The Need For Reform(s)

Bill Moyers Journal Watch and Listen

BILL MOYERS: Why is the industry so powerful on both sides of the aisle?

WENDELL POTTER: Well, money and relationships, ideology. The relationships– an insurance company can hire and does hire many different lobbying firms. And they hire firms that are predominantly Republican and predominantly Democrat. And they do this because they know they need to reach influential members of Congress like Max Baucus. So there are people who used to work for Max Baucus who are in lobbying firms or on the staff of companies like Cigna or the association itself.

BILL MOYERS: Yeah, I just read the other day, in THE WASHINGTON POST, that Max Baucus’s staff met with a group of lobbyists. Two of them had been Baucus’s former chiefs of staff.

WENDELL POTTER: Right.

BILL MOYERS: I mean, they left the government. They go to work for the industry. Now they’re back with an insider status. They get an access, right?

WENDELL POTTER: Oh, they do, they do. And these lobbyists’ ability to raise money for these folks also is very important as well.

Lobbyists, many of the big lobbyists contributed a lot of money themselves. One of the lobbyists for one of the big health insurance company is Heather Podesta, the Podesta Group, and she’s married to Tony Podesta, who’s a brother of John Podesta.

BILL MOYERS: Who used to be the White House chief of staff.

WENDELL POTTER:
Right. Right. And they’re Democrats. And my executives wanted to meet with — and when I say my, the people I used to work for–

BILL MOYERS: At Cigna.

WENDELL POTTER: Yeah, wanted to meet with Hillary Clinton, when she was still in the Senate and still a candidate for president. Well, that’s hard to do. That’s hard to pull off, but she did. That just shows you that you can, through the relationships that are formed and that the insurance industry pays for, by hiring these lobbyists, you can your foot in the door. You can get your messages across to these people, in ways that the average American couldn’t possibly.

BILL MOYERS:
So it’s money that can buy access to have their arguments heard, right?

WENDELL POTTER: That’s right.

BILL MOYERS: When ordinary citizens cannot be heard.

WENDELL POTTER: Absolutely right. It’s the way the American system has evolved, the political system. But it does offend me, that the vested special interests, who are so profitable and so powerful, are able to influence public policy in the way that they have, and the way that they’ve done over the years. And the insurance industry has been one of the most successful, in beating back any kinds of legislation that would hinder or affect the profitability of the companies.

BILL MOYERS: Why is public insurance, a public option, so fiercely opposed by the industry?

WENDELL POTTER: The industry doesn’t want to have any competitor. In fact, over the course of the last few years, has been shrinking the number of competitors through a lot of acquisitions and mergers. So first of all, they don’t want any more competition period. They certainly don’t want it from a government plan that might be operating more efficiently than they are, that they operate. The Medicare program that we have here is a government-run program that has administrative expenses that are like three percent or so.

BILL MOYERS:
Compared to the industry’s–

WENDELL POTTER: They spend about 20 cents of every premium dollar on overhead, which is administrative expense or profit. So they don’t want to compete against a more efficient competitor.

The need for radical reform of our campaign finance and election laws is a recurring theme for this blog. I’ve posted many times about the need to eliminate the undue influence that special interest groups, lobbyists and political action groups have on legislation and policy. This candid interview is a perfect example of the kinds of things that happen routinely at every level of government from all kinds of different groups. None are any better or worse than any other in my view. The only people that should be able to influence our elected officials are the ones that can vote for them. Period. If a group wants to state their case, they can do so publicly at hearings. There is no need or justification for any group to have a private audience with any elected official at any level. (That includes Prevo and our local assembly members and mayor.)

This interview also points out why Health Insurance Reform and Health Care Reform MUST include regulation of the health insurance industry and a public option. The industry can’t and won’t regulate themselves. That is the rightful place for government intervention. They’re not going to change their practices until and unless they are forced to. That means regulation and competition. The government is the only entity capable of competing with the insurance industry.

Everything we are hearing from the obstructionists to reform is part of a well thought out and executed game plan. Down to the very words and phrases that we hear repeated ad nauseum.

During the interview, Bill Moyers read from confidential documents drafted by America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) in May and June of 2007. The documents outline a unified strategy for AHIP members to prepare for the release of Michael Moore’s documentary, SICKO on June 29, 2007.

You can download and read the full AHIP documents by clicking here and here (PDFs).

The Language of Health Care 2009
(PDF)
The Frank Luntz memo strategizing opposition to health care reform Bill Moyers mentions in the interview.

GOP Health Care Strategy (PDF)
Strategy memo by Alex Castellanos dated July 7, 2009.

These are evil people who don’t care about the average American. They will do anything to make a buck and to remain, regain, expand their political power. They are lying and manipulating the system to further their selfish goals at the expense of Americans. The sad and disturbing part is that there are so many Americans that sincerely believe that these people and entities actually have our collective best interest at heart. They don’t. In fact they are actively working against our best interests.

Watch the video or read the whole transcript between Bill Moyers and Wendell Potter here.

Read more on Wendell Potter and Profits Before Patients here.

Read the Testimony of Wendell Potter, Philadelphia, PA Before the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation June 24, 2009 here. Or view it online here.

Trace campaign contributions, ad spending and the revolving door between industry and government here.

We can defeat the lies, the misrepresentation and the willful ignorance of the obstructionists on the right. We can do it by not giving in, not giving up, and shining a bright light on those that are pulling their strings. Now is the time.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • mchlecat

    when you say those people are evil, sad thing is all they see is they are being great capitalist Americans,it's the way to do things,they started so long ago and each generation of fat cat sipping off the excess more like leeches but they don't see themselves that way,sad and lame as that is what is even more puzzling is the way our reps are there to rep US citizen anymore,they seem only to care 1 keeping their but in their seat or what job they get next like its a stepping stone to bigger and better things.I know there are positive lobbyists out there but thy are far outnumbered by those that abuse and use the system for their personal gain. I dont see how Obama can possibly fix this system but I am glad at least to hear from someone in charge that they actually see the problem and want to fix it,can only be a positive ,ok theres my 2 cents

  • moecephus

    Emperor What makes it worse the supreme cort case to be heard re Corporations being recognized as a person I ask for info from a law library and the following is what i recieve. Apologies for the lenght of it.
    Moecephus

    Hi Denise,

    Here are some links that should help:

    Gives the history of the issue:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personho

    This is the current Supreme Court case:

    http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Citiz

    Here is some extraneous information: Group challenges corporate personhood in Supreme Court

    Posted by mcm

    August 24, 2009

    Corporate Personhood Challenged in Supreme Court

    On August 1st Democracy Unlimited filed a brief in the U.S. Supreme Court challenging
    “corporate personhood,” the illegitimate and undemocratic legal doctrine which allows courts
    to overturn democratically elected laws that attempt to control corporate harm and abuse.

    Democracy Unlimited joined the Program on Corporations Law & Democracy, the Women's International League for Peace & Freedom, Shays2: The Western Massachusetts Committee
    on Corporations & Democracy, and the Clements Foundation in making the legal argument.
    The brief was drafted and filed by attorney Jeff Clements, who represented all five organizations
    in the matter.

    The groups filed the brief in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, urging
    the Supreme Court not to overturn laws preventing corporations from making political contributions in federal elections. The amicus curiae, or “friend of the court,” brief argues that corporations do not have the same Constitutional rights as people. As such, democratically enacted regulations of corporations do not violate the Constitution's guarantee of free speech.

    “The notion that corporations have the same speech rights as people under our Bill of Rights is contrary to the words, history, spirit and intent of our Constitution,” said Clements. “The organizations that joined to bring these arguments to the Court have worked with others for
    many years to empower democratic self-government. They remind us that corporations do
    not vote, speak, or act as people do, but are products of government policy to achieve economic
    and charitable ends. As such, corporations need not be allowed to influence our elections if
    Congress and State governments judge that such influence is detrimental to democracy.”

    The Supreme Court is considering overturning federal campaign regulations for corporations, originally enacted in 1907, and may soon overrule previous Supreme Court decisions that have upheld the Constitutionality of legislative restrictions on corporate money in politics.

    The case now before the Court began when a tax-exempt non-profit corporation calling itself
    Citizens United challenged the Constitutionality of a federal ban on expenditures for
    “electioneering communications” by corporations and labor unions within sixty days of an
    election. The ban is part of the federal Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. Under the
    Act, corporations and labor unions may still contribute to Political Action Committees.

    Citizens United argued that the restrictions under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act violated
    the Constitution as applied to the corporation that sought to distribute an anti-Hillary Clinton
    movie during the 2008 presidential primaries. A panel of three federal district court judges upheld
    the regulation of corporate expenditures, and agreed that the Federal Election Commission could enforce the law. The District Court relied on a 2003 Supreme Court case, McConnell v. Federal Election Comm'n, 540 U.S. 93 (2003), that had ruled that the corporate expenditure regulation did not violate the free speech guarantees of the First Amendment. Citizens United appealed to the Supreme Court.

    If the Supreme Court overrules Austin and McConnell, First Amendment rights claimed by corporations will be significantly expanded, and local, state, and federal governments will be
    further restricted in the ability to regulate corporations and corporate influence on our democratic processes.

    The brief filed by Democracy Unlimited argues that corporations are legal entities created by state
    or federal law for economic, charitable or other purposes, and were never intended to be included within the Constitution's Bill of Rights.

    The brief also highlights the fact that the doctrine that corporations are “persons” under the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment is doubtful, and an activist
    federal judiciary should not intervene to prevent elected officials from protecting the integrity of
    the electoral process.

    The Supreme Court will hear further argument in the case in September.

    A copy of the amicus brief can be read here: http://www.clementsllc.com .

  • http://twitter.com/Emperor_Bob Bob

    This is one of those “If I was Emperor for a day” type of thing. It's real simple. If you can't vote for the candidate or issue, you can't donate or campaign. That goes for every organization of any type including political parties.

  • moecephus

    Agreed. What makes it more interesting is original law was due to court recorders mistake/intensional error?

  • moecephus

    Emperor What makes it worse the supreme cort case to be heard re Corporations being recognized as a person I ask for info from a law library and the following is what i recieve. Apologies for the lenght of it.
    Moecephus

    Hi Denise,

    Here are some links that should help:

    Gives the history of the issue:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personho

    This is the current Supreme Court case:

    http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Citiz

    Here is some extraneous information: Group challenges corporate personhood in Supreme Court

    Posted by mcm

    August 24, 2009

    Corporate Personhood Challenged in Supreme Court

    On August 1st Democracy Unlimited filed a brief in the U.S. Supreme Court challenging
    “corporate personhood,” the illegitimate and undemocratic legal doctrine which allows courts
    to overturn democratically elected laws that attempt to control corporate harm and abuse.

    Democracy Unlimited joined the Program on Corporations Law & Democracy, the Women's International League for Peace & Freedom, Shays2: The Western Massachusetts Committee
    on Corporations & Democracy, and the Clements Foundation in making the legal argument.
    The brief was drafted and filed by attorney Jeff Clements, who represented all five organizations
    in the matter.

    The groups filed the brief in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, urging
    the Supreme Court not to overturn laws preventing corporations from making political contributions in federal elections. The amicus curiae, or “friend of the court,” brief argues that corporations do not have the same Constitutional rights as people. As such, democratically enacted regulations of corporations do not violate the Constitution's guarantee of free speech.

    “The notion that corporations have the same speech rights as people under our Bill of Rights is contrary to the words, history, spirit and intent of our Constitution,” said Clements. “The organizations that joined to bring these arguments to the Court have worked with others for
    many years to empower democratic self-government. They remind us that corporations do
    not vote, speak, or act as people do, but are products of government policy to achieve economic
    and charitable ends. As such, corporations need not be allowed to influence our elections if
    Congress and State governments judge that such influence is detrimental to democracy.”

    The Supreme Court is considering overturning federal campaign regulations for corporations, originally enacted in 1907, and may soon overrule previous Supreme Court decisions that have upheld the Constitutionality of legislative restrictions on corporate money in politics.

    The case now before the Court began when a tax-exempt non-profit corporation calling itself
    Citizens United challenged the Constitutionality of a federal ban on expenditures for
    “electioneering communications” by corporations and labor unions within sixty days of an
    election. The ban is part of the federal Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. Under the
    Act, corporations and labor unions may still contribute to Political Action Committees.

    Citizens United argued that the restrictions under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act violated
    the Constitution as applied to the corporation that sought to distribute an anti-Hillary Clinton
    movie during the 2008 presidential primaries. A panel of three federal district court judges upheld
    the regulation of corporate expenditures, and agreed that the Federal Election Commission could enforce the law. The District Court relied on a 2003 Supreme Court case, McConnell v. Federal Election Comm'n, 540 U.S. 93 (2003), that had ruled that the corporate expenditure regulation did not violate the free speech guarantees of the First Amendment. Citizens United appealed to the Supreme Court.

    If the Supreme Court overrules Austin and McConnell, First Amendment rights claimed by corporations will be significantly expanded, and local, state, and federal governments will be
    further restricted in the ability to regulate corporations and corporate influence on our democratic processes.

    The brief filed by Democracy Unlimited argues that corporations are legal entities created by state
    or federal law for economic, charitable or other purposes, and were never intended to be included within the Constitution's Bill of Rights.

    The brief also highlights the fact that the doctrine that corporations are “persons” under the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment is doubtful, and an activist
    federal judiciary should not intervene to prevent elected officials from protecting the integrity of
    the electoral process.

    The Supreme Court will hear further argument in the case in September.

    A copy of the amicus brief can be read here: http://www.clementsllc.com .

  • http://twitter.com/Emperor_Bob Bob

    This is one of those “If I was Emperor for a day” type of thing. It's real simple. If you can't vote for the candidate or issue, you can't donate or campaign. That goes for every organization of any type including political parties.

  • moecephus

    Agreed. What makes it more interesting is original law was due to court recorders mistake/intensional error?