I read this report by Matthew Yglesias that Blue Cross/Blue Shield is “covertly backing far-right efforts to get health reform declared unconstitutional.” I don’t want to get into a discussion about whether these efforts are really “far-right”–I know next to nothing about the politics of the health reform battle.
What I really wanted to convey here was my first reaction upon seeing this, which was: Blue Cross/Blue Shield?? I remember this organization from the 70s, when it was my vague impression that Blue Cross was synonymous with “health insurance.” I’ve always thought of it as a quasi-public organization, a sort of default health plan. I mean, sure, they’re a private organization, so I assume that, just like the gas company and the electric company and the phone company, they’re probably top-heavy with overpaid executives who don’t do anything while earning ten times what they’d get on the federal scale. Whatever. That’s the system we have here: people who work for quasi-public companies get a soft deal.
I was surprised, though, to hear about Blue Cross doing such strong lobbying. Sort of similar to the reaction I had seeing the percentage of political contributions from employees at Harvard etc. that went to the Democrats. I mean, sure, employees of Harvard have the right to give to whoever they want, but, still, there’s something funny about a quasi-public institution such as Harvard (or Blue Cross) leaning so strongly on one side of the debate.
I don’t really know if I should think of any of this as a problem; it’s just seems strange to think of Blue Cross as sponsoring a covert political agenda. It almost sounds like something from one of those ’60s parody spy movies, where the bad guys aren’t the Russians or ex-Nazis or whatever, but . . . Blue Cross!
Blue Cross/Blue Shield (BSBS) plans grew out of prepaid service plans in the 1930s that were tied to specific hospitals. Eventually these hospital-specific plans consolidated into geographic monopolies organized as non-profit corporations controlled by the hospitals in their area.
In the late 1980s and 1990s, as a result of financial pressures, some of these plans consolidated further and converted to for-profit organizations. BCBS is really just a brand and not a single national organization.
Most likely, the for-profit plans are the BCBS plans that Yglesias refers to. It is not at all surprising that they want to short-circuit reform since, in many markets, the BCBS plan has little competition and thus considerable pricing power.
Maybe I'm misreading your comment about Harvard employees, but isn't it the case that federal employees tend to favor Democrats as well? Certainly the federal government is much more public than any "quasi-public" entity; is that cause for concern?
How is Harvard a "quasi-public institution"? (Obviously, the same can be asked of Columbia University, as well.) You don't mean the government of the town of Harvard in central Massachusettes, do you? You mean the private university, right?
As for the tendency of harvard employees to give to the left….well, I think that Colbert explained it quite simply at the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner (4/29/2006). "Reality has a well known liberal bias." Those who study reality therefore….
I think the Massachusetts Governor and other political officials were established as overseers of Harvard in the Massachusetts constitution. Though I suspect Andrew means research dollars??
Rob: Thanks for the info.
Aaron: Federal employees have some legal restrictions on the campaigning they can do. But, yes, I definitely have seem people express concern about the political impact of civil service employees and also (in the other direction) of servicemen and military contractors.
Ceolef: Yes, I was referring to the university located in the suburbs of Boston. And, yes, this would apply to Columbia as well. I refer to them as quasi-public because, first, because of the role of major universities in our public life; second, because of tax exemptions, student loan support, etc.; third, because of research funding. I'd also count private military contractors as quasi-public institutions.
As to the larger point, there's certainly a big difference between the Blue Cross situation, where you have the leadership reportedly doing covert lobbying, and the Harvard situation, where the donations are from individuals.
Here is an op-ed from July '09 in the Chicago Tribune by Paul S. Boulis, president of BLBS Illinois, doing his part, e.g.