The very people whom we've elected to represent our interests allow this shameful thing to happen. In late Spring when Senator Baucus of Montana, the Chairman of the Finance Committee, was putting together his study group to look at health care reform, he refused to allow a Single Payer voice in his group. Single Payer - among other plans - could save many Americans hundreds of millions of dollars a year. A friend of mine, a physician, who largely does work with the indigent, went to one of Baucus' Committee hearings, stood up and asked why Single Payer wasn't even being considered. She was promptly arrested. I could have easily answered the question: Senator Baucus has received more than $300-thousand from the pharmaceutical industry in campaign contributions in recent years. The people of Montana ought to be ashamed electing this jackazz to office; in this instance it is apparent that he's been bought and paid for. Even the appearance of malfeasance or impropriety constitutes the same.

this is total bs. lobbyists should not be allowed to exist. this health care bill IS SUPPOSED TO HELP THE U.S. CITIZEN. while noble in idea, this health care bill will be a disaster.

lobbyists and our elected morons on BOTH sides of the aisle will take a bill meant to help the American public and turn it into a bottomless cash cow for pharmaceutical companies and the ama. we the people will get screwed again.

This report just further identifies the money spent by these organizations and corporations to buy their votes in Congress, ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE. That's the true nature of politics.....neo-cons sit there and say NO to everything to hide the money they are getting from these groups to say no. The other side of the aisle finds ways to make the public think they have their interests at heart while putting all kinds of special clauses in the bills to still benefit those same organizations and corporations paying the neo-cons to say NO.

Neither party is ever going to give President Obama the reforms he wants any more than they gave Clinton, or even either Bush or any of the other presidents in the past 40+ years.

Combine all of this lobbyist money with all of the advertising $'s being spent against the Health Care Reform and you begin to see why NOTHING has been accomplished in over 40 years on this issue.

Come on AP & MSNBC, tell us how much was for and how much was against. What the hell kind of reporting is this? But since it appears here on MSNBC I'll bet the most was spent against.

SuperDave01

brad melton

you make disabled and retarded such look bad. Was your friend out of order? Did she ask for permission for the floor? Was she on the .............., it does not matter , you are an uninformed idiot who voted for odumbo.

And what are you? A right wing religious fanatic that dreams of the days of slavery, disenfranchising women and public lynchings?

It could mean they are frightened our health care system will end up like Japan.

Japan has the one of the best health care systems in the world in terms of both quality and affordability. The government sets prices there like HMOs set prices here in the US, but the net take home pay for Japanese doctors is pretty low.

U.S. doctors don't want to lose their two Porsches and 8 bedroom house.

The following link seems to give the most straight-forward answer to the question of which side the money is coming from. Since the second quarter reports don't have to be finalized until tonight, analysis won't really be available until at least Wednesday, according to some sites. Outside of AARP trying to protect its senior citizens, it appears that most of the lobbying is being done to protect the interests of the status quo.....AMA, insurance companies, HMO's and other hospitals, pharmaceuticals, and yes the Chamber of Commerce, who is ALWAYS against anything that says business has to provide health care coverage for their employees.

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2009/06/diagnosis-reform.html

In many ways, I do not feel it should be the responsibility of ANY business to have to provide health care coverage for their employees, IF they are paying a decent wage. It should be the responsibility of the employee to take care of his/her own health care. Health care and other such benefits are non-taxed income and the government is losing on that, which means we the taxpayers are cheating ourselves when it comes to paying for the services we demand from our government on all levels. Benefits came into existence during WWII when the government fixed wages. Now they have gotten out of hand. If a business tries to cut back, then they get criticized by the unions. In the end, the consumer pays for it all in the cost of the goods in the marketplace.

What I want to see is a health care reform that forces the cost of that health care to be in alignment with the base cost of living, not be an increasing percentage of the GNP (as it used to be called.) Insurance premiums need to be at a level that all people could afford to pay them. Coverage needs to be full coverage, not what the insurance companies decide they are willing to pay or most usually NOT pay. TORT reform also needs to be put into this law to prevent these multi-million dollar malpractice claims people win every day. That has also driven up the cost of health care. Medical care MUST be a co-ordinated care where all specialists involved in a case are brought in together to make a diagnosis, not each one ordering his/her own battery of tests that are often duplicates of tests just run by another specialist on the case.

Lastly, we each need to take responsibility for our own health and well-being. In other words, get off of that couch. Get daily exercise. Eat properly (NO JUNK FOOD OR OTHER UNHEALTHY FOODS/DRINKS.) Take control of your own health care with preventive care, not crisis care. Fix the cause, not the symptoms. That will help lower your individual health care costs. At the same time, we need to clean up our environment of all of the health hazards we have created with this lifestyle we've come to expect.

I never said I was a combat veteran buddy,, (but I was in three wars and several armed "conflicts").

Were were you A$$whole?

Besides, YOUR idea of combat might be a John Wayne movie.

get a grip.

Since you don't know what I did,, and you won't show your DD-214,

screw off.

Damn Corsair; as many times as we've gone head to head, you never put a boot that far up my azz. LOL

Just imagine what American could accomplish and/or the millions that could be saved for research and to lower insurance costs without the lobbyist spending!!!???!!!!

Unfortunately, just another way to show exactly how greedy these conglomerates are when it comes to actually helping the American people!!! So, so sad!!!!

And as far as the CBO goes, they are bought and paid for by lobbyists!!!

Well , Brad, that's because I have never seen you with your head up your ass as

far as this, person who thinks he has the "lastdance" has his. ;)

cryptoanarchist, your lack of information re. doctors, and your envy/hatred of them is noted. It would be very easy for you to find out how much doctors make by an internet search of your own, realizing of course that these doctors have spent 11 to 18 years in full time school after high school to even start. You would be appalled at how little they make for effort expended.

So the AMA spent 4 million dollars for input (mostly against) this bill which will affect, I believe severely negatively, US citizens for years to come. Obama thought the AMA was so important that he flew to their national meeting to argue his points in front of them.

At 4 million, this amounts to about sixteen dollars per member.

To lobby the doctors, Obama spent about $500,000 on his one trip.

Folks, consider what could have been done by all of these listed corporations in the medical fields if this money sent to washington with lobbyist had been spent on something worth while...like cures for cancer or other killers. But the all mighty profit is worth more to all companies,,,even to congress since all the money goes to washington....the question becomes, just whose pocket does all that money end up in ? Why not have audits of this money by all companies...see just where and in whose pocket it does go too. Want to bet that our elected would never go for it...nor the companies ?

I pretty much hate the AMA. They're the sleaziest, sneakiest organization out there. The AMA have been the silent assassins of universal health care since World War I. First they claimed to be against it because it resembled the health care system of the evil German Huns. Then the new boogeyman was Communism and "socialized medicine." There's always a scare tactic involved. The AMA viciously fought against Medicare and Medicaid until they realized what a cash cow it would be for doctors. Then they weren't as against it and have just advocated for reforms like better doctor reimbursement. But they've maintained their resistance to universal care all along- every year they spend more than big oil, big tobacco, the pharmaceutical industry or defense contractors- in fact, they typically are ranked number three or four on the list (and almost always in the top ten) of the most money spent on lobbying. A huge portion of that money has gone to defeating universal healthcare over the years. So I was more than a little suspicious when they gave their tentative (but vague) support to health care reform this time around, and suspect it was just a PR tactic to make it look like they're giving the new plan a chance before they come out against it like they always do. And they'll happily spread all kinds of misinformation about the problems in Europe and Canada with "socialized medicine" even though they know full well that those countries perform far better on most health indicators than the U.S. And they also know that insured people are already paying for the uninsured through higher costs (right now the uninsured are paying about $100 billion a year for the uninsured through higher hospital costs, insurance rates, existing government programs to assist uninsured people, etc.), but aren't getting any bang for their buck.

I guess ethics, limiting the spread of disease by making sure they 50 million people can engage preventative medicine and the idea of access to health care for the lower middle class and working poor aren't a high priority for a lot of doctors. They just care if they can get paid. The AMA is pretty despicable. I know a lot of workers like me in the health care field who are pretty appalled at the AMA. Luckily this time around, the pharmaceutical industry (who sees lost of potential profit in more people being covered) and business lobbying groups (who are tired of getting killed by outrageous insurance costs) will help to even the score should the AMA resort to their usual tricks.

The AMA that all of these AP articles speaks of only represents approx. 15% of practicing doctors nationwide. Since the 1990's the AMA membership of doctors has been on a downward spiral. The majority, 85% or more, of doctors in the US do not belong to the AMA because they do not support the direction that the AMA has been taking on issues. Too bad the media and the White House don't bother to tell the public this.

The AMA that all of these AP articles speaks of only represents approx. 15% of practicing doctors nationwide. Since the 1990's the AMA membership of doctors has been on a downward spiral. The majority, 85% or more, of doctors in the US do not belong to the AMA because they do not support the direction that the AMA has been taking on issues. Too bad the media and the White House don't bother to tell the public this.

That is, for the most part, accurate- statistically you're 100% right. The proportion of AMA membership to practicing doctors has been steadily declining for the past few decades (although, if memory serves, the downward membership spiral you refer to goes back even further than the early 90's). However, a lot of the declining membership has not been due to disagreement by doctors (although a significant number of providers in the literature do object) than to the "boutiquing" of health care lobbying into narrower specialty groups. So instead of the AMA representing all doctors, there are a whole collection of organizations that represent specialists, etc. This makes the issue even more complicated, since that adds a whole lot of hands (and competing interests) to the cookie jar. But the amount of money spent by the AMA has been incredible, in spite of their declining membership- it dwarfs the amount spent by lobbying groups you would normally associate with corrupting the political process.

The doctors I know don't belong to the AMA because they see the group as a bunch of full-time politicians who don't practice medicine and have no understanding what goes on "out in the field".

I agree the AMA spends an enormous amount on lobbying. The question is: Who do they really represent?

The doctors I know don't belong to the AMA because they see the group as a bunch of full-time politicians who don't practice medicine and have no understanding what goes on "out in the field".

I agree the AMA spends an enormous amount on lobbying. The question is: Who do they really represent?

You know good doctors. The doctors at my clinic aren't exactly pro-AMA either, but we work with underserved, low-income and homeless HIV populations in one of the poorest urban areas in the country. So (at the risk of painting this with too broad of a brush) maybe they're more activist-minded and socially-conscious than some of your average suburban doctors- they volunteer at soup kitchens and donate their speaking fees to charities and stuff like that. Obviously, we see a lot more of the waste, inequities, injustices and negative outcomes of the existing health care system (and a lot more of the positive components of existing government plans like Medicaid) than a person who has a private practice in the suburbs is going to see. I have friends who are doctors that work in those more affluent suburbs. They practice in a much more insulated setting and seem to care a whole lot more about their paychecks and social status than about issues like access to care for the working poor- I've debated them pretty ferociously about this stuff a number of times. Most of them belong to the AMA- I think it more closely represents their point of view and interests. This just applies ot the people I work with or know. I don't mean to say that I think that all doctors in poor, urban settings are more compassionate than those in suburban settings- that would be really unfair and completely wrong. I've read journal articles for and against the AMA from doctors on all ends of the spectrum.

The last time I checked out the AMA's site (and maybe it changed over the past few years, but I doubt it), they are pretty focused on blocking "non-incremental change" (their euphemism for universal care) and obtaining greater Medicare reimbursement for doctors (they don't seem to care very much about advocating for changes to the system that would promote better health outcomes- at least, I haven't seen any real evidence of that). It's interesting that an organization representing a profession that is supposedly dedicated to the greater good would feel compelled to spend more money on lobbying than big tobacco- which has a product that kills people. They really are just a political apparatus with a disproportionate amount of influence, wealth and power.

SICK One group of ultra-wealthy crooks simply bribe-ing another group of same stated.Lobbying will have to be outlawed,the bribers and "bribies"will have to be stopped for average Americans to stand a chance of civilized survivial. Is anyone sick of their tax dollars being used against them??? I am. A war against the government of this country by the people is the only method to be( the people) even lightly considered as participants in the very bleak future of the USA. The Government of and the corporations of the USA are the greatest criminal elements in the USA. Funny (in a sick way) that both the government and the corps. are now all over the planet: Spreading the diease that they both are

Now the power hungry politicians are going to vilify the providers as greedy obstructionists to their scheme to take over health care. Why is it that this compassionate caring bunch has to resort to attacking anyone who stands in the way of their agenda. Isn't a program that will effect so much of the population subject to scrutiny and debate? The interesting thing about these political types is they never lose because their policies stink, no its because they were scuttled by greedy profiteers. Take a look at the connection these partisan thinkers have to organizations that will profit greatly from their programs. They are the greedy exploiters not the health care providers they seek to control and blame.

The Congressional Budget Office has already talked of the bottom line: the plan as-is will drive up costs.

Thanks Brad,, ( I was hitting on the article author).

The reporting is vague and ,.. well, not even really misleading.

It goes no where.

This Washington Post article says everything that needs stating about the CBO's cost estimates under the plan:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/16/AR2009071602242.html

Well this report is about numbers actually....just not the numbers you want to see. It's giving us the numbers of how much is being spent to make sure the status quo isn't changed, just like the past 40+ years. That was the sole purpose of this report in my estimation. Especially when combined with the figures on ad expenditures in an earlier report today.

I can see that,, anti tp,. but as always, the picture is never really laided out for the "layman".

right, see the link I just posted above. I think that site in the next few days will start to give us a better picture of these figures and their influence on the issue.

None of the media has a clear understanding of the issues, so how can we expect them to translate the information into "layman's" terms? After all, aren't they laymen also? Most of the media, not just MSNBC, relies on the AP for the sources of their information these days. UPI, while it still exists, has taken a back seat to AP. Neither one is doing the type of reporting they used to do (Cronkite generation.) I can remember those days of reporting. They haven't been around now for at least two decades and reporting gets worse with each new "improvement" of 24/7 news media.

Every election cycle, the amount of money spent on lobbying is published on Congressional sites. You can check it out with a quick Google search. I can't remember the amount spent by the AMA in 2004 (I didn't see the numbers from 2008 because I did a presentation on the AMA and its 85 years of opposition to universal healthcare for my Master's program in 2007), but I remember they spent far more money than big oil, big tobacco, defense contractors like Boeing, pharamecutical companies, etc. I was actually shocked in researching it just how ferociously they've fought behind the scenes- and it's not because of better health outcomes...it's always been about their reimbursement and narrow self-interest. The lack of ethics is sort of incredible. They were ranked #3 on the list behind the lobbying groups that represent big businesses and small businesses (which are almost always #1 and #2). And they really only have a couple of central goals. The most consistent one has been blocking "non-incremental change" by any means necessary. They're a pretty filthy organization that seems to care a whole lot less about good health outcomes for the public, the greater good, the spirit of doing no harm in the Hippocratic Oath than in making sure doctors get their cut.

A lot Gene, a lot....both parties do, as well as every Senator and Representative, and their staffs. Who do you think pays for their great health care program? It's provided by these same firms and organizations paying the lobbyists.

The money goes to both parties, which is why universal care is always defeated. Interesting the AMA feels it has to spend more than big tobacco (which has a product that kills people).

Your story is my story James! Another year and we'll have to decide between crappy health insurance or heating our home....

I haven't had insurance for over 5 years because I can't afford a private individual plan. Thank god, I haven't needed any medical assistance in even longer period of time. I pray that I do not have any major health problems in the next 3.5 months before I'm eligible for Medicare, which I really won't be able to afford to have taken out of my social security income. Guess I'll have to stop eating to pay for the Medicare insurance basic withholding. I surely won't be able to afford the "gap" supplemental coverage. The two combined will take a good portion of my meager SS income. And I have another year to go before I'm not severely penalized for working a part time job to pay the rest of the bills.

Good luck anti-trust! Hope you make it! I don't think I will, I've got another 20 years....

So you know what coumadin is and how it is regulated. Protime labs are $75 per month. Prescriptions are another $25 per month. My deductable is $500, then 20%/80% up to $2500. I pay $600 per month for health care. Every year I put in $7200 towards insurance and $500 deductable, plus another $560 for 20/80.

I pay a grand total of $8260

The insurance pays only $140....

Without insurance I would be paying $1200 per year just for treatments....

The system is broken....

It is indeed broken and that same blood thinning medication can be purchased across both our Northern and Southern borders for a fraction of the cost you pay for it Stateside. But before we go pell mell into any new system, we need to divest the planning process of all outside influence and ask ourselves what is best for the majority of Americans? We won't get a perfect system; but we can get one that is a lot better quality, less expensive and more productive than what's currently in the planning stages. By the way, be careful taking aspirin with the warfarin; the two together increase the chances of a stroke.

Now multiply $7060 (the amount insurance made from ONE customer per year) by 300,000,000 (total Americans with insurance) = $2.118 to the 12th power.......(yeah, I think they can afford lobbyists.... )

By the way Brad, the same medication is in rat poisoning.....at $2.00 per package.....(enough to last months!)

The Irony is if I were to drop my health insurance and save the $7060, the doctor that takes my protime and regulates the dosage would not accept me as a patient anymore.....

GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Answer: $

here's a link to help you decide: http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/planinfo/index.asp

You may also wish to check out the Federal Panama Canal health plan. Note all the pre -authorizing of procedures by the plan. Under that plan, McCain's parents would have to pre-authorize his birth, and other procedures. (McCain was born at the Panama Canal, on a military base). He's been under Federal health care all his life. You, the adverage US citizen simply do not deserve, what has served him and the other republicans so well in health care.

check this one out: http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/planinfo/2009/brochures/72-007.pdf

Yes you did not misread it: NO MEMBERSHIP DUES

The Military I can understand....but the others????

Your comment about McCain makes no sense. You say that military deserves health care, but then diss him for having insurance. He was a military dependent, then a military member and hero, then a member of the US Senate. He has served his country his entire life. You do realize that there are democrats who have also served in the same capacity as McCain, right?

James, thank you for saying that I agree .

I am 100% with you Ellis. How would you go about getting this started?

Interesting fact, we have 20 million illegal aliens living here, Canada does not.

living - What a wing nut response- jeez

Oh, Prove to me your numbers are correct.

Let's pass income caps on whatever it is that you do as well as everyone else in the country. Gimme a break.