« Health care questions I've never heard journalists ask your Senator. | tpmgary's Blog | Let him go quietly. »
Nate Silver's analysis of lobbyist influence over Senators on public health care option.
Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com has an excellent statistical analysis of how special interest money actually influences each Democratic senator's vote for or against a public health care option.
One highlight:
One highlight:
What happens if we set the lobbying variable to zero for all senators?That is, suppose that the health care insurance industry were prohibited from making political contributions? In that case, the model predicts, 47 senators would currently support the public option, as opposed to the 38 who actually do. In other words, the insurance industry's influence appears to swing about 9 votes against the public option. Whatever number of senators wind up supporting the public option, add 9 to it, and you'll have a decent ballpark estimate for what the level of support might be if not for insurance industry contributions.
Advertisement
Hey Gary,
I appreciate this info. I just wrote a comment about healthcare on another blog though, so I am just going to paste that here because it includes Oleeb's 'things you can do post':)
That there would have to be a showdown between the people and those who have been profiting and abusing their profit making from health care should not be a shock to us.
The idea that this congress will move the mountain is NOT realistic. WE must move it for them. WE must demand and insist no matter how many times they refuse or reject it.
Let the Iranian people be an example to us. We can have the healthcare system we need and deserve if we are willing to fight for it. Is it worth fighting for? I say 'absolutely' not just for myself but for everyone of you.
There is a demonstration in WA on June 25th per this blog by Oleeb:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/oleeb/2009/06/some-easy-effective-things-you.php?ref=reccafe
WE are responsible for this fight and WE must not let it be 'defined' by the congress or the white house.
I think we should ignore whatever steps they take to try to appease and make a committment to see this through until we have a truly 'healthy' healthcare system that serves all americans.
June 22, 2009 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
thanks synch, I agree and admire your grasp of the power we all have to catalyze actual change.
There's a lot of health care PR going on right now--President Obama just signed the new tobacco bill.
And apparently pharmaceutical companies have agreed to help cut prices for prescription drugs.
I'm an advocate of both these actions but I'm skeptical of the latter because I don't believe it represents sweeping reform.
Appeasement is no substitute for single payer health care, and we're already being asked to accept a substitute; a public health care option. And now, a substitute for even that; ineffective "health care co-ops".
I guess what's good for the goose is good for the gander: If a senator isn't willing to stand up for the public, we will replace that senator with a substitute.
Because too often legislative compromises are bills in which Americans are compromised.
And right now, as you suggest, we need to act. Election day is not the only day Americans have a voice in politics.
June 22, 2009 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
The money influencing the Senate on this issue should be broadcast throughout the country, naming names of Senators and how much they're getting in campaign funds.
Lets turn the tables on these cretins, instead of letting them vote with the monied interests as a way of keeping their seats, lets make a vote for the monied interests the reason they lost their seats.
June 22, 2009 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gary, thanks so much for the post. I have been wondering about the lobby money but hadn't gotten the mental strength up to look for it.
Here's my question (and maybe Ripper can provide an answer) - why doesn't MSM report this information? When they do a sound bite from Senator XYZ opposing national health care why don't they just add "In 2008 Senator xyz received $$$$$$ from the pharm/med lobby as contributions to his campaign." That is supposed to be public info right? And I would think it would create enough controversy to get the MSM excited.
Oh, never mind. I just figured out the answer. No one would talk to the media if they knew they were going to be exposed like that. Dang.
June 22, 2009 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're talking about disclosure, like during the election, members of the MSM would introduce a pundit or politician, and announce that they either work for, or have supported so and so in the past.
In this case, it would go something like this:
"Here to discuss the public option is Senator Max Baucus, who, in the interest of fair disclosure, is so deep inside the pockets of the health insurance and pharmaceutical industry, it's hard to pick up his broadcast signal. Senator Baucus, can you hear us?
Senator Baucus?
June 22, 2009 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
hahahahaha! Cute!
June 22, 2009 11:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here ... This is a good 'n...
From the Montana Standard . . .
~OGD~
June 23, 2009 1:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Americans that care about Health Care should take a lesson in democracy from Iranians and go to 100 Main Street, Everycity, USA this July 4th and let our government know we want HEALTH CARE FOR ALL NOW.
WE are now the Silent Majority!
June 22, 2009 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am with you gary but it is unconstitutional--many many cases on this. First Amenment:
speech
redress of grievances
Right of the rich oligarchy to control everything
ITS ALL THERE, BELIEVE ME
June 22, 2009 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure Nate is not advocating that we prohibit any industry from infusing members of congress with cold hard cash:)
It's only a mathematical supposition he makes within the context of a larger post to attempt to better quantify just how many democratic votes are most influenced by the corporate lobby.
June 22, 2009 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gary ... If you'll please note . . .
Nate may not be advocating that we prohibit any industry from infusing members of congress with cold hard cash (I noted your smiley), but within Nate's post from the link you provided is a another linked post that he had written on Sunday 6/21 and within that post Nate writes:
To my read of Nate that sounds like Nate is pretty much hardened to what's really going on. :)
Thanks for getting this on the queue here in the Cafe.
Also: You may be interested in this particular page at energycommerce.house.gov
~OGD~
June 23, 2009 12:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd love to see disclosures about how much our illustrious senators are pocketing from big drug and big insurance. Probably too obscene for minors to see. Also, it would be great to have congress have their health perks removed so they had to buy the same insurance most Americans have to buy and then put up with the issues of trying to collect for needed procedures because some no-medical bean counting idiot is telling medical professionals how to run ther business of "healing".
June 22, 2009 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
tpmgary -
my inner wonk was actually wondering about this last night.
thanks
June 22, 2009 11:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
The numbers Nate offers are very much in line with my examination of this. I thought the numbers were in the twenty percentile range of senators who succumbed to inappropriate influence.
Interestingly this makes the correllation between public polling and what senators should do, absent the influence, fall very much in line.
I'm going to take this, in lieu of a different explanation, as confirmation of corruption.
Projected over time we are talking about trillions of dollars. More than a little extreme as corruption goes. Which explains why I feel extremely antagonistic and could care less if all these crooked bastards stopped breathing tomorrow. Feels right in balance to me.
June 23, 2009 6:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've noticed that the Dems. have stopped talking about campaign finance or election reform. It seems to me that we need some reform formulation based on the following principles:
1. Public financing of federal elections.
2. Term limits (especially, for senators).
3. Five-year prohibition on regulators/bureaucrats being employed by the same industry which they had been regulating.
4. Make Civics class a requirement for earning a high-school diploma.
The problem is the same elected officials whom such reform would constrain are also the ones who would need approve it.
June 23, 2009 8:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
That is the problem for sure. That's why the primaries are so important. We have a serious incumbent problem in this country.
June 23, 2009 9:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
This, of course, is the infamous Catch 22 which structurally leaves no provision for addressing. I suspect that it is this very condition which, in time, decrees the failure of governments. You have to be somewaht in awe that China has existed as a nation state for so long. I think you could study the intricacies of holding and dispatching power for an entire lifetime and not solve the riddle.
June 23, 2009 9:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Status quid pro quo.
June 23, 2009 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you want a public option for health care, these Senators want you to sign their petition:
http://ga3.org/campaign/healthpetition?qp_source=hc%5fhp
It's easy.
June 23, 2009 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I find it very frustrating that we work so hard to get our guy elected, then have to continue to work even harder to get EVEN the people on our side of the aisle to do what we voted him in to do...
There is something very, very wrong with that.
June 23, 2009 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink