RSS
Home
Are lawmakers vested in health care industry more than health care reform?
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
All this talk about health care reform is going to have to be tempered by a sobering reality: Many of the lawmakers with the most input on health care overhaul legislation have enormous financial stakes in health care companies.
Almost 30 key lawmakers helping to draft landmark health-care legislation have financial holdings in the industry, totaling nearly $11 million worth of personal investments in a sector that could be dramatically reshaped by this summer's debate."
They're on both sides of the aisle, such as GOP Sen Judd Gregg of New Hampshire with up to $560-thousand worth of stock holdings in major health care companies, and the family of California Democratic Congresswoman Jane Harman, which held at least $3.2 million in health care companies at the end of last year.
President Obama's chief adviser on health care, Nancy-Ann DeParle, has served in several lucrative positions on the boards of health companies and as director of a private-equity firm with health investments, earning more than $2 million from 2008 to this year.
In some cases, we can't know because many lawmakers have holdings in mutual funds, which spread your portfolios dollars across many sectors, not just a specific stock or industry.
If there's any small comfort, the Democratic chairman and senior Republican of the Senate Finance Committee, Max Baucus of Montana and Charles Grassley of Iowa, have no major health-related financial holdings (though they have received donations from the health care industry over the years). Ted Kennedy, chairman of the health committee, has much of his wealth in blind trusts.
Conflict of interest? Well, it certainly walks like a duck! But at least we know where some of the money we throw away on profit-driven health care goes: Into the pockets of the very people denying us universal coverage.
They could solve this whole thing if the president would just come out and say Jesus told me we need a single payer plan but everyone knows that's gonna happen because our president is a Muslim. Some guy in a tin foil hat told me.
All kidding aside, forget the pros and cons of universal health care for a minute. There's a larger issue here. How many times do members of Congress face the choice of crafting a bill that could potentially be in your best interest but not theirs? And gee, which interest gets served more often? It's something to think about when we hear their arguments. It's like that study that comes out claiming coffee is good for you, only the study is paid for by Starbucks. When a lawmaker says this bill is good or this bill is bad, the question we should be asking, figuratively speaking, is: Who paid for the study?
Should lawmakers recuse themselves from the lawmaking process if there's a potential conflict of interest?
In their past session, the Supreme Court ruled that elected judges must recuse themselves when large campaign contributors have cases in their courtrooms. The case involved a West Virginia judge who sided with an energy company in an $82 million-dollar civil case. The CEO of the company had spent more than $3 million to help elect the judge. Voters can elect judges in 39 states, and in an increasingly competitive and costly campaign environment, the case raises questions about whether judges elected to the bench can be bought by a major campaign donor.
Should we be addressing the same question with our lawmakers? While no congressional rules bar members from holding financial stakes in industries they regulate, some ethics experts suggest that it often creates the appearance of a conflict of interest, particularly if there is a chance that the legislation could result in a personal financial boost. What if it's a meaningful amount? How much is enough to tempt a lawmaker?
Many legal experts say the health-care industry is so predominant that it's impossible for lawmakers to avoid financial ties to that sector, suggesting that the best antidote is a clear disclosure system that makes every lawmaker's finances publicly available. In other words, so we always know who paid for the study.
So, disposal or recusal, which is it? And if it's just disclosure, how do we know the lawmakers will be acting in our best interests and not theirs, since after all, they're supposed to be working for us?
More About:
Health Care
Related Articles:
Add a Comment
The commander of American forces in northern Iraq has made getting pregnant --or getting someone pregnant-- an offense punishable by court martial. …
Are Republicans so determined to derail health care that they're willing to do it at the expense of American soldiers? Senate Republicans failed early …
