Who stands to gain financially from a program or policy, and how? Which side stands to lose, and why? Those are just some of the questions that have proven beneficial in my nearly 23 years in newspapering and two years as a research analyst on behalf of the Department of Defense.
I remember Ben Bradlee, then the editor of the Washington Post who had led the paper’s investigation of the Watergate scandal, once speaking to my journalism class at the nearby James Madison University. I recall him telling the group of post-Watergate students eager to make a difference that when in doubt, “follow the money.”
Of course, those were the classic words uttered to Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein by their main source, “Deep Throat,” when they were trying to unravel a corrupt president’s activities and caused his downfall in the process. Trace the trail of the money, Deep Throat advised, and all the details behind the infamous Watergate break-in will emerge.
Well, today in the midst of a national health-care debate, the immortal words “follow the money” never rang truer in terms of explaining the mess we’re in and the debate over change.
First, let me clear the air by saying that I am speaking as an independent voter not affiliated with the Democratic or Republican parties. I have come to believe our health-care problems (and many others, by the way) exist due to a governmental system that has been corrupted as a whole, rather that one political party being more insightful or effective than another.
But I am not one of those who believes the present health-care network should be preserved, what with 47 million people lacking medical insurance. This problem in itself signals a clear breakdown. Also needing to be addressed are the skyrocketing costs not only associated with the providing of medical services themselves, but the rampant administrative and other expenses posed by the insurance and additional industries.
And though I applaud President Obama for tackling an issue that has been ignored for decades in Washington to the point of criminal neglect, I don’t agree with his desire to “rush something through.” Whatever package is approved must maintain the useful points of the present system while also providing some safety net for the uninsured. And it needs to be assembled carefully.
Yet what really bothers me is the major public-relations campaign under way to keep the present “perfect” health-care framework intact, while suppressing any attempts at change. And if you want to know the reasons for this, just — yes, you guessed it — “follow the money.”
It is my contention that lobbyists are the root virus that has sickened our federal government to its present life-support condition. The last figure I saw indicated that for every member of Congress, there are 155 lobbyists — who include ex-legislators now representing big corporations and special interests.
Well, lo and behold! No. 1 on the list of top-lobbying industries is pharmaceuticals/health products, which is closely trailed by the insurance industry, according to an organization called the Center for Responsive Politics. Also on the top-10 list that ranks industries by their lobbying expenditures is hospitals/nursing homes at No. 7.
Obviously, the reason the pharmaceuticals/health products segment has spent $1.6 billion since 1998 lobbying members of Congress is that it has much to lose if the status quo changes. Translated further, it’s making a killing on the present system. (Otherwise, it wouldn’t be able to afford wining and dining congressmen to the tune of $1.6 billion.)
While there are many questions about Obama’s plan in its present state, SOME change is needed to eliminate the greed from the existing system that too many leeches are feeding on at the ultimate expense of the public.
In examining the enormous costs of health care, which is the first problem that should be addressed in any reform plan, it’s obvious the influence of for-profit corporations has inflated health-care expenses beyond any reasonable bounds.
When you factor in that tremendous sum now spent as a whole, we are all paying for a universal health-care system in one way or another, either directly or indirectly. This includes resources tapped into by illegal immigrants, which shouldn’t be part of any system in place in this nation, since too many of our own people are in need.
The best health-care reform plan should be like a good Japanese stereo system — incorporating appealing elements of other units, all combined and repackaged into a new approach.
Copy from the example of our successful Medicare program for the elderly while also retaining those segments of the status quo that DO work. Let’s encourage a climate of real global competition in which domestic pharmaceutical companies will have to provide the best products at the right price or else go bust.
People should be allowed to keep private insurance, but by having some universal coverage as an alternative, the companies would be forced to lower administrative costs and eliminate greed on their own, while providing better service, in order to stay competitive.
The actual cost of providing medical services naturally will become much less expensive when all the windfall profits are removed from the equation.
And if rationing of care results at all, it should not occur among the elderly or other vulnerable groups who are being frightened by the recent rhetoric, but the presently uninsured. That would keep a free system from being flooded by frivolous medical issues such as hang-nails. Some might view that as unfair, but it simply would be the price for the free insurance, which certainly would be better than the no coverage they have now.
But regardless of the remedy finally chosen, the U.S. needs a good dose of anti-price-gouging and anti-greed medication first and foremost.
Tom Joyce is a staff reporter for The Mount Airy News. He can be reached at tjoyce@mtairynews.com or 719-1924.
Post a Comment
