Another factor that goes against change comes from those who benefit from the current system. They strongly oppose and resist government regulations and structural change. (Chapman, p.20) To secure their economic self-interests, they use special interest groups lobbying in Washington. These interest groups represent insurance companies, doctors, hospitals, and drug manufacturers, all living off the $700 billion-a-year health care industry. Doctors for instance make more in the United States than in any other country, making them one of the highest income groups. This gives them strong incentives to protect their privileged position. There are more than 200 political action committees that represent anything from associations like the American Medical Associations to pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer. These political action committees �donate� large amount of money to candidates and current members of Congress. Between 1980 and 1991, for instance, they gave over $60 million to congressional candidates. (Kemper and Novak, p.31) �Almost half the contributions from the health industry to current members of Congress came from physicians, dentists, nurses and other health professionals� (p.31), while one-third of all this money came from insurance companies. The rest was given by pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, nursing homes and other health care providers. A big amount of the $60 million went to �members of the four congressional committees that have jurisdiction over health-related legislation� (p.32). All this money bought the inaction of the politicians.
Insurance companies are against any real change, because they fear any type of government regulation of the insurance industry. The only reforms they are willing to support are market-oriented reforms. They fear health care systems like the one in Canada because with such systems there would be no need for them anymore. The government would simply replace these private insurance companies by one big public insurance company. Pharmaceutical companies on the other hand, fear a universal healthcare system because with such a system they would be forced to lower the prices of their drugs. (LeBow, p.44)
Special interest groups have done more than �bribing� politicians and lobbying. They have spent millions of dollars on advertising campaigns aimed at giving the public a flawed image of a universal health care system. In the early 1990�s the American Medical Association ran an advertising campaign to discredit the Canadian system and to put a negative image of national health care in American minds. The American pharmaceutical industry ran a similar ad campaign in 2000. They spent millions of dollars on TV spots and full-page newspaper ads to �sink a proposal to put meaningful pharmaceutical benefits into Medicare� (LeBow, p. 208). During that same year, community-based groups in Massachusetts fought for a ballot initiative that would provide the state with a single-payer universal coverage. They lost by 52 percent to 48 percent, �thanks to a last-minute $6 million advertising blitz from the insurance companies�. (LeBow, p. 195)
As Janet O�Keeffe notes in an essay titled �The Right to Healthcare and Healthcare Reform�, special interest groups often try to gain support by making their economic self interests sound like concerns for the well-being of patients and the public. When the government attempted to slow the growth in Medicare physician reimbursement rate, the American Medical Association reframed the government�s action as a �government attempt to limit services to senior citizens.� (O�Keeffe, p.54) Also, �the pharmaceutical industry reframed proposals to limit the increase in prescription drug costs as a threat to the development of new drugs.� (p.54)
These misinformation campaigns resulted in a series of myths that many Americans now believe in. One of these myths is that Canada�s health care system is terrible and is not working. (LeBow, p.29) Some call it �socialized medicine�; although this is far from the truth since as I have explained earlier, care is delivered primarily privately. Most people simply don�t know how the Canadian system works and yet they have a negative opinion about it. If our neighbor�s system was this bad, why would the vast majority of Canadians be so proud of their system? �An overwhelming majority of Canadians persistently say they want to keep their health care system.� (Armstrong, p.1) Another myth says that we can get universal coverage through incremental changes. However incremental changes have failed to significantly improve the system, and they have delayed real change. (LeBow, p.46) Other myths say that it would cost too much money to get a health care system like in Canada, that the current system in the US is the best in the world, or that other countries have rationing and waiting lines. The list goes on�