Politico lets Gingrich attack public health insurance plan without disclosing financial ties to insurance companies
SUMMARY: Politico quoted Newt Gingrich's criticisms of including a public health insurance plan option in a health care reform proposal without noting his financial ties to several major health insurance companies.
In an April 14 article, Politico's Carrie Budoff Brown reported that Newt Gingrich -- identified as "the former Republican House Speaker from Georgia and founder of the Center for Health Transformation" -- "argues that government intervention in the financial and auto industries will sour voters on a deep reach into health care." Budoff Brown went on to quote Gingrich's criticisms of the inclusion of a public insurance plan option in a health care reform proposal, including his remark: "There is always interest in it in general -- until you start describing it, then it collapses." But Budoff Brown did not note that the Center for Health Transformation is a for-profit entity that receives annual membership fees from several major health insurance companies, which have a direct interest in whether a public insurance plan is part of health care reform. Moreover, Gingrich himself reportedly profits from his involvement in the Center for Health Transformation. Indeed, the group's website notes that "[t]he Center for Health Transformation and The Gingrich Group are corporate for-profit organizations not affiliated with any other corporation or organization" [emphasis added].
According to the Center for Health Transformation's website, members pay tiered annual membership fees, providing varying degrees of "[a]ccess to Newt Gingrich on your company's strategy," among other benefits. Insurance groups UnitedHealth Group, the parent of UnitedHealthcare, and WellPoint Inc. are listed as "Charter" members, BlueCross BlueShield Association is listed as a "Platinum" member, and AHIP is listed as a "Premier" member.
Additionally, Gingrich has reportedly profited from his work with the Center. In a January 16, 2005, article, The New York Times described Gingrich as "a well-paid broker of ideas and influence in the field of health care policy" and reported that "[b]ase camp for Mr. Gingrich's health policy work is his Center for Health Transformation, a for-profit organization that occupies new office space overlooking K Street, the main street for Washington lobbyists." The Times also reported that the center's members "pay yearly fees of up to $200,000." Further, The Washington Post reported in a July 13, 2004, article (accessed via Nexis) that according to Gingrich aide Rick Tyler, the center's for-profit status -- as opposed to being a registered as a nonprofit lobbying group -- enabled Gingrich to operate " 'under the radar.' " The article further quoted "former adviser Rich Galen" saying of Gingrich: "He's making more money than he ever thought possible and doesn't have to tell everybody where it's coming from."
From the Post article (accessed via Nexis):
Gingrich's center is a "brilliantly packaged way of offering his services as former speaker and a man who can open doors to push along what he calls health transformation," said Joseph Antos, a health policy expert at the American Enterprise Institute. "In other words, lobbying."
Gingrich is not a registered lobbyist. The think tank is for-profit, he said, because "you get more drive and energy" from employees when money is at stake and "I believe in entrepreneurship."
Aide Rick Tyler, however, acknowledged there were political reasons for diverging from the standard nonprofit lobby group model.
Having been formally reprimanded by the House in 1997 for violations associated with the political use of tax-exempt organizations -- which were structured similarly to the new center -- Gingrich decided that a nonprofit would have invited enormous scrutiny. Organizing as a for-profit company, however, permits him to operate "under the radar," Tyler said.
"He's making more money than he ever thought possible and doesn't have to tell everybody where it's coming from," marveled former adviser Rich Galen. "He has the amount of influence he chooses to have. I suspect there is virtually no one in this town of either party who will not take a call from Newt Gingrich, if only to hear what he has to say."
Please do not let me think that anyone believes Newt is doing or saying anything that is not in Newt's interest. That is all he has ever done...he was run out of Congress for being a fool. No new stripes on this idiot.
Another brilliant expose by mmfa...who would have thought that Gingrich had a for profit group and opposed pulic insurance...brilliant.
The point is that it is journalistic ethics 101 that if there is any conflict of interest ESPECIALLY a financial one you disclose it. You do that so the audience knows that you have an ox to gore and take that into account as they give your statement wieght.
Wesley- just to be clear, do you think that
A. This is common knowledge, so Politico didn't need to report it?
B. Newt Gingrich's ties to health insurance companies isn't relevant?
Or maybe it's
C. You don't think that the media should be in the "information" business?
I thought the article was even-handed. It allowed both to state their issues.
Now about that information business you cited. mmfa took the obligatory slap at Politico for not giving enough background on Gingrich's affliations...while failing to find any fault with Politico for not detailing the associations of Hacker.
Hacker was identified as a political science professor at the University of California, Berkeley, and one of the nation’s leading progressive health care policy experts...but they failed to note:
His connections with the Berkeley Center on Health and Economic and Family Security...the Economic Policy Institute...fellowship at the New American Foundation...author of several books...and most importantly providing policy input on health care for Pres.Obama.
So, just to be clear...I found this article by mmfa as peevish make-work for a staffer.
Well, that's a legitimate complaint. Why didn't you include it in your original post?
So you're saying that Hacker has conflicts of interest, just like Gingrich does?
Berkeley Center on Health and Economic and Family Security: A division of the UC Bereley School of Law. UC Berkeley is a public institution. If there's a conflict of interest worth noting here I'd like to know what it is.
Economic Policy Institute: A non-profit Washington think tank. I'm guessing you can somehow manifest some kind of financial interest that EPI has in the government competing with private insurers. Maybe there's big donors on their list that stand to succeed because of it that Hacker holds stock in?
New America Foundation: Another non-profit and a self-described nonpartisan organization. Again, there must be some financial motive you can reveal on the part of Hacker as part of the NAF.
Hacker's work for Obama is worthy of note in the article, if only to further display that he's a political opposite of Gringrich. I see a political motive, but I still fail to see a financial one.
Nope...I was just pointing out the silliness of mmfa's one-sided complaint...and I'm fully aware of their mission statement.
The Politico story was pretty well done in giving both Gingrich and Hacker the space to air their views.
Every single political operative and organization toiling in federal politics has a motive. And that includes Gingrich, Hacker...and mmfa's single-minded Hannityesque position of crying foul on anything conservative.
Just an observation.
So go and start your own site, where you can whine all day about liberal bias in the media. We may even come by to visit on occasion.
Diversity...a wonderful but woefully under-utilized trait.
Here's a site you can visit now...always glad to offer a hand up.
it simply exposes his hypocracy.
Seems like a reasonable point-out to me...although I can't imagine anyone thinks Gingrich is a nonpartisan expert on heatlh care by trade.
To be fair I think Gingrich would oppose this even if he wasn't being paid to do so.
Newt got drummed out of office long ago. Why does anyone care what he has to say? He is out for more money, nothing else. He cares about no one but Newt.
Newt do not care about the middle class all he care is the rich
I'm looking for Newt organization on How to Have a Successful Marriage.
ziiing
As much as I hate Gingrich, who isn't tied to health insurance companies?
There are 3 lobbies we need to get rid of: Health Insurnace, Banks/Financial, and AIPAC.
And then our Congresspeople would act in our best interest.
Or there would be no money going towards them.
There are thousands of lobbyists in Washington and I don't care who they represent, they all need to be put out of business. Then members of Congress will have no choice but to listen to their constituents.
I think a very good first step would be Al Franken's proposal: a new law forbidding fromer members of Congress from ever becoming lobbyists.