The bipartisan "gang of six" senators who helped craft the health care reform bill going before a key Senate committee Tuesday represent less than 3 percent of the U.S. population - but they hold a lot of power at a crucial policy-shaping moment in Congress.
Three Republican and three Democratic senators in the group, all of them members of the Senate Finance Committee, received an average of $74,600 from health industry lobbyists, according to The Chronicle's analysis of records through June.
That is about 25 percent more than the average of $59,632 in such donations that the gang's other Senate colleagues raked in from lobbyists for the pharmaceutical, hospital, insurance and nursing home industries, according to the analysis, which was based on records compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit watchdog group.
"Money buys access," said Henry Brady, a professor of public policy and dean of the Goldman School of Public Policy at UC Berkeley.
Six Senate Finance Committee members who negotiated a health reform plan that goes before the committee Tuesday represent about 3 percent of the nation's population but received 25 percent more in campaign funds from health care interests than their Senate colleagues through June 30.
Republicans don't like it because... it's a health care bill. Democrats don't like it because... it's a bad health care bill designed to kowtow to Republicans who won't even vote for it. Health care advocacy groups don't like it because it "would give a government-subsidized monopoly to the private insurance industry to sell their most profitable plans - high-deductible insurance - without having to face competition from a public health insurer." A good reason not to like it! And unions don't like it because there's no employer mandate and it would "tax health plans."
This morning on CNN, Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND), the author of the health care co-op proposal that is apparently gaining traction among many Democrats, argued it’s a “very successful business model.” But when host John Roberts repeatedly pressed Conrad on whether the creation of non-profit, member-driven health care cooperatives would drive down costs for consumers, Conrad acknowledged they would not:
ROBERTS: What would they do to reduce costs? Because that is one of the central issues of health care reform.
CONRAD: Well, the important thing is they’d provide more competition. … Beyond that, I think it’s very important not to over-promise here. [...]
ROBERTS: So nothing really in driving down the costs of service then?
CONRAD: Uhhh, no. If you believe competition helps drive down costs, then they would certainly contribute to holding down costs.
While Conrad emphasizes the “competition” that health care co-ops would provide to private insurers, health care experts argue they would be too weak to have a major impact. “It’s very difficult to start up a new insurance company and break into markets where insurers are very established,” said Paul Ginsburg, president of the Center for Studying Health System Change. “I don’t see how they’re going to obtain a large enough market share…to make a difference.” The New York Times adds that the history of health care co-ops has not fared well
North Dakota Sen. Kent Conrad not only buys into the notion that health care reform should require a 60-vote supermajority, but he seems to forget that by the time the legislation is voted on, Al Franken will almost certainly be the Senate's 60th Democrat
