Home

About
- Who We Are
- Community Guidelines
- Right to Respond
Advertising on BOR
- Advertise on BOR
- Buy on all Texas Blogs

Advertisements

Search




Advanced Search


Follow Burnt Orange Report on Twitter (@BOR) and Facebook.

TX-Gov: Hutchison's Health Care "Plan" Reflects the $1.4 Million She's Taken from Special Interests


by: Phillip Martin

Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 11:00 AM CDT


Key Point: Senator Hutchison has taken $1.4 million from health care special interests -- which may explain why she is proposing a health care plan to protect insurance companies and let them continue to deny Texans health care coverage based on preexisting conditions.

From the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, we learned last week that Senator Hutchison has taken $1.4 million from health care special interests. From their story:

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas: $1.4 million. Since 2005, the top five industries that have donated to Hutchison have been lawyers, retirees, oil and gas, miscellaneous finance and real estate. Her donations include those from self-employed doctors, healthcare managers, even the president of the Baylor Health Care System.

That amount of health care special interest money is staggering -- especially when you look at Senator Hutchison's op-ed in the Austin American-Statesman today titled, "Another Model for Health Care Reform." Her plan protects private insurance companies by allowing them to continue to deny Texans health care coverage when they get sick or if they have preexisting conditions.

In fact, her plan is almost identical to President Obama's health care plan -- with the obvious exception that she's not going to stop insurance companies from denying Texans their health care coverage based on preexisting conditions. The only reason Republicans oppose any sort of government involvement in the health care system is that then the big insurance companies they all take their checks from would no longer be able to deny Texans their health care coverage.

Take a look at the two plans side by side on three simple ideas:

Health Exchanges

Obama: "We'll do this by creating a new insurance exchange -- a marketplace where individuals and small businesses will be able to shop for health insurance at competitive prices." (Source)

Hutchison:
"The health exchange places all the decision-making power into the hands of the consumer. A state-level health exchange would allow consumers to compare plans at a single shopping point." (Source)

  • Portable Health Insurance

Obama: "If you lose your job or you change your job, you'll be able to get coverage.  If you strike out on your own and start a small business, you'll be able to get coverage." (Source)

Hutchison: "A health exchange would streamline coverage for families with both spouses employed by allowing contributions from multiple employers to be pooled...It could eliminate gaps in care because plan benefits are portable from job to job." (Source)

  • Choice Lowers Cost
Obama: "Insurance companies will have an incentive to participate in this exchange because it lets them compete for millions of new customers.  As one big group, these customers will have greater leverage to bargain with the insurance companies for better prices and quality coverage." (Source)

Hutchison: "As consumers are given the opportunity to make informed choices, competition will increase, which results in lower consumer cost and simplified offerings." (Source)

Senator Hutchison is proposing the same health care plan as Democrats, only it is more expensive because it would do nothing to stop insurance companies from denying Americans coverage due to preexisting conditions.

President Obama's health care plan ends preexisting conditions:

Under this plan, it will be against the law for insurance companies to deny you coverage because of a preexisting condition.  As soon as I sign this bill, it will be against the law for insurance companies to drop your coverage when you get sick or water it down when you need it the most.  They will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or in a lifetime. 

Senator Hutchison doesn't care if insurance companies deny Texans their health care coverage if they get sick. That's the reason her plan is different than President Obama's -- and the reason why Texans should roundly reject her proposal as nothing more than a cowardly duck-and-cover from a Senator that has taken $1.4 million from health care special interests.
ADVERTISEMENT
Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Complete the Logical flow (1.00 / 2)
With all the effort involved in documenting corruption and the influence of special interests, it would be a valuable service to bring your audience to the logic of supporting the reform groups that focus on remedies.  Common Cause, Public Citizen and others are dedicated to advancing publicly funded campaigns and similar policies to neutralize special interests.   eg the Common Cause of Texas Facebook Group and Fan pages.
Fuming about it is useless.




Wow, a number of things to say to that (3.00 / 1)
1) Putting the day's news and headlines into context isn't useless.

2) I don't think any of the groups you mentioned are going to "complete the logical flow" and actively help defeat Republicans, are they?

3) If you want an example of us supporting reform groups, just look at Matt's diary today about Equality Texas.

4) BOR regularly promotes diaries from Public Citizen and others, when they write them on our site. If something isn't being covered, then it's up to our community to write about it.

5) The Common Cause of Texas doesn't even list its Facebook group on its own website; asking us to do so when the group can't do it itself seems odd.

All those points aside, I'm happy to link to the Common Cause Facebook page (which you neglected to do):

Common Cause on Facebook

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.


[ Parent ]
I've seen your movie before pj (0.00 / 0)
You posted the very same comment under my post about pocketed peckers like Cornyn.  So what is your agenda? Social networking, facebook, twitter?  Most bloggers here are already there.

So?  


[ Parent ]
Let's not be the pot calling the kettle black (0.00 / 0)
Its always good to know where the contributions are coming from, but be careful not to paint with too broad a brush. Democrats have received more health-care lobby dollars than Republicans in the lead-up period to health reform, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

The pre-x issue is important, but as long as the industry knows its going to get millions of additional new customers, it isn't going to fight that regulation (or other consumer protection requirements, like guaranteed issue and community rating). They actually offered stuff like that earlier this year, and the only part of reform they've really been vocal in opposition to is a public option.

In fact, that's what KBH's entire piece is about: opposing a public option. She doesn't speak to other aspects of health reform, including insurance industry regulation. Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending her. But I think you are jumping to an inaccurate conclusion (based solely on reading the one piece - I haven't seen anything else from her on health reform that I can recall). She might oppose prohibiting pre-x exclusions, but you can't rightly draw that conclusion strictly on the basis of the linked article.

All three of the current proposals have insurance regulations (all include a prohibition on pre-x exclusions). The real points of controversy seem to be public option, individual mandate and subsidies, not the insurance reforms. But what's really interesting is, most health policy experts I've read don't believe ANY of the proposals currently being considered include particularly strong or effective cost controls. Some have suggested that the Democrats are too influenced by the health care lobby to put cost control with teeth into the legislation.


The insurance industry has posted profits (0.00 / 0)
of $400 billion every year.  They are fighting tooth and nail to protect the profits by spending $1.4 million every day to kill health care reform, especially that which includes a public option.  In other words, the insurance companies that routinely deny care to dying  patients and those with horrible diseases has $1.4 million a day to spend on killing reform that would help the very same people for whom they deny care.

If the industry has to continue its practice of death by the spreadsheet it will do that.  It does not care about the health and well being of those they insure.  It will continue to hand out death sentences.  

Any politician, no matter what party, that supports the health insurance industry's profits over patient care should be voted out of office in 2010 and 2012. They are not worthy of serving those they take an oath to represent. Voting for insurance means voting for the ongoing practice of death by the spreadsheet.

Kay Bailey Hutchison has a lot of work to do in the working for the people department.

 


[ Parent ]
They just want to kill the public option (0.00 / 0)
The insurance industry has expressed support for most of the insurance reforms if there's no public option. They've said they want universal coverage and subsidies (which ensures they get new enrollees). They still want to be able to vary premiums by age and a few other factors, but they are willing to do guaranteed issue, no pre-x exclusions and no premium differences based on health status.

http://www.americanhealthsolut...

Progressives have made the mistake of thinking public option is the only way to get health reform. It isn't the only way. We should stop wasting time on public option and start fighting for an individual mandate, generous subsidies and strong insurance regulations. The current proposals before Congress include insurance regulations but need to be strengthened. Let's throw our energy behind those things instead of beating the drum for a public option we aren't likely to get (and that, in itself, won't give us what we need for true reform). We also need strong cost control, but politically, that might have to wait til we get the other stuff done.


[ Parent ]
Excuse me. (0.00 / 0)
But this is way too much pie-in-the-sky. You say the insurance industry has expressed "support for most of the insurance reforms if there's no public option." Then you go on to say, they "want" this and they "want" that.

The insurance industry doesn't "want" anything that impacts their profits over the long run. Maybe they're playing nice by appearing to want some kind of change...but truly (and I seem to recall that your livelihood depends on the insurance industry remaining a money-making entity) they've had plenty of opportunity over the years to change. Libby's absolutely right.  And Progressives are, too. It is not a mistake to believe that the public option is the only way to get health care reform. The "public option" is being offered as a choice.

Why is the insurance industry so worried about choices and/or options? The answer is clear.


[ Parent ]
The bottom line (0.00 / 0)
should be getting people covered, at a price they can afford, and making sure that coverage is fair and reliable. Let me be clear - I prefer a public option over not having one. But I am practical, and I know that the basic things we need in health reform do not hinge on having one. Other countries ensure universal coverage in totally private systems. They just regulate the hell out of their private players. That's what we should work toward here.

NPR did a piece this morning on reform and the health insurance industry which discusses why the industry hasn't fought reform like it did with Clinton. Of course they are trying to protect their profitability (although it might interest you to know that non-profit insurers cover over half of people in the commercial market). But even Obama understands that their support (or at least, non-opposition) is critical for reform legislation to pass. I'm not saying that's a good thing, just - it is what it is. If I have a choice between getting people what they need in a politically-feasible way or fighting for the best possible option on the table but losing and getting nothing, I choose the former. People are more important. The way progressives have approached public option is a perfect example of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

I don't work with commercial insurance products - just public sector. But my clients have also included state agencies and other non-insurers. You implied that my opinion on this subject merely reflects a desire to protect my income, which is not the case.  


[ Parent ]
Oh, so insurance is betting on new enrollees? (0.00 / 0)
And generous subsidies?  For?  

I guess this means the insurance companies can continue to beef up their profits by offering crappy death by the spreadsheet options to continue to overcharge and kill off patients?  

The public option is actually a piss poor compromise as far as I am concerned.  

Actually, it is my very own doctor who told me that universal coverage with a single payer would be the best of the best as far as he is concerned.  He loathes insurance companies as do most of his patients, for good reason.  He has been practicing medicine for 40 years and if you can believe this, he still makes house calls.  The good doctor also works 24/7 to raise private and federal money to pay for the treatments of patients who do not health insurance.

The good doctor also likes the system in the UK where doctors can do both public and private practices.  If patients don't want to get in line for care, they can visit a doctor in private practice.  Oh, and private insurance premiums in the UK do not require the cost of one's firstborn son.

You see, the notion of $400 billion in profits does not exist in any other first world industrialized nation.  So why are we stuck with it the good ol' freedom loving, biggest, richest and best country on the planet?


[ Parent ]
Because that's the economic and political reality in the US (0.00 / 0)
Other countries have a different cultural attitude about this stuff than we do, overall. I would prefer a single payer system, but I recognize the political reality we have to deal with here.

Even if we had a public option, we would STILL need very tough insurance regulations. And of the two, tough regulations are more important for addressing the problems that exist. Instead of fighting on multiple fronts - public option AND regulation AND subsidies AND universality -- why not let one of the most controversial, least-likely ones (public option) go and focus on the more fundamental fights? At the end of the day, what matters is that people get what they need, at a fair price, and don't get screwed over. We can do that without public option, and need to win ALL those other fights whether we have a public option or not.

As I said to Elsbeth above, progressives are letting the perfect be the enemy of the good on this issue.  


[ Parent ]
That Must Be It (0.00 / 0)
Other countries have a different cultural attitude about this stuff than we do, overall. I would prefer a single payer system, but I recognize the political reality we have to deal with here.

The political reality? You meant the one brought about by Dick Armey and Fox News and the health insurance industry? That political reality? Well, that may be "your" political reality but it's not mine.


[ Parent ]
We're not aiming for the perfect (0.00 / 0)
We are aiming for fairness, moral standards, ethical practices, transparency and integrity.  As far as I am concerned John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchison have a choice to make.  They can continue supporting their sugar daddies in big insurance and their $400 billion in profits.

Or they can support the folks who actually elected them into office.

Voters are paying attention.


Check out the health care Senator Hutchison (0.00 / 0)
and her colleagues in Congress gets.  If this is good enough for them, it should be good enough for us, at an affordable price.  A public option would ensure this.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/OnCa...

Now, as a taxpayer who pays for KBH, John Cornyn and John Culberson's health benefits I would like to know why their constituents don't deserve what they have.  After all, all three of my "representatives" in the U.S. Congress are opposed to health care reform and they are dead set against a public option.



The Grassley Amendment (0.00 / 0)
will make Congress get its health care from the reform exchange.  Passed the committee unanimously.  No wonder . . .   they have their emergency back-up plan down stairs.  By the way is the clinic downstairs only available to Republicans?

[ Parent ]
Mobile Blog Reader - powered by Notice Orange

Burnt Orange Reader

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Poll
Which of the following do you think will win in November?
Bill White
Linda Chavez Thompson
Barbara Ann Radnofsky
Hector Uribe
Hank Gilbert
Jeff Weems
Jim Sharp
Bill Moody
Blake Bailey
Keith Hampton
None

Results

Advertisement

Best of Texas Left
- (Complete Directory)
- A Capitol Blog
- As the Island Floats
- B & B
- Bay Area Houston
- Blue Bloggin
- Bluedaze
- Brains and Eggs
- Capitol Annex
- Collin County Democrats
- Collin County Observer
- Community Forum
- Dog Canyon
- Dos Centavos
- Easter Lemming Liberal
- Eye on Williamson County
- Feet to the Fire
- Grading Texas
- Greg's Opinion
- Grits for Breakfast
- Half Empty
- Houtopia
- In the Pink Texas
- Kiss My Big Blue Butt
- Letters from Texas
- McBlogger
- Mean Rachel
- Musings
- North Texas Liberal
- Off the Kuff
- Panhandle Truth Squad
- Para Justicia y Libertad!
- Pink Dome
- San Antonio Mayor
- South Texas Chisme
- StoudDemBlog
- Texas Clover Leaf
- Texas Kaos
- The Caucus Blog
- There..Already
- Three Wise Men
Best of Texas Right
- Blogs of War
- BlogHouston
- Boots and Sabers
- Lone Star Times
- Publius TX
- Rick Perry vs the World
- Safety for Dummies
- Slightly Rough
- Urban Grounds
Other Texas Reads
- Burka Blog
- D Magazine
- DOT Show
- Statesman Elections
- Strong Political Analysis
- Texas Monthly
- Texas Observer
- The Texas Blue
- Quorum Report Daily Buzz
Around Austin
- Austin Bloggers
- Austin Chronicle
- Austin Contrarian
- Austin Metblogs
- Austin on Two Wheels
- Austin Real Estate Blog
- Austin Statesman
- Austin Texas Bike Shit Stuff
- Austin Towers
- Austinist
- Capital MetroBlog
- Daily Texan
- Do512
- Downtown Austin Blog
- East Austinite
- Elise Hu
-
Flash Mob Austin
- Keep Austin Blue
- M1EK
- Travis County Democrats
- University Democrats
TX Progressive Orgs
- ACLU Legislative Blog
- Atticus Circle
- Criminal Justice Coalition
- Equality Texas
- NOW Texas
- PFAW Texas
- Public Citizen
- SEIU Texas
- Tejano Insider
- Texas AFT
- Texas HDCC
- Texas Watch
- TFN
- TSTA
- TSEU
- Texas Young Democrats
- United Ways of Texas
TX Elections/Returns
- TX Returns 1992-present
- TX Media/Candidate List

- Bexar County
- Collin County
- Dallas county
- Denton County
- El Paso County
- Fort Bend County
- Harris County
- Jefferson County
- Tarrant County
- Travis County

- CNN 1998 Returns
- CNN 2000 Returns
- CNN 2002 Returns
- CNN 2004 Returns
- CNN 2006 Returns
- CNN 2008 Returns
Traffic Ratings
- Alexa Rating
- Quantcast Ratings
-
Syndication

Burnt Orange Reporters
Publisher - Karl-Thomas M.
Editor-in-Chief - Matt G.
Staff Writer - David M.
Staff Writer - Katherine H.
Staff Writer - Michael H.
Staff Writer - Todd H.
Man of Mystery - Phillip M.
Founder - Byron L.

Powered by: SoapBlox