We Need a Fairness Doctrine for Health Care Lobbying

I'm in the camp of people who believes that health care is the single most important issue before Congress at the moment. Sure, the economy is in bad shape, but if people weren't having their homes foreclosed on them because they're swimming in medical bills the economy would be in a lot better shape.

Not surprisingly, the health care industry feels the same way. Which is why, according to the Washington Post, they're spending about $1.4 million dollars per day to influence our elected officials in Congress from their K Street offices.

It's being reported that 350 former government staff members and retired members of Congress are working to subvert the will of the people and the needs of the country.

Democracy is not designed to be for sale to the highest bidder.

How are the millions of Americans who can't even afford to pay for health care in the first place supposed to compete with the lobbying expenditures and campaign contributions of the "insurance" industry? We can't even afford a routine doctors visit most of the time, how are we supposed to curry the favor of our elected representatives? We simply can't compete.

We should be twice as angry about this because this is money they're spending that comes directly from the pockets of people paying them for their insurance to ensure that their coverage will not get any better and, more likely, probably worse.

I have few ideas that might help.

Firstly, we need to be calling and writing our representatives angry about this. We need to be demanding an investigation on how much damage this is doing to legislation and we need independent commissions to offer guidelines on what can be done to prevent travesties like this that undermine our democracy from happening. (No doubt they'll recommend making elections publicly financed, which is what Jim Hightower told us would fix most problems with government and policy when we interviewed him for our documentary, Killer at Large.)

Calling our representatives about this is only a first step (one I suggested on this topic last week).

The next thing we need to do if we're going to continue to allow companies to pump hundreds of millions of dollars to subvert our democratic process (and this is going to scare the hell out of conservatives, but damn it, it needs to happen) is to enact a fairness doctrine on lobbying. Our voices and our votes simply aren't convincing enough for our public servants to do the people's business anymore.

For every dollar these clowns want to spend to influence our elected officials, they need to pay an organization that opposes them. Or, better yet, we should be pumping those dollars into the non-partisan Congress Watchdog groups Ralph Nader has been proposing for a while. We need to have the ear of Congress in the same force and numbers the enemy has assembled.

I know referring to them as the enemy might seem as though I'm lowering the debate somehow, but how else would you describe them? They've assembled teams of people whose only job is to corrode our democracy, damage the lives of our citizens, and water down legislation that might affect their unholy jihad for the all mighty dollar.

They pose as large a threat to the American Dream as any rogue terrorist organization.

Hell, Al Qaeda has nothing on PhRMA, Merck, Pfizer, the AMA, and dozens of others. They're all responsible for horrendous, preventable deaths and want to eat at the core foundations of our system until we believe up is down and black is white. But they're worse because as I said before, they're bankrolling this terrorism with our money and we keep asking for more.

I don't want any more of what they're selling. And I don't think you do, either.

So, start by making some calls and writing some letters. Do it angry. Nothing boils my blood more than the idea that we'll never be able to get a civilized, fair, and equal way of distributing the burden of health care for every man, woman, and child in the United States. Because, by God, that's the American way

Bryan Young is the producer of the documentary Killer at Large

Follow Bryan Young on Twitter: www.twitter.com/BigShinyRobot

Comments

[seanparnell]

These are stupendously bad ideas.

Let's just take the "fairness doctrine" for lobbying. Really? You really think it's the government's role to say "this perspective/agenda in politics is 'bad' and we're going to punish those who espouse it by forcing them to fund those they disagree with." Aside from being viewpoint discrimination (meaning, will get shot down 9-0 by the Supreme court), it puts the government in position of being able to rule certain speech "corrosive of democracy" - what exactly makes you think that YOUR speech isn't going to be ruled "dangerous" someday? You may have noticed at some point that a lot of Americans do not endorse your views, and they vote too, sometimes enough to get a majority - think Reagan, Newt, Bush, etc.

Frankly, I think you need to read up on the First Amendment before you start recommending that certain viewpoints be punished for daring to try to "influence" Congress. It's a free country, I thought we all had the right to "influence" Congress, including those who disagree with you.

Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.org

[Bryan Young - Huffpost Blogger]

We need to differentiate from writing to our congressmen and having companies spending millions of dollars per day to subvert and undermine our democracy.

We need a law pass to take away the status as a person of corporate entities.

And it's not a stupendously bad idea to have congress investigate the detriment caused to our country by the greedy lobbying efforts of corporations run amok.

And if the supreme court hasn't stricken down court rulings that penalize harmful corporate activity by forcing them to pay for ad campaigns contrary to their business model (i.e. The Tobacco industry and the Truth against tobacco campaigns) why wouldn't the same standards apply to corporate behavior that is as damaging or more to our nation?

And my greater point is this: Corporate entities whose only legal function can be to look at the dollars and sense of their bottom dollar cannot be allowed to influence the civil workings of democracy otherwise we'll all be so deep in hock to these clowns they'll own us hostage personally, and not just our system of government.

[spirithaven]

If there are really 350 people with good insurance stiring things for their profit propose a bill taking their health insurance away. Having health insurance competition is a good thing. I wouldn't go as far as to say that it makes it a level playing field but it certainly helps

[noneIn2008]

It's a bill for the AMA and insurance companies, wrapped in populist rhetoric. Reality, the people lose, the special interests and lobbyists gain. But, we must hurry the bill before people can read and find out all the fine print.

[bannorhill]

Where does the 70% figure come from?

[Bryan Young - Huffpost Blogger]

I believe they're referring to the New York Times poll that says 72% of Americans favor a public option: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/22/inyti-poll-indicates-even_n_218852.html

[Jaywalkker]

As much as I agree, I would prefer the argument for a government health care option not be framed by a "will of the people" poll so much as fiscal policy and a tight framework.

Just because the crowd is doing it doesn't mean its right. Survey's and the people are fickle. A majority of Californian's voted to deny a class of people marriage rights and due process. Counter to all science a vast number of American's hold the view that the earth was created 6,000 years ago. Executive Order 9981, integrating the military made a majority of American's mad in its time.

[bannorhill]

Thank you. Reading the question it asks about a "government ADMINISTERED health insurance plan". It does not ask about a government FINANCED health insurance plan.

That is a $2 Trillion dollar difference.

[MarkDavisMD]

It appears to be the core of your thinking that the country should pickup the healthcare bills for everyone through some type of employer levied tax. You also claim that those with health care claim they want a public option. Where do you derive the 70% figure from. When even the left leaning CNN had it had 51%. Most people in the U.S. are employed by companies that have under 100 workers. If a plan is forced down the publics throat the 9.5% unemployment will look like a small number. A public option would have the result of diminishing care to older people (over 55) and providing it to those living on the borders of life giving them one more reason to collect a government handout. Mr. Obama just like the namesake of this electronic newspaper has a habit of distorting the truth to meet what ever objective is being sought that day. I respectfully suggest that neither the president nor your news forum has the best interests of the country in mind when you write dribble such as the above colummn. Universal Health care has failed all over the world and your newspaper can not represent one place it works. You forgot the three elements of news writing, 1) Tell the truth, 2) never write from an agenda and 3) work for someone who still has their soul. Thanks!! MD

[Bryan Young - Huffpost Blogger]

For 1) I'm not a news writer, I'm an opinion columnist.

For 2) Your assertions about my assertions are false. The public option I advocate is tax-payer based medicaid and medicare (exactly what we have) but available for Americans to buy into instead of the crooked shady options.

For 3) Universal Healthcare hasn't "failed around the world"... My relatives in Canada sing its praises daily. Sure it has its challenges, but we're the greatest country in the world, aren't we? With some of that American determination we can figure it out.

Also, I'd like to respectfully ask what truth I distorted?

[gloriousbeing]

So you are suggesting??????? What?????? For all those without health insurance? For all those who have exhorbitantly high medication costs monthly? What about those whose insurance does not cover necessary treatments that bankcrupt them? What solutions do propose? Tough Luck?
So glad you are not my physician!

[classicalgeek]

It hasn't failed in France, Italy, Germany, the Czech Republic, Canada, or any of the other dozen countries I've lived in and experienced their health care system personally. Anyone who tells you it has might be lying to you to get you to increase their profits. At least I'm old enough to remember when insurance salesmen were seen as crooks and swindlers . . . .

[lgillooly]

When over 70 percent of Americans want a public option and the Dems are in control why on Earth is this a problem? 1. Lobbyists 2. corruption and 3. talk radio
If it does not pass this year, there will never be a better opportunity....If Obama does not get this done I believe he will be a 1 term President.

[bannorhill]

Because the poll asks about a "government ADMINISTERED health insurance plan". It does not ask about a government FINANCED health insurance plan.

That is a $2 Trillion dollar difference.

That used to be a lot of money.