for senate and 5 terms for congress and the whole dynamic changes. This won’t eliminate all the bottom feeders, but it will dramatically increase the number of citizen statesmen and stateswomen in DC (maybe to a majority), destroy the power elite, and make lobbyists an endangered species.
A good idea in general, though this won’t eliminate corporate influence entirely. It’s as easy to manipulate a 2-termer as it is a career politician.
In response to another comment. See in context »But they are still people with interests who actually do the lobbying. The corporation doesn’t walk down there and do it. Yes, they are an extension of the corporation. Yes, they have too much influence. Who’s problem is that? Ours. Who should do something about it by voting for a different representative? We should. Simple as that. If 100% of that 72% payed attention to what their rep is doing, they would easily be able to replace that person.
My job causes me to have certain political interests as well. Should someone be able to stop me from writing a letter to my congressman because I want him to do things that are favorable to public education? Should someone who hates public education be able to stop me from lobbying??
I absolutely agree that liberals should support more progressive candidates and third-party candidates if they want significant policy changes.
However, my article is not addressed to individual citizens. It’s directed at corporations, which are not individuals.
In response to another comment. See in context »Mr. Wilson,
I argue against term limits using the “Yes, Minister” rationale. Term limits leads not to greater power among citizen law-makers, and thus citizens, but to incompetent legislators. Which furthers the career ambitions of long-term staffers, who could – under the approach favored by Ms. Kilkenny, respond to corporate lobbyists without any check against them as they are not legislators. Therefore, the power would not diffuse to congressional constituents but be even more concentrated among congressional staffers and those who can influence them. JMO.
@briano:
> My job causes me to have certain political interests as well.
> Should someone be able to stop me from writing a letter to my
> congressman because I want him to do things that are favorable
> to public education? Should someone who hates public education
> be able to stop me from lobbying??
Absolutely not. Even as a CEO of a major corporation, I think you should have the right to step into YOUR congressperson’s or Senator’s office and lobby him or her over specific legislation relevant to you. But you shouldn’t have the right to lobby congresspersons out of the district where you personally live, nor should you have the right to lobby a Senator outside of your state. Professional lobbyists employed by lobbying firms and corporations should simply be banned.
Follow this logic and corporate lobbying goes away. Further, lobbying becomes limited to district members, which – arguably – is how congress was intended to operate by our Founding Fathers to begin with.
Maynard,
I agree, which is why I say it is up to the voters in each district to recognize whether their representative is working for his or her constituents, or if that representative is working for Corporation X. It is not up to government to regulate that, it is up to the people.
Maynard is absolutely correct. Only individuals have rights in this country. If by some injustice we have allowed corporations rights that were meant for “we the people” then we need to change those laws.
I think all lobbying needs to be banned. The “Sierra Club” is still a corporation and can influence decision just as badly as a multi-billion dollar corporation.
BrianO.
Do you really think that letting people voice their opinion with their vote is working? Are you willing to let a congressman or senator corrupt the country for their entire term an then vote them out? Why not take as much potential for corruption away from them as possible?
Ms. Kilkenny,
I am afraid that your whole idea is hopelessly unrealistic. Let me provide an illustration of what I mean. In the 1960’s and 70’s the United Farm Workers union took on some of the most powerful corporate forces in the world. Agricultural workers do not have the right to organize unions under the National Labor Relations Act. So the UFW had to get a law passed that gave them that right. They did that by organizing first the farm workers themselves but then by organizing community support as well. They were able to create their own power. With this power, they were able to get their own lobbyists and they fought it out “mano a mano” with the giants of agribusiness and won. They got the California Agricultural Labor Relations Act passed. It was an amazing accomplishment, achieved over the enormous oppostion of giant multi-national corporation. I was there, I saw it happen, I lived it and breathed it. I can be done (”Si se puede!”).
The point was that the UFW never attempted to limit agribusinesses lobbying efforts and still won. Why? First because it would have been pointless, under US and California law corporation have rights, including the right to petition the government. You might think that it is a terrible thing for giant corporation to have legal rights but it is a fact life, they do. You might just as well ignore gravity. To eliminate those rights one would need to completely rewrite all of US law. To imagine that somehow someone is going to write a law that strips corporations of their rights is the height of naïveté. If anyone other than giant corporations had that sort of power, we would not need to worry about the whole issue.
Second, it completely misses the point. What the farm workers needed was power, power enough to get what they needed. Once they got power, they were able to use lobbyists to funnel that power to get the law passed. When they got that power, all of the lobbyists in world were unable to stop them.
Ms. Kilkenny, the key to limiting corporate power is not limit their use of lobbyists but to create a counter power among other sectors of society. When they get power, they will use lobbyist to focus that power on congress.
Let them have their lobbyist and let us get ours and let the lobbyists with the most power win. That is how its done.
A great point (and a wonderful story of victory for farm workers,) but not the same thing as the private healthcare industry lobbying to suppress the democratic will of the American people. A collection of individuals calling themselves a “lobby” is not the same thing as a corporation hiring lobbyist lackeys to fight the American people’s wishes. One (the UFW) is the perfect example of democracy in action. The other (private healthcare) is a perfect example of corporatism.
Unfortunately, it’s not enough to say “may the best lobbyist win,” because the best lobbyists are the ones with the most money that can buy the most access. It’s not as though we’re operating on a level playing field where the best ideas win. The most money wins. In that scenario, the American people lose every time.
In response to another comment. See in context »“Don’t confuse the rights afforded to individuals with the rights afforded to representatives of corporations. Citizens have rights, but corporations don’t.”
According to whom? On what do you base these statements?
Well, it’s pretty obvious corporations aren’t people, right Brian?
But if you mean reading material, I’d start here:
Ralph Nader on Corporations: http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Ralph_Nader_Corporations.htm
Noam Chomsky on Corporatism: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389×3307125
The Gap Between Statutory and Real Corporate Tax Rates: http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_welfare/real_tax_rates_plummet.php
Now Corporations Claim The “Right To Lie”: http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0101-07.htm
The list goes on and on…
In response to another comment. See in context »Corporate personhood debate
“The laws of the US hold that a legal entity (like a corporation or non-profit organization) shall be treated under the law as a person except when otherwise noted. This rule of construction is specified in 1 U.S.C. §1, which states:
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise— the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;”
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood_debate#Recent_background)
I see the confusion. You think I was saying the law DOESN’T exist. I’m saying it SHOULDN’T exist.
When I said “don’t confuse the rights afforded to individuals with the rights afforded to corporations,” I meant that, while the government recognizes corporations as people, I think that’s wrong. A corporation isn’t a person. It’s a collection of individuals beholden to no one except shareholders (and in some cases, not even them.)
In response to another comment. See in context »I look at lobbying as a necessary evil. As David mentioned it is a tool that can be used by all types of groups and people. The problem occurs, as you noted, where associations affect the morality of the lobbying. The laws in this area are weak but so are lines that can be drawn.
I get frustrated though when corporate lobbying is viewed as some bad thing.
“private healthcare industry lobbying to suppress the democratic will of the American people”.
Nonsense; being that corporations are representing a majority of the people that work in the US, I’d say they are representing their constituents, aka, employees. The health care industry is representing the millions that work in the industry. And like me, they represent those who oppose nationalized government health insurance and realize this would be the worst idea. It’s naïve to say this is the “will” of the people when there is an equal opposition. This is not to say corporations are angles either. The power can get to corporations as it does to the government, and yes, unfortunately it is the American people that lose on both cases. There are a lot better solutions than handing it over to the government. The last thing we need is 33% waste/fraud in all of health insurance.
Speaking of corporations, the first thing we need to do is get health insurance out of corporate and government hands. My company doesn’t cover my car insurance, so why health insurance, just so they can enjoy the tax breaks (aka corporate welfare)? Company provided insurance all started because the government wanted to control wages, yet another side effect of meddling. But government health care will be yet another subsidy to be burdened on the middle class.
In this case, 72% of the American people want a government run program (according to the most recent New York Times/CBS polls,) so yes, the lobbyists for the private healthcare industry are in fact suppressing the will of the American people. Of course, they do the suppression with an assist from elected officials, so I won’t heap the blame entirely on lobbyists. Instead, I heap the blame on lobbyists and the officials taking their money, which is why I wholeheartedly support the work done by Firedoglake and MoveOn.org.
There’s not equal opposition. Those that oppose a government run healthcare program are in the minority. I’m not sure where you’re getting this concept of the health care industry, but healthcare is currently privatized in this country, and it’s been an abject failure. People are uninsured, underinsured, or paying outrageous premiums for coverage that may not pay out when they do get sick because of a “preexisting condition.”
In response to another comment. See in context »Well this has been a lengthy thread to say the least, Allison you might have set the T/S record! It’s been fun, I’m off to bed, night.
A’thank ya’, Brian
And thanks for the comments.
In response to another comment. See in context »Consider that elected officials need to raise in the neighborhood of $30,000 per week to run their campaigns. If we financed their campaigns directly that would at least give the chance of eliminating much of the backroom trading that goes on. Maybe we could have avoided the whole bank bailout that Goldman Sachs & AIG managed to pull off
An invaluable point, and one that I’ve been stressing.
In response to another comment. See in context »Allison
I can’t help but agree with your point that we have not seen the “best and the brightest” in government over the past number of years. That does, however, lead us into another area of the conversation and that is the media’s role in – and public desire for- for all the irrelevant details of a candidate’s or appointee’s life that make participating in government not worth the price. While your response is fair and correct, my point remains that we should want the smart and successful people in government.
Absolutely, but it’s difficult for the government to compete with the private sector that pays so much more. The “best minds” want the fat paychecks, so they tend to joint he private sector. Now, that’s also because a lot of pro-privatization folk went into government and began gutting it from the inside-out.
But your larger point is an excellent one — the media was absolutely complicit in collectively dumbing-down election coverage. Of course, one needs to consider the “ownership model” of media, which leads to the whole problem of media monopolies and singular political ideologies from the heads of those media monsters (i.e. Rupert Murdoch and FOX) creating bias in news coverage. We probably both agree the woeful state of the mainstream media in itself is a highly persuasive argument for the need of independent media.
In response to another comment. See in context »Thanks for this piece. You are so right about the damage that has been done as a result of corporations having seized the advantages of personhood without also accepting the risks and responsibilities. Dealing with this issue would solve deeper issues than figuring out how to filter which kinds of organizations (for-profit corporations vs. non-profits vs. grass-roots citizen coalitions) can attempt to influence government personnel and in what ways. As some here have noted, eliminating that corporate personhood, now that it has become as invasive as a blackberry bramble, would not be feasible.
But perhaps there is another way, if we accept that personhood, and cause corporations to be subject to all of the risks and responsibilities that go with it. The idea has intrigued me for some time now, so I used a fictional context to explore what might follow from that choice. The series of short stories in this exploration are available at my Wordpress blog. The first one is called “Logical Conclusion”. Here’s the URL:
http://klurgsheld.wordpress.com/2007/08/30/short-story-logical-conclusion/
Fabulous! I love this
In response to another comment. See in context »Health care privatized in this country? Hardly, almost 50% is public, socialized care. http://www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/tables.pdf
The poll only shows a lack of understanding from the public. Most do not identify hardship with health care costs or consider it urgent, and most are satisfied with their service; yet most see reform as an urgent thing? Hello. And I’m sure none have any idea what is in the health bill. They’re just following the crowd of mis-information.
Medicare is the abject failure. In the private world it would be bankrupt, but now medicare can pull from general funds to survive. Medicare is the cause of private rising costs. If government is going to provide below market prices on care the hospitals need to make up their costs on the private side. I have personally observed this. Did I mention the 33% fraud and waste in medicare? You’ll also see the administrative costs per beneficiary are lower on the private side. Careful with bad numbers, I found several misleading.
I agree with the media bias though. You got ABC, CBS, NBC, and MSNBC (and GE behemoth) on one bias extreme and FOX on the other side. Although I can’t say much to either since they haven’t been my source for a while.
I think we can put “best and brightest” as the antonym for “politician”.
Leaving 50% of the population to the private healthcare industry still means 150 million + people are in the private healthcare industry (or not, if they can’t afford coverage.) The United States is currently the only western industrialized country without universal healthcare.
That’s completely false, which is why 85% of the responders said that the health care system needed to be fundamentally changed or completely rebuilt http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/health/policy/21poll.html.
Medicare hasn’t been the failure. The private healthcare industry has made healthcare completely unaffordable to citizens by privatizing services. I couldn’t help but notice you’ve offered absolutely no sources for anything you’ve written, which is very interesting. “I have personally observed this,” wouldn’t cut it as a source in a high school essay writing class.
Tell me, where are you getting this information from? (What polling source do you use, if not from the “behemoths?”)
In response to another comment. See in context »[...] Are lobbyists really the problem with our democracy? [...]
Sure, happy to correct your mistakes and provide references. Just figured this was common knowledge. But I’m not dealing with APA, had enough of that in the past.
“The United States is currently the only western industrialized country without universal healthcare.” I hope this is not your basis. My kid tries to make that complaint on toys too.
As for my reference to “most are satisfied with their service”. Please read paragraph three in your referenced article…”77 percent said they were very or somewhat satisfied with the quality of their own care”. As I noted the survey result are very contradictory.
Next, Medicare failure. And yes I did get my info from a behemoth…the government. Plenty of resources:
GAO shows it as a high risk program:
“Since 1990, GAO has designated Medicare as a high-risk program due to its size and complexity, as well as its susceptibility to mismanagement and improper payments.” … “Absent reform, Medicare’s spending growth is unsustainable over time— spending is projected to increase to 7 percent of gross domestic product by 2035.” … “Its improper fee-for-service payments were estimated to be $10.4 billion in fiscal year 2008 “ (p89) http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09271.pdf
Board of trustees: “Although the short-range financial status of the HI trust fund has not been considered satisfactory since 2003, the outlook has further deteriorated as a result of the current economic recession.” http://www.cms.hhs.gov/ReportsTrustFunds/downloads/tr2009.pdf
Oh, and pretty charts too… http://www.kff.org/medicare/upload/7905.pdf
Offsetting costs to private insurers. Article provides sources as well:
“The profits built into these payments cover the losses hospitals book on serving Medicare and Medicaid patients, who are billed high prices but often do not pay their bills in full. Private insurers also feed the net profits that most for-profit and not-for-profit hospitals book.” http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/how-do-hospitals-get-paid-a-primer/
You’re kidding, right? Please tell me you’re not from the Glenn “I’m glad the United States is ranked 37th by the World Health Organization for the quality of our health care system because I wish it was a lot lower” Beckian school. Do you think privatization (i.e. making healthcare more unaffordable to poor people) will somehow bump us up that list? Or is that just not a big concern for you?
You’re conflating satisfaction with care and satisfaction with the delivery system for that care. When people manage to get medical attention, they don’t usually complain about their doctors and nurses. That doesn’t mean they approve of the overall delivery system of a privatized healthcare system.
The American people aren’t confused about who to blame for this problem. Only 18 percent of respondents said the Republicans were likely to fix the problem of healthcare. Why? Because more privatization isn’t the answer, and privatizing the healthcare system has only brought the United States to a more dire place where millions of people are suffering.
What exactly are the Medicare and Medicaid patients being accused of not paying the bills for? The actual cost of their medical care, or the wildly inflated prices?
While the 2009 annual report of Medicare’s trustees underscores the need for system-wide reform of health care financing that will slow the growth of health care costs in Medicare, it also addresses the problems in the private sector, and stresses the need to extend health coverage to the uninsured.
Medicare’s long-term financing problems stem primarily from the continuing sharp rise in health care costs throughout the U.S. health care system, not from structural problems with the program. (https://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2818)
By the way, the same NYT contributor you quote in one of your sources, Uwe E Reinhardt, makes the argument over here (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/26/is-health-care-reform-worth-16-trillion/) that America can have universal heathcare coverage for around 1% of the GDP. He also states:
You should check it out. It has those nice graphs you like.
In response to another comment. See in context »The “Logical Conclusion” story is an interesting perspective. Going to need an awful big electric chair though.
The secret to the story is the millions the lawyer will get for sentencing the company, instead of the true beneficiaries. How about socializing lawyers? We could have salary limits and regulate the percentage of winnings they can take. It would reduce the money “hunters” out there.
[...] Allison Kilkenny – Unreported – Banning lobbying could save American democracy – T…. Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and [...]
These are my views only, based on my research. I just feel that a decision should not be made based on what others do, but from research and analysis of a best solution. This country was made on not doing what everyone else does, but thinking for our own. And hearing different views provides the best understanding of the options as well as to test a person’s ideas.
The review does make a good point of the same growth in the private sector and probably right about the insurance satisfaction. I’d be curious what Medicare satisfaction numbers are though. You keep referring to private insurance, but very little of the process fits a private model. It’s heavily regulated at the state level and it’s mostly controlled/selected through a 3rd party company and personal tax incentives. Not much competition occurring in that structure. But I’ve never stated the “private” insurance was perfect. I have my own reform ideas where I’ll have more power as an individual consumer; they just don’t involve the government.
Careful on those percentages they’re stating. Since Medicare covers elderly and disabled it also has a higher outlay per beneficiary, which is understandable. But if Medicare is around $10,000 per and private around $4,000 per, those percentages equate to $850 and $330, respectively. So Medicare went up 2 ½ times to private care. The last statement is a sales ploy and seems to contradict to forecasting issues in the report.
Good find on the other Reinhardt article. The Milliman report (http://www.milliman.com/expertise/healthcare/products-tools/mmi/pdfs/milliman-medical-index-2009.pdf ) it refers to also has some good information I’ve been looking for, and yes nice graphs. So… in 2020 we will be giving 35% of our income to Medicare and 44% to our own healthcare. That leaves a little over 20%….oh didn’t include the other taxes. Yea it’s messed up.
My biggest concern of universal care is rationing and my taxes going up 25%. It is impossible to have universal care without rationing. With “free” care, there will always be overuse of service. Just as $10 co-pays induce an overuse of services, but to more extreme.
The United States system involves rationing right now. “Failing to insure some 43 million Americans is a form of rationing. Devising payment systems that financially reward HMO doctors for restricting access to specialists and tests and hospital admissions is rationing. Not having enough nurses leads to rationing of care on hospital wards. And the fact that well-off people can pay out of pocket for medical services not covered by insurance is the most fundamental form of rationing.” (Robert Kuttner: http://www.commondreams.org/views/021300-101.htm)
No one is saying the medical systems in Canada and Britain are perfect, but the “rationing” (mild as it is in Britain,) is the result of successive Tory governments thinking they could provide decent medical care by spending as little as 6 percent of GDP. That problem has diminished gradually when Labor took over and slowly increased that percentage for the first time in two decades. (12% GDP should be the goal). “Britain, despite its threadbare system of medical treatment, covers everyone. So it actually has an average life expectancy (at birth) of about 78 years, compared with 75 years in the United States.”
Where universal healthcare succeeds (and is far superior to private healthcare) is prevention: “universal sanitation, universal vaccination for preventable diseases, prenatal and baby care, screening for conditions that can benefit from early treatment, and universal annual checkups, as well as public education on factors that affect health, such as diet, exercise, and lifestyle.
In response to another comment. See in context »[...] Banning lobbying could save American democracy The American people are now competing with a giant cash machine that pumps over a million dollars a day into preventing a public healthcare option from ever becoming a reality. According to the most recent CBS/New York Times poll, 72% of Americans want a government-run healthcare system, and yet those Americans don’t have the reach and access bought by the private healthcare industry… [...]
[...] also quite interesting to visit a short description of how the insurance lobbies work in this country. For example, did you know that 72 percent of Americans support a public [...]
[...] also quite interesting to visit a short description of how the insurance lobbies work in this country. For example, did you know that 72 percent of Americans support a public [...]
Kuttner makes good points on current rationing, but stating that out-of-pocket medial services is rationing, is a big stretch. By that point of view, anything a person cannot afford is rationing. A well-to-do person buys a big house with new technologies that a poorer person cannot afford is rationing? This is called an equilibrium of supply and demand.
Also, prices of medical care have grown the slowest (and sometimes dropped) where only out-of-pocket services are done. Take a look at Lasik prices over the years.
I can understand basic core emergency care fitting the model, but since the uninsured already get this for free, as hospitals are required to provide the service, it’s hardly rationing. And for people to demand free universal health care is the purest sense of greed.
And another thing, I get tired of the “46 million” or in this case “43 million”. One can look at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/hlthins/hlthins.html
and see 8 million as non-citizen (aka illegal immigrants), 11 million making over 50K, thus choosing not to have coverage, instead a new car. 13 million already qualifying for government insurance but too lazy to do it. It leaves about 5-10 million with true need of care, which is where the focus should be. And where may charities already focus on.
Yes, those Veteran’s hospitals have been passing sanitary needs quite well. http://www.everydayhealth.com/blog/zimney-health-and-medical-news-you-can-use/va-hospital-problems/
With the exception of vaccinations and diseases, private care does well on the others; it’s just that people tend to ignore the healthy lifestyle. A choice they make. I don’t think the government will change that unless they take that choice, aka freedom, from them.
I’m game to try it out though.
Predictions:
Stage 1: universal care
Stage 2: over budgeted, overuse of services
Stage 3: cut back of payment of services
Stage 4: Reduction of doctors and nurses
Stage 5: Rationing of care, long waits, out lash from citizens
Stage 6: Cut back of available services, supplemental private insurance
Stage 7: virtual bankruptcy of universal care
Stage 8: Me saying “I told you so”
Stage 9: Back to where we are are now.
Life expectancy is a poor measurement of how good or bad a health care system is. Too many other factors come into play.
What should be looked at is mortality rates for just those with ailments like cancer. You’ll start to see US on top of several charts. There are other unmeasurable items like suffering and indirect mortality of waiting. Here’s a good article on the waits in Canada. http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/10/15/waittimes-fraser.html
So instead of talking about what all does not work or work well, including current system, how about what does work. How about eliminating 3rd party company insurance? Remove tax deductions from companies and provide them to individuals. Loosen up strict state package requirements and provide more ala carte packages available US wide. And promote more charities to cover the gaps allowing the people to choose who most needs the assistance.
“And another thing, I get tired of the “46 million” or in this case “43 million”… 8 million as non-citizen (aka illegal immigrants), 11 million making over 50K, thus choosing not to have coverage, instead a new car. 13 million already qualifying for government insurance but too lazy to do it. It leaves about 5-10 million with true need of care, which is where the focus should be. And where may charities already focus on.”
I wonder how it is that you add 8, 11, and 13 and subtract from 43-46 and get 5-10???
Really I’ve seen this kind of numerical breakdown before in the press and on right wing blogs and it’s a terribly distorted piece of propaganda even when the numbers do kinda sorta look like they add up.
The most obvious reason why it’s a distortion is that not all of the categories listed are never mutually exclusive. Nor are they presented as such in the reports used to source them. It’s ENTIRELY possible for a non-citizen to be making more than 50K a year for example. So it’s a misuse of statistics right there. If you were trying to be minimally honest, just based on the numbers you’ve given, you should have said “more than 11-14 million” not 5-10.
Speaking of distortions. It’s also important to note that a non-citizen is NOT the same thing as an illegal immigrant no matter how often right wing pundits want to equate the two terms. There are many people residing in the United States who are here temporarily or are working toward citizenship and are here perfectly legally.
Even if your basic arithmetic and definitions were correct, “true need of care” is obviously something you are defining in your own arbitrary way. IMO a deathly sick 2 year old whose parents carried them over the border as a baby and is thus technically an “illegal immigrant” but who doesn’t have health care absolutely IS in “true need” of care. As are other sick non-citizens be they illegal or not.
Of course we’re not even talking about care here at all, but insurance. My understanding of insurance is that it is most effective the more people are in the system. This is especially true of health insurance where diseases and conditions treated as early as possible are far cheaper for the system as a whole and prevention is the best and cheapest option of all. The emergency room is the LAST place we want to be treating people regardless of their insurance status.
Non-citizens, people who spend their money poorly, and lazy people all still DO get sick and they DO get care. It’s just that if and when they can’t afford to pay for it, they just get it at OUR (tax-payer) expense. And when they aren’t insured, they usually hold off until the last and worst possible moment when it costs us the most.
What would you do about the non-citizens rather than insuring them I wonder? Ship all 8 million of them back to their countries of origin? That’s actually pretty damned expensive you know especially since you basically have to go home by home to find these reluctant deportees. You probably would have to remove a number of them by force. And good luck keeping the general populace under control if the government tries that.
Or maybe you just think we should deny them treatment if they are not citizens and just let them stay sick and the worst of them just die on the street? I admit that *would* highly discourage illegal immigration (or ANY immigration) but it would just result in making the United States have not just one of the most costly and ineffectual medical systems in the industrialized world but also probably one of THE most *inhumane* systems. I for one think such a system would be a moral atrocity. Far wiser and more humane to spend more up front to extend universal coverage to everyone so that whenever anyone is treated, it is *paid* for.
The 50K income thing is also rather arbitrary. I realize the census statistics use that number as a categorical cut off but it’s still an arbitrary number. There’s hardly a guarantee that because you happen to make 50K that you should always be able to afford health insurance or health care. If you are trying to support 4 kids and were tricked into buying an overly expensive mortgage by greedy bankers that you are about to be foreclosed on, then maybe it’s not so easy to afford insurance eh? In fact maybe you also have educational loans to pay for for yourself and your kids, maybe paying for pre-school for your youngest kids, maybe child support payments for your illegitimate kids, maybe car loans, maybe exorbitant credit card bills after your provider randomly jacked up your interest rate for no reason, maybe aging parents or grandparents you are taking care of, maybe EXISTING expensive medical bills from before you had insurance, maybe an expensive drug habit, maybe you just paid for a wedding, etc. etc. etc.
Now if you were saying 50 Million a year maybe I’d say you have a point. Everyone with a salary over that really SHOULD be able to afford insurance. But just because you make over 50K doesn’t mean you can’t have a hard life.
Remember costs of livings are different around the country too. In some places surviving on 50K would be easy in other places it’s nearly impossible.
It’s also entirely possible that you just GOT that job that pays over 50K. Statistically you look the same as someone who has been working at that salary for 30 years. If you’ve only just started is it so unreasonable to think that given all your other expenses health insurance might be low on your agenda? And if you don’t know if or how long you’re going to be able to keep that job, maybe you make a judgment call to save your money rather than waste it on expensive premiums. Can you really blame someone for making a decision like that without knowing anything about their life or their situation?
All that’s ASSUMING if you make >50K you can even find someone who can cover you if you wanted to. That’s hardly a sure thing. Many of those making over 50K would love to have insurance but can’t get covered because of pre-existing conditions. Or they had coverage and were dropped once they manifested a sickness dire enough that they might actually NEED their insurance. A lot of insurance companies do that.
Lastly the “too lazy” category seems like a rather arrogant characterization. I mean, to put all the blame on the people who aren’t in government funded programs when they could be seems like a really bad way of looking at it. It’s not necessarily their FAULT they didn’t know. Often it can be difficult to take the time to research when you are working several jobs doing all you can to maintain basic survival. A large chunk of the population in the United States doesn’t even have access to the internet at home let alone broadband or cable television for that matter. Why should they know? Should the knowledge of such programs have magically floated into their heads?
Anyway, the fact that there are millions of people who qualify for coverage but AREN’T being covered is not IMO an argument against reforming the health insurance system. It’s an argument FOR reforming the system. Seriously, that’s a travesty in and of itself. It tells me we need MORE money for outreach to these people, or some other mechanism like an individual mandate so that we can be assured that they will be covered by whatever systems they qualify for.
And none of this even touches on the very large barely reported numbers of individuals and families in the United States who are UNDER INSURED. People who technically fall into the census bureaus insured numbers. People who are just a single accident away from lost insurance and then financial ruin. People who purposefully go without needed treatment because of the extreme costs to them they can’t afford EVEN THOUGH they have insurance. And people who only have health insurance for part of the year. There are millions of such people.
It’s absurd to try to downplay the problems in our medical system in attempt to discourage a public option. Anyone with any real experience dealing with any of these problems knows the system here is atrocious and desperately in need of reform. You need to only go to some of the poorest neighborhoods in the country to see people as desperately in need of care as people from some of the poorest third world countries. It’s insulting to suggest that these people are too lazy or dumb to get their proper insurance or just don’t deserve it because they’re “evil” illegals.
It really ought to be a moral outrage that a country as rich as the United States does not provide all of its citizens minimal basic health care. And it’s horrifying to hear people speak as if that’s okay or as if keeping a few rich insurance giants in business were somehow more important than the health and well being of millions of uninsured children.
I don’t personally really care how we reform health care. A public option system could work if we do it right. A heavily regulated private system could work. An individual mandate system could work. A single payer system could work (and is in my opinion probably the most likely to work).
What can’t work is a system governed and ruled by for profit insurance companies who purposefully look for ways to exclude in order to increase their profit margins. We’ve tried that. It’s an abject failure.
The fact is if we don’t come up with a MUCH better system soon, we’re going to be screwed and we’ll all end up hanging our heads in shame.
Wow that was long…feels good to vent though.
I forgot to include children, since they’re mostly covered under CHIP, but you point on the statistics is a valid one. But that’s not the true point. The problem is a distorted number is being used to sway a problem to a government solution. If they said 15 million would people have a different perspective on the problem?
Everything in your 50K scenarios lack one thing. Responsibility for your own actions and choices you make. “Maybe exorbitant credit card bills after your provider randomly jacked up your interest rate for no reason”, there’s a funny one. Again an irresponsible choice to attain too much debt. And it’s not random; many factors affect that rate. Don’t like the rate, choose a different credit company.
“Often it can be difficult to take the time to research when you are working several jobs doing all you can to maintain basic survival.” Yet another pathetic excuse. I’m sure they know who won on American Idol.
I hate to be hard on the “have-nots”, but I feel it’s the best way to push people as it did me. Just in the same way we want to give everything to our children but take a tough heartbreaking decision to resist see them break through the challenges in life.
The problem I’ve learned is making decisions purely from the heart tends to make you blind to understanding the long term costs. One can see the external and social costs to a welfare system. The trick is providing the right assistance at the right time. As long as politics are intertwined with the government, it will be impossible to achieve in the public sector.
FYI, “Or they had coverage and were dropped once they manifested a sickness dire enough”, is an illegal action, unless you chose to drop coverage. This is where I believe we need to get insurance out of employer’s hands. The law to protect the insured is pointless if the person chooses to change jobs, thus has to re-join another insurance company skirting this protection.
“It really ought to be a moral outrage that a country as rich as the United States does not provide all of its citizens minimal basic health care.” Then go help someone your self. I do. I work with the American Cancer Society. Just don’t be stealing money out of my pocket with no control to whom I think should get the health care. That’s my moral outrage. I’m happy to help, just let me choose where I feel it will best help. It is my money after all.
I’d rather have several “rich insurance giants” with incentive to be efficient, profitable, and competitive (and employs millions; and pays billions in taxes) than one “behemoth barely-accountable government”.
“What can’t work is a system governed and ruled by for profit…” , you’re essentially stating capitalism does not work?
I’ll rephrase that last statement….If we allow the government to run health care, we’re going to be screwed and we’ll all end up hanging our heads in shame.
We need instead, is private care reform.
pharm…
pharm…
pharmacy…
pharmacy…
I learned something new this morning. A quote I have been attributing to Will Rogers seems to have been first penned by Mark Twain. Pretty well sums up the situation in one sentence.
“We have the best government money can buy”
Unfortunately for the us, when he came up with this truism it was aimed a rich individuals. We now live in the age of the mega-corporations. Big businesses now make up nearly 1/2 of the largest financial entities in the world. Many are much larger than most countries. Against that background humans can no longer compete. Face it America, we really do have the best government money can buy, it is just that WE have been outbid.
[...] private industry. However, the level of corruption has really reached absurd levels, which is why I proposed banning corporate lobbying. The article got some of the strongest feedback I’ve ever received. Never underestimate the [...]