Lobbyists Impact on U.S. Healthcare Debate

The current healthcare debate in Congress has every side fighting to have their positions heard. President Barack Obama thinks his health care plan will help people without insurance receive much-needed access. Opponents argue that his plan will cost taxpayers too much and will not solve the problems of spiraling out-of-control health care expenses. Whichever side one subscribes to understands that there are other groups who believe in them. Those groups are called lobbyists, and their job is to convince lawmakers that they should vote for their position.

Millions of dollars have already been spent on lobbyists attempting to influence every politicians vote. They share their positions with millions of other people. Lobbyists represent all sides of the equationthe pharmaceutical companies who are looking at their bottom line business owners who watch their profit margins to make sure they can afford health care for their employees. The physicians, who must provide quality care to their patients and to the American people who are footing the bill. All of them have a vested interest in the well-being of the issue. How that plays out will be forthcoming when the final vote on universal healthcare is taken soon. (Smith, 2009)

Jim Smith wrote recently about the cost of healthcare, while a quarter of a trillion dollars was spent lobbying for (and against modifying) healthcare, tens of thousands of people died from lack of health insurance. (Smith, 2009) Smith contends that while legislators continue arguing over the merits of healthcare overhaul, there are many people who cannot afford a hospital trip because it costs too much. Worse, if the patients are a sick child, then they are being denied access to shots and vaccinations that would keep them healthy. The author contends that the loss of human lives are the real cost of this debate. (Smith, 2009)

Speaking of costs, companies who employ lobbyists have no trouble spending money for their side. According to the Center for Responsible Politics, almost 550 million was spent on healthcare issues and used more than 3,400 lobbyists in 2009. That represents a 50 million increase in the amount spend on lobbying in 2008. (Center for Responsible Politics, 2010) In fact, the cost of healthcare has risen every year since 1998 (CRP, 2009). 

A recent article by Michael Beckel sustains this issue. The number of clients working to defeat the comprehensive healthcare legislation grew to more than 1,500 lobbyists in 2009. (Beckel, 2010) That figure is more than 100 lobbyists registered in the year before (2008). What that means is more companies are gearing up to block President Obamas healthcare initiative for fear it will negatively affect their own businesses. (Beckel, 2010)

The companies lobbying on the bill are as diverse as the issue itself. Drug and pharmaceutical companies are at the top of the list. Companies ranging from American Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) to the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) have poured in hundreds of thousands of dollars on behalf of the proposal. The latter group is concerned about the costs of prescription medications for its members and access to doctors visits and hospital stays (for either inpatient or outpatient services). (Beckel, 2010) The latter group not only uses its lobbyists to influence elected officials but its millions of members through letter-writing campaigns and telephone campaigns. The group tries to makes its case heard from their members point of view, as would other groups.

Among the companies that also joined the fray include McDonalds, which spend nearly 500,000 on this issue last year. That was a significant jump from the previous year, when they spent more than 300K in 2008. One might not believe that the fast-food restaurant chain would enter this debate. However, with thousands of locations worldwide and millions of employees working for them, McDonalds has a real, vested interest in how this issue plays out in Washington, D.C. (Beckel, 2010)

Hewlett-Packard and Pfizer are other companies that were involved in the debate. The fact that a pharmaceutical company is on the list is unsurprising. The fact that other companies are joining the debate is because of the millions of uninsured people who are clinging to the decision made on Capitol Hill. Beckel said this means there are many sides to the issue and the lobbyists are being paid well to have their voices heard.

Pfizer has spoken out against the bill for several years. They do not feel that companies should be able to foot the entire bill for employee health care. They would rather see a health spending account where employees deposit a set amount from their checks into an account that employees can access for co-payments, office visits and medications for themselves and their family. (Edwards, 2009)

Health Care 4
That is interesting because while their lobbyists are fighting against changes to the system, their executives are set for their healthcare coverage. Pfizer offers its top executives healthcare coverage for two years should they receive pink slips. Employees are able to use COBRA if they are laid-off from their jobsat their own expense. In the Pfizer case, the company takes care of its management employees who are downsized. (Edwards, 2009)

That seems to conflict with their position of change. Why would you pay for one group and not for another It does not make sense because money is being allocated for healthcare. It sends the wrong message for the company to come out against health care changes that will help many people and then turn around and take care of a few management employees (similar to a golden parachute for executives or expensive buyouts). Pfizer wants to have it both ways, but it cannot because the money must come from somewhere. Are people are going to feel comfortable knowing that a few people are getting the majority of coverage while the masses are being denied coverage The answer is not going to be a happy one for the pharmaceutical giant.

President Obama wants a modest change to the overall status of healthcare in America. He asks companies to pay for a majority of the employees health care expenses while having workers absorb the rest. Lobbyists have been working on both sides to develop ways to sway votes in either direction. Those favoring the presidents proposal argue that having some change is better than the current plan, which is unacceptable. Opponents say the bill is too costly and will reduce jobs and access more than embrace the idea. (Woodward, 2010)

What has been mentioned so far is these groups are attempting to move the debate toward either side. Lobbyists have argued on both sides what they believe to be the truth. 

Pharmaceutical companies believe that people should pay their own way for health coverage workers and labor unions think it should be paid for by the companies that employ the workers. While the debate drives toward the final votes in Congress, groups on both sides of the issue are hammering out their side of the argument in hopes of getting the key votes needed for victory. (Woodward, 2010)

Doing so would mean a chance people without health insurance can see a doctor without first mortgaging their home. It means caring for a sick loved one without incurring the costly fees from insurance companies. That is what President Obama hopes to accomplish with his plan. Whether it comes to fruition remains to be seen.

What is known now is why the lobbyists are working hard on both sides. According to a recent Gallop Poll survey, more than 1,000 Americans surveyed were just as divided as the politicians are. Of those surveyed, 45 percent favored the Obama plan while 48 percent opposed it in its current form. (Gallop, 2010) Many people surveyed said they want to see a new version of the health care overhaul instead of the one being debated in Congress now. Respondents felt that people need health insurance now and the way it is conceived will not work. (Gallop, 2010)

While the need to help those without health insurance is great, the Gallop Poll numbers suggests a different reason for change. In the six month before, September 2009, 36 percent said that a health care bill should pass because too many people were uninsured. That number dropped to 28 percent in March. Conversely, the number of respondents who said there is a moral obligation to help those in need doubled during the same six-month period (6 percent in September 2009 compared with 12 percent in March 2010). This means more people would like to help others in need, but think there are better ways to do it than just overhauling the current system. (Gallop, 2010)

Those who are opposed to the presidents plan thought it would raise premiums for employees. Roughly 20 percent of those polled said this would be the case if the plan went through. The poll also noted that healthcare foes content the bill would not adequately address the issues surrounding the system. During the six-month period, 19 percent of those surveyed in March said they agreed with this statement, up from 10 percent in September. (Gallop, 2010)

So, whether you are in favor or oppose to the presidents idea to overhaul the health care system to make it accessible to most Americans depends on your point of view. Lobbyists have spent countless hours and resources (read money) to influence the members of the House and Senate for years in trying to get this legislation voted on. They have powerful cases on both sides and the lawmakers must listen to every storyfrom the medical institutions that cry poverty to the family that cannot afford prescription drugs for either themselves or their elderly parentsand decide what is in the best interest of the country.

There is no right or wrong answer on this topicjust what someone feels in their heart is the right thing to do. Gallop found that people wants to change the current healthcare system. They just have different ideas on how to fix the problem. That is where lobbyists can come in a try making sense of the issue for their side. The hope is the legislature will take the time to get it done right so that the people can prosper without wondering if they can afford to see their physician.

0 comments:

Post a Comment