What immediate problem did the president run into when initiating the healthcare reform and why?
Having initiated the healthcare reform, President Obama met strong opposition to the insurance and pharmaceutics lobby. The reform would be disadvantageous to these industries and made them lose revenue, and for this reason, they were opposed to Obama’s efforts (Obama’s Deal – Inside the Battle for Health Care Reform).
Obama’s administration believed that taking on healthcare reform is a test of what in American politics? According to Obama, it was intended to prove what? Explain the stakes.
The Presidential Administration believed that a failure to achieve a healthcare reform was equal to a failure to govern, especially considering that the party had a majority in Senate and a margin at House. Obama himself said that the issue was larger than healthcare: achieving the reform would show that the President and his team can solve problems in this country (Obama’s Deal – Inside the Battle for Health Care Reform).
Who opposed the healthcare reform under both Clinton and Obama? Who stood to lose from the healthcare reform? Explain the stakes and major players.
Under both Clinton and Obama, the interest groups linked to the medical industry and the insurance were opposed to the reform. For instance, the American Medical Association struggled against the reform under these presidents. The insurance and drug industries would lose from the healthcare reform since making healthcare affordable would lower their revenue.
Describe, what did the propaganda ads funded by insurance lobby advertise to the American public about the healthcare reform? Whose interests did they keep in mind when doing that?
The propaganda ads financed by insurance lobby told Americans that the government bureaucrats are offering them a very small number of healthcare plan options, basically leaving no choice at all.
Who (what groups and individuals) could get to the congressional hearings on the healthcare reform? Was there anyone representing 50 million uninsured Americans at the congressional hearings?
At the congressional hearings on the reform, the lawmakers, doctors, nurses, hospitals, interest groups, Congress members, and Cabinet officials were present. No one representing the uninsured Americans was allowed to participate.
While powerful insurance lobbyists initially stated that they would support the reform, what did they request in return and why? (hint: they wanted some feature added to the bill, what is that feature?)
The lobbyists wanted the bill to require that Americans buy health insurance.
Senator Baucus received $2.5 million from insurance interest groups to do what? Whose interests did he represent?
Senator Baucus was serving as a link between the interest groups and the policymakers. The special interest groups, mainly by the initiative of Karen Ignani, provided him with massive sums of money to make him represent their interests and ensure that he would promote the above-mentioned addition to the bill.
Who is denied a seat at the negotiation table about healthcare? Who is removed physically by guards from the press conference in the White House?
The activists promoting affordable healthcare for the American people are denied a seat at the hearing. One or two of them are physically removed from the room by guards (Obama’s Deal – Inside the Battle for Health Care Reform).
When in Congress Senator Baucus introduced “Medicare prescription drug bill”, it was a payoff to drug and pharmaceutical industries for what? Who did the bill benefit (financially)?
“Medicare prescription drug bill” introduced by Senator Baucus was a means to achieve a compromise between the interests of the medical industry and insurance business and the interests of the government. The bill was a payoff to these businesses: it was clear that they would receive huge revenue. The bill was introduced to make the businesses comply with the remaining points of the healthcare reform and stop opposing it.
Insurance lobbyists (Ignani being one big player) spend tens of millions of dollars to defeat the health bill through TV ads that created panic, scare, rumors, etc. Why? What is at stake for insurance and pharmaceutical lobbyists if a meaningful healthcare reform took place?
At that moment, the talk about the public option of the healthcare reform started again. Ignani and other insurance lobbyists were worried by this talk since the public option was not beneficial for the insurance companies. The public option would create public health insurance that would compete with the private one and probably make the latter lose revenue. To prevent it from happening, the lobbyists launched a negative advertising campaign.
Based on what you already learned so far in the course, why do you think many Americans bought the negative campaign ads against the healthcare reform that were manufactured by the insurance lobby? Why did some ordinary Americans end up siding with insurance and pharmaceutical lobbyists, even though saving money and health of ordinary Americans is not what lobbyists cared about?
To my opinion, many Americans trusted the negative ads for the following reasons. First, the distrust towards the government is often stronger than the distrust towards the big business. In this case, people were distrustful towards governmental actions, and they trusted the insurance companies. Second, people were afraid that healthcare reform will lead to an increase in taxes. In the imagination of many people, the ultimate goal of the government is to make them pay more taxes, and it played a big role in shaping the attitude to the ads.
All in all, what groups played the biggest role in shaping public debate and public perception of healthcare reform? Whose interests were kept in mind by these groups?
One of the groups playing a significant role in the debate was consisting of the representatives of insurance and drug companies. They were keeping in mind their interests. Another group is the activists. Even though they were not allowed to participate in the hearing, they did shape public opinion, promoting opposition to the unaffordable health care.
What does this documentary show us about the role of big money in American politics? For whose benefits laws are made or blocked? Based on this case study, who would you say, controls the American political process?
In American politics, big-money influence vital political decisions. Big private corporations bribe senators, shape the public opinion through media, and force politicians into compromises using their vast funds. Based on this case study, I would say that, while private companies play a serious role in the political process, they do not control it. In democratic countries, such as the USA, the political process is impacted by a variety of interests that constantly combat or seek compromise. One such interest is that of the large companies.
What have you learned from this documentary that either reinforces or contradicts information from the textbook chapter 11 about interest groups?
To my opinion, the information from the documentary reinforced the image of the interest groups that are presented in the textbook. Both the video and the textbook demonstrate how powerful the interest groups are, and how they set the agenda and influence the political decisions. While the textbook explains how an interest group works and what is its internal structure and purpose (Ginsberg et al. 435-439), the documentary shows interest groups in action (Obama’s Deal – Inside the Battle for Health Care Reform).
To conclude, put this case study in the context of what you have already learned about American politics, particularly the role of interest groups, wealth, public opinion, propaganda, etc: why can we say that the outcome of the healthcare reform initiative was predictable? What is it about American politics and cultural context that makes cases such as this quintessentially American?
The outcome of the examined reform was predictable since it was known from the very beginning that the insurance and drug companies would oppose the reform and accepted it only provided that they receive some substantial benefits. Such cases are quintessentially American because of the domination of big business and commercialization of the social services; in many other countries, healthcare is entirely the domain of government, and private companies have little relation to this issue.
Works Cited
Ginsberg, Benjamin, Theodore J. Lowi, Margaret Weir and Caroline J. Tolbert. We the People. New York City, New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2015. Print.
Obama’s Deal – Inside the Battle for Health Care Reform. Ex. Prod. Michael Kirk. Boston, Massachusetts: Frontline. 2011. DVD.