Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

One big reason your health insurance costs so much: political cash

Opinion

stethoscope and money, health care costs
PhotoAlto/Odilon Dimier/Getty Images

Bettino is a volunteer in White Plains, N.Y., for Wolf-PAC, which seeks to build grassroots support for a constitutional amendment permitting more regulation of money in politics.


Imagine emerging from a life-saving medical procedure only to receive bills totaling $80,000 — despite having health insurance. Or, like Californian Tom Saputo, getting a surprise bill for $51,000 after being air-lifted to a hospital for an emergency double-lung transplant. After insurance, he still owed $11,000.

Many of you may not have to imagine these nightmare scenarios, but they're all too real. And whether or not you've experienced horror stories like these, we've all been victimized by the exorbitant costs of health insurance. Legalized bribery is the reason.

The United States now has the only profit-driven health care system in the world, so it's unsurprising we also have the most expensive medical care of any country. In fact, 18 percent of our entire economy ($3.2 trillion) went to health care in 2015, averaging about $10,000 a person.

Why is health care and insurance in this country so much more expensive than elsewhere? It's the intrusion of big money in politics.

We use the euphemism "campaign contributions" to disguise the nefarious truth. Corporations can now make unlimited contributions to elected politicians through the use of the political action committees.

Four of the biggest health insurance companies — Blue Cross Blue Shield, UnitedHealth Group, CVS Health and Cigna— and their employees gave $4.5 million to 2020 presidential and congressional campaigns, with just over half of the cash to Democrats.

Paco Fabian, director of campaigns at Our Revolution, told The Hill, "they're influencing both sides and they're doing it so that regardless of who wins, they continue to influence politics and policy." The same was true four years before, when Donald Trump received $1.3 million from the insurance industry while Hillary Clinton brought in a cool $3.3 million. Donations from the health sector at large were gargantuan: $26.4 million for Clinton and $5.8 million for Trump.

Donations made to politicians are not random charity; they are strategic and expected to procure a hefty return on investment. Recipients are not naïve to this, and they frequently cater to the interests of their most generous donors.

How do "campaign contributions" impact health costs? Quite directly, it turns out, in the form of legislation. In each of the previous two years, the Trump administration allowed insurance companies to raise their premiums 15 percent with no explanation, increasing the likelihood of price spikes for consumers. The previous president, backed by Congress, also weakened regulation of insurers, increased their allowed profit-margins and permitted more flexibility in scaling back benefits — all policies promoted by the health insurance lobby.

Chairman Richard Neal of the House Ways and Means Committee, a gatekeeper of all health legislation, has been the third largest recipient of insurance money in the House. But health insurance companies aren't the only ones with a vested interest in health care industry profits: Private equity group Blackstone and various for-profit hospital groups were major contributors to the Massachusetts Democrat in the last election. Blackstone has lobbied hard to prevent a resolution on surprise medical billing because it owns the physician-staffing company TeamHealth, which profits mightily from this practice.

In 2019 Neal blocked a bipartisan bill aimed at controlling hospitals' ability to send these huge out-of-the-blue bills to patients. In early December Neal once again defended the interests of his private equity donors, putting forth a proposal they endorsed as an alternative to the more aggressive original bill.

As the unfortunate truth of our corrupt system, politicians acting on behalf of their donors is the rule, not the exception.

The average deductible for Americans in 2019 was $4,544, meaning millions of insured patients still paid almost $5,000 out-of-pocket for their health care. Furthermore, many plans don't cover mental health, dentistry or life-saving surgeries deemed "elective" by the insurance companies. For families, the cost of health coverage now exceeds a whopping $20,000. In the past decade, health insurance costs skyrocketed 55 percent, almost double the increase in the median wage over the same time period.

Predictably, health costs are the number one reason Americans declare bankruptcy. It was estimated in 2019 that two-thirds of all bankruptcy filers cited medical expenses or illness-related work loss, not dissimilar to rates before implementation of the Affordable Care Act. The health insurance companies, meanwhile, raked in $35.7 billion in profits the same year.

Regardless of your preferred solution for outrageous health insurance costs, we can all agree that progress is not being made. To address this and all the issues we face, my organization is tackling the root cause: political corruption. Most Americans agree that big donors have outsized influence and want to limit campaign spending. With the grip special interests have on Congress, an amendment to the Constitution ensuring elections free from corruption is the only proven solution.


Read More

Keep artificial intelligence out of American classrooms

Fourth-grade students read books in the elementary school at the John F. Kennedy Schule dual-language public school on Sept. 18, 2008, in Berlin.

(Sean Gallup/Getty Images/Tribune Content Agency)

Keep artificial intelligence out of American classrooms

Norway is, by almost any metric, a profoundly successful nation. It’s rich, democratic and relatively corruption-free. It’s not a socialist country, but fans of a robust welfare state and high taxes see much to admire in the very progressive Norwegian model. It also benefits from having the biggest and arguably best-run sovereign wealth fund in the world.

And yet, Norway nearly ruined its children.

Keep ReadingShow less
An illustration of orange-colored megaphones, one megaphone in the middle is red and facing the opposite direction of the others.

A growing crisis threatens U.S. public data. Experts warn disappearing federal datasets could undermine science, policy, and democracy—and outline a plan to protect them.

Getty Images, Richard Drury

America's Data Crisis: Saving Trusted Facts Is Essential to Democracy

In March 2026, more than a hundred information and data experts gathered in a converted Christian Science church to confront a problem most Americans never see, but that shapes nearly every public debate we have. The nonprofit Internet Archive convened this national Information Stewardship Forum at their San Francisco headquarters because something fundamental is breaking: the country’s shared foundation of facts.

For decades, the United States has relied on a vast ecosystem of federal data on health, climate, the economy, education, demographics, scientific research, and more. This data is the backbone of journalism, policymaking, scientific discovery, and public accountability. It is how we know whether the air is safe to breathe, whether unemployment is rising or falling, whether a new disease is spreading, or whether a community is being left behind.

Keep ReadingShow less
Warrantless Surveillance and TPS for Haitians

Bamilia Delcine Olistin restocks product at Bon Samaritain Grocery, a Haitian-owned grocery, on February 3, 2026 in Springfield, Ohio. A federal judge issued a temporary stay blocking the Trump administration's attempt to strip Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haitian immigrants, but Haitian TPS beneficiaries and residents of Springfield continue to face uncertainty over their protected status.

Getty Images, Jon Cherry

Warrantless Surveillance and TPS for Haitians

Warrantless Surveillance

Almost 3 weeks ago, House Republicans appeared to be spitting mad because the Senate had had the temerity to pass a DHS funding agreement overnight by unanimous consent and then recess. The Senate did that because it was the best deal that could get passed. (The House still hasn’t acted on that Senate DHS funding bill.)

But last night, around 2 am, the House passed a 10 day extension of existing Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Section 702 authorities by unanimous consent and then recessed until Monday. Apparently, it’s fine when the House does it. Why did the House do this? Because it was the best deal that could get passed.

Keep ReadingShow less