Why drug companies and insurance providers are backing ObamaCare

Source

Although President Obama and big-government activists demonize health-insurance companies, the companies "are still mostly on board with the president's effort to overhaul the U.S. health-care system," the Wall Street Journal reports; and ...

I hadn't seen this issue brought up anywhere in all the various debates on the subject, so I decided to point it out. If big business and the lobbyists working for them to shape policy were not on board with this legislation, it would never have been proposed.

source

"The drug industry has already contributed millions of dollars to advertising campaigns for the health care overhaul through the advocacy groups like Healthy Economies Now and Families USA. It has spent about $1 million on similar advertisements under its own name," the Times reports

The reason the pharmacy and insurance companies back this legislation is because they stand to make millions. To reiterate, this legislation would not be on the table, otherwise.

source

"If health legislation succeeds, the [insurance] industry would likely get a fresh batch of new customers. In particular, many young and healthy people who currently forgo coverage would be forced to sign up." No wonder insurers are willing to stop "discriminating" against sick people. (Forget that the essence of insurance is discrimination according to risk.)

The pharma and insurance companies don't completely love the new legislation, but despite misgivings, they are still on board. Why? They stand to make money on this.

This legislation has nothing to do with "helping the common man" or "health care for everyone." It has only to do with corporate interests and the big bucks the pharma and insurance companies stand to gain.


TA

Big pharma/AMA are interested in only 2 things - profits and longevity. They're flooding DC with lobbyists not to ensure one thing passes and another thing does not. They're there simply to guide the legislation to ensure that their goals are met. In a capitalist society this can be expected. They have 0 concern for anything but their continued exploitation of the system for their own greed.

I really hate how this is being politicized. It's Not Republican vs Democrate. It's more about US versus THEM.

[edit on 17-8-2009 by TXRabbit]

reply to post by TXRabbit

I agree with everything except this point:

In a capitalist society this can be expected.

There's a difference between capitalism and corporatism. What this is, is corporatism.

That aside, good points, thanks and star.


TA

What I can't understand about this situation is that those in favor of this legislation are either oblivious to, or don't seem to mind the fact that it is the result of corporate involvement in the legislative process.

How can one continue to oppose lobbying and corporate kickbacks to legislators on the one hand, and support the results thereof on the other? That makes absolutely no sense to me.


TA

[edit on 17-8-2009 by TheAssociate]

Well, I was honestly hoping to get a clear answer to the above question, but it appears I have no takers. That doesn't really surprise me as much as it disappoints me. I'm not looking for a flame war or a debate, just an honest answer to an honest question.


TA

I find it hard to believe that people think drug and insurance companies aren't involved. IMO, they will protect their assets either way.

With the exception of John McCain (R-AZ), Max Baucus (D-MT) received more money than any other current member of Congress from both the health insurance and the pharmaceutical industries. For the 2006, 2008 and 2010 election cycles, Baucus received $213,400 in contributions from health insurance companies and $229,520 from the pharmaceutical industry. As chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Baucus is one of the primary architects of health care reform in Congress.

www.consumerwatchdog.org...

reply to post by jam321

I find it hard to believe that people think drug and insurance companies aren't involved.

You and me both. These companies are too big and too well connected politically to not be involved in this. People seem to think that they're going to "stick it to the man" with this legislation, when in fact it's just "the man" sticking it to us once again. Thanks and star for the reply and info.


TA

Originally posted by TXRabbit
Big pharma/AMA are interested in only 2 things - profits and longevity. They're flooding DC with lobbyists not to ensure one thing passes and another thing does not. They're there simply to guide the legislation to ensure that their goals are met. In a capitalist society this can be expected. They have 0 concern for anything but their continued exploitation of the system for their own greed.

I really hate how this is being politicized. It's Not Republican vs Democrate. It's more about US versus THEM.

[edit on 17-8-2009 by TXRabbit]

Well I hate to sound like I'm dismissing what you're saying but like.. so what.

I think you're against this health care plan.. so we're ultimately on the same side.. but I see it this way...

These corporations wouldn't have to involve themselves with politics so much if the Fed Govt would just respect its proper role and stay out of the economy.

So if the Govt is making policy that is basically going to take over an entire industry.. then of course that industry is going to do all in its power to protect its interest.

The problem is not self-interested corporations.. The problem is idiot politicians entwining the government with industry.

Someone else called it corportism. No.. it's Fascism.

The State is seizing authority... so of course those whom it seeks to control are attempting to influence how this control will be done.

Lobbying is not a corporation-created problem. It's a government created problem.

reply to post by VinceP1974

These corporations wouldn't have to involve themselves with politics so much if the Fed Govt would just respect its proper role and stay out of the economy.

Good point. The reason that businesses are in bed with the government is because of government regulation of the economy. If the two were mutually exclusive, we wouldn't be in the state of corporatism (fascism-lite) we're currently in. Thanks and star for the insight.


TA

reply to post by TheAssociate


First of all, are you sure that the inscos and pharmas agree with Obamacare?

Or are they merely agreeing that reform needs to be done?

How can one continue to oppose lobbying and corporate kickbacks to legislators on the one hand, and support the results thereof on the other? That makes absolutely no sense to me.

It's simple - politics makes strange bedfellows.

People dance with the devil when the devil can help them achieve a result.

Plus, some of the 'opposition' is merely window dressing.