Public opinion on health care seems to indicate that the majority of the public is with the president. In a study done by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, 75% of people were of the opinion that the system must be changed so that "all are covered for necessary care." Additionally, 41% think "the system needs to be completely rebuilt," 30% say it needs "fundamental changes," and only 24% of people think it needs "only minor changes." Still, the bill faces major Republican opposition in Congress, as well as the opposition of some Democrats, most notably the "Blue Dog Coalition," a moderate/conservative faction in the Democratic party. The same Times article notes that "House Democrats in the fiscally conservative Blue Dog Coalition, including seven who hold decisive votes on the Energy & Commerce Committee, say they will not support the House bill without big changes." The article goes on to mention that this opposition is based the opposition of their constituents - which seems unlikely, given nearly 3/4 of the American public think the current system needs either "fundamental changes" or to be "completely rebuilt."
The statement makes more sense, however, if you read constituents as, I suppose, it is meant to be read: "those who enabled my holding of this office." That is, those who provide the financial means for a election campaign. The natural question then becomes: who does wield influence over some of these politicians?
So far for the 2010 election cycle, members of the House Energy & Commerce Committee have received just over a million dollars in campaign funds from various PAC's based in the health care industry (this number and all following ones were provided by the Center for Responsive Politics). Bart Gordon (a Democrat from Indiana and one of the seven members who are both Blue Dogs and on the E & C Committee), for example, received $255,450 from health care professionals and $67,978 from the pharmaceutical industry for the 2008 election cycle. John Barrow, a Georgian Democrat and another one of the seven, received $90,675 from health care professionals for the 2008 election cycle - and so far has raised $10,000 dollars from the same group for 2010. Likewise, Baron P. Hill, another Democratic opponent of the bill, received $81,966 for the 2008 cycle from the pharmaceutical industry, and has another $19,000 in the bank for 2010 (again, solely from the pharmaceutical industry). Given these numbers - and there are similar ones for many of the other Blue Dogs - it seems safe to say that they are indeed protecting the interests of those who got them into office.
They play a dangerous game at a bad time for President Obama, however. With his health care plan playing such a vital role in both his campaign rhetoric and as a counterweight in the media to the economy, he needs a win. Too much compromising on this bill might echo his claims of bipartisanship, but at the cost of undermining much needed - and wanted - change.
-the ambassador
