Healthcare Lobbyists Increase Payments to Protect Interests

Republican Phil Roe holding a copy of the healthcare bill

Lobbying has been a common practice in US government, simply because candidates need funding and companies need laws in their favor. The business of health care is no different. HMO's thrive on premiums and payment plans that would otherwise be cut or downsized by the new healthcare bill that was passed by Obama. A current example of a candidate funded by medical professionals would be Republican Phil Roe from Tennessee. It would be naive to say that only Republicans receive funding from healthcare lobbyists, when the numbers suggest that the companies play both sides to achieve the same goal.

The study, conducted for The Washington Post by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, also shows that Republicans have been heavily favored in this period. While Democrats got just more than half of the industries' money before the bill was approved in spite of uniform Republican opposition, the Republican attracted 60 percent after the votes were counted. The Republican total for that period was $25.7 million, while the Democrats was $17 million.

 The tracking of the payments also suggest that candidates are not only funded during their campaign, but are paid according to the outcome of a certain bills. For example, after Obamacare was passed, Speaker of the House John Boehner accumulated less money than Eric Cantor because he did not use his position of power for the desired outcome. Despite the general sentiment of conspiracy, there is some evidence that there are healthcare providers that would like subtle changes in the bill, but Ron Pollock delivers this hard truth:

Efforts to block universal coverage - either through legislation or the courts - have "really become almost pure partisanpolitics, more than anything else," said Ron Pollock, the executive director of Families USA, a prominent supporter of the law. "The key interest groups are divided within their ranks. In the insurance ranks, some would prefer stability more than a total makeover. "The strategy of choice," Pollock added, "is not so much a frontal attack but going after specific provisions."

 Although the bill may have its flaws, it is evident that the US due for the change. Politicians, down to their core, should be for the will of the people and not to feed their own means. I'm not suggesting that we do away with private industry's role in government, but it is a serious question to ask ourselves. "Who is governing whom?"