A Question of Balance

Baucus and Grassley accept millions from health care and insurance interests

    As Senator Max Baucus claims that he is working on a health care bill with his bipartisan panel, I thought that it would be a good time to review his connections to health care and insurance companies.  In a June 14, 2009 article in the Montana Standard, Mike Dennison summarized data from the Center for Responsive Politics, which is a nonprofit group that tracks campaign donations.  Mr. Dennison's summary, in pertinent part,  is as follows: 

In the past six years, nearly one-fourth of every dime raised by Baucus, D-Mont., and his political-action committee has come from groups and individuals associated with drug companies, insurers, hospitals, medical-supply firms, health-service companies and other health professionals.

These donations total about $3.4 million, or $1,500 a day, every day, from January 2003 through 2008.
. . . . .

From 2003-2008, the Baucus campaign and his Glacier PAC, which raises money and distributes it to other candidates, received 23 percent of their $14.8 million from health-care and insurance interests.

The $3.4 million from these sectors includes $853,000 from pharmaceutical and health-products, $851,000 from health professionals; $467,000 from hospitals and nursing homes, $466,000 from health-service and HMO interests, and $784,000 from insurance.

The insurance-sector money includes donations from all types of insurance-company interests, including health insurance.

Five of the top 10 specific donor sources for Baucus were drug companies, health insurers or health-related firms. For example, employees of Schering-Plough Corp., a major drug firm, gave him $92,000 over the period, more than any other single source.

Mr. Dennison also pointed out that Senator Charles Grassley received 23.5%  of his total donations from health and insurance interests, $2.3 million out of $9.8 million total funds.

By contrast, the late great Senator Edward M. Kennedy received  only 7.5 % of his donations from such interests.  Also, President Barack Obama received only 2.5% from health care interests and 0.3% from insurance interests during his presidential campaign.

So, when faced with the choice of a plan with an effective pubic option supported by President Obama and the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy or a plan without an effective public option, if any, written by Senators Baucus and Grassley, which plan is most likely to help all Americans?   Hmmm....
*Thanks to Patti for all the research.