Managed Care Bucks Line Cantor’s Pocket


ow that Prince Eric has been elevated to his new position of House Majority Leader, Cantor’s made good on his pledge to lead a repeal vote against Obamacare in the House, now controlled by Republicans.

So, it should come as no tremendous surprise that Cantor is being especially well-funded by the managed care industry, which doesn’t want its sweet deal of dominating entire states, cherry-picking healthy policy applicants from the in-need by denying scores of millions coverage for “pre-existing conditions” and not having to bother with the poor who can’t pay for regular insurance but don’t qualify for Medicaid.

According to today’s Washington Post, major health care firms and their employees gave $2 million in the past two years to the election campaigns of Cantor and the new Republican Speaker of the House John A. Boehner.

The Post says that Cantor received at least $5.6 million from corporate donors, including $2.4 million from firms and employees in the fionance, insurance and real estate industries. Some of Cantor’s biggest Virginia donors are the big Richmond lobbying firm of McGuire Woods and Dominion followed by Altria and others.

The money puts Cantor well above his House colleagues in terms of business money received. Midterm elections in 2010 showed a big increase in corporate finding.

Little wonder that “Young Gun” Cantor continues to do the bidding of big business, such as trying to shoot down regulations and taxes on corporations. Of course, Cantor at times does reverse on himself. I interviewed him in 2009 and he told me that “we’ve got to get the federal government out of the capital markets.” When I reminded Cantor that he voted for George W. Bush’s TARP bank bailout he was silent for about 20 seconds.

The Main Street types in Virginia’s GOP love Cantor. Their “Pravda”, the Richmond Times-Dispatch regularly features Cantor in a positive light on its front page. Occasionally their “Politifacts” fact checker raps his knuckles for being a little too slick with facts, but it’s quite a cushy deal for the hometown boy from Henrico County and his wife who’s on the board of Media General, owner of the Richmond paper (no matter how many times the TD editors claim t’ain’t so).

One wonders if Prince Eric is still selling “Coffee with Cantor” morning meetings at the Capitol Hill Starbucks for a couple grand or so a latte.

If you want to see big bucks from big business at work, look no further.

Peter Galuszka

Share this article


(comments below)


(comments below)


18 responses to “Managed Care Bucks Line Cantor’s Pocket”

  1. The Latest from PolitiFact

    The Truth-O-Meter Says: Liar Liar Pants on Fire:

    The health care law a "job killer"? The evidence falls short

    " On Wednesday, the U.S. House of Representatives approved a repeal measure that Republicans formally titled the "Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act." It is sponsored by House Republican leader Eric Cantor.

    " We rate the statement False."

    Cantor is not only a hack – he's the worse kind – a hypocrite who came to Congress in 2001 – and was directly instrumental in creating the 1.4 trillion dollar deficit and now has graduated to Assistant Chief Liar and Political HACK!

  2. Here's the question.

    If you have a DIVIDED country on major issues including Health Care what is the path to governance?

    How should any political party navigate?

    Well the Republicans think the answer is to further divide the country – further polarize and when less than 50% support their view – believe they have a "mandate" for their beliefs.

    In this context – you have Eric Cantor – who is a yahoo of the first magnitude – in a position of "leadership".

    The paper says that the GOP is "confused" about who should run for President.

    Hells Bells. Much of the GOP now days cannot find their way from the mens room.

    We're in a heap of trouble.

    Fiscal Conservatism used to mean folks who wanted to LEAD the country on a more fiscally responsible path but now we have folks like Cantor and I do not think this guy knows his backside from a dog dollop in the grass.

  3. Best politicians money can buy.

  4. not only the best that money can buy – but perfectly legal now thanks to SCOTUS.

    Basically, we have a system that allows the companies who, as an industry, has a virtual monopoly – use their "free speech" …. "rights" (conferred by SCOTUS) to donate to the campaigns of those politicians who will vote to continue to protect their monopolistic approach to "business".

    Apparently the Conservatives in this country are torn between the "free market" and what to do about the monopolistic patterns we see in things like health care.

    For instance, note how most of the big players are free to deny coverage to pre-existing conditions – an industry-wide practice that basically insured that only the dumbest of the dumb companies would dare to offer coverage to those the industry companies had deemed "unisureable".

  5. For instance, note how most of the big players are free to deny coverage to pre-existing conditions –


    Not any more. What remains to be seen is whether they will offer a policy that anyone can afford.

    I actually once had a company offer me insurance capped at $20,000 that cost $24,000, because of my chronic conditions!

  6. Anonymous Avatar

    Of course, receiving labor union money doesn't count! Sauce for the Goose is sauce for the Gander.


  7. In the end, it all comes down to what the guy is worth…..


    "For decades, the government in analyzing whether regulations make economic sense has used something called "value of a statistical life."

    The so-called price tag became a political hot topic in 2002, when the Bush administration tried to reduce the value of elderly people by 38 percent compared to people under 70.

    Then quietly in 2004, the EPA reduced the value of life for everyone from $7.9 million to $7 million. The Associated Press uncovered the devaluation in 2008 and the EPA's move was criticized by Democrats and ridiculed by comedians.

    Soon after the Obama administration took over in 2009, the value of a statistical life was pushed back up to $7.9 million.

    But the haggling over the “price tag” is not the only controversial element of the EPA’s debate over the value of human life; not all deaths are equal — at least when considering their environmental value. Again, according the the AP:

    The EPA proposal also would put more value on preventing cancer deaths over other causes of death, like heart attacks. That is because there is a bigger scare factor for cancer, EPA officials said. But critics say that puts a premium on touchy-feely emotions over science. …

    In the proposal, the EPA is adding a 50 percent "cancer differential" to calculating death risks. This would say the risk of dying of cancer is 50 percent worse — or more costly — than the risk of dying in other ways."

  8. The world economy could double by 2027. We are going to need all the infrastructure we can build. This is no time for skinflints like Cantor to be running around crying that the sky is falling, we have to cut costs.

    Suppose that instead of spending
    Money to keep 75 year Olds alive here we spend the same money to keep 5 year Olds alive in the third world. They will be the future customers who pay down our debt.

  9. Hydra,

    Here is the truth:

    This country is losing its economic competitiveness in part due to a very inefficient health care system that is held together by bandaids.

    The United States should have joined THE REST OF THE WORLD with universal, single payer health care years ago. When the Green Party candidate Cobb ran in 2004, he made the point that for the money spent on the Iraq war up to THEN, the U.S. could have easily made the switch in health care systems.

    Corporate welfare politicians like Cantor have debased this entire country. They deserve more scorn than the Wall Street crooks because they have truly betrayed the citizens.

  10. Scott speaks the truth but unfortunately the right wing blather machine has scared enough of the clueless middle with "govt taking over your lives" disinformation campaigns that fixing the problem is twice as hard.

    First – all the lies and disinformation have to be worked through – like the death panel crap…..

    then some reasonable compromise between full-bore Universal and an Americanized version has to be agreed to by … oh.. 65-70% of the country verses the sub 50% we have right now.

    They keep making the point that 1/6 of our economy is our health care system.

    Well no s_it sherlock.

    When we're paying TWICE as much as any other industrialized country because we want to pretend that EMTALA is not the prefect excuse for hospitals selling $10 Tylenols and $50 disposable bedpans to those who DO have insurance.

    I just LOVE the REPEAL and we'll do "something" later idiots.

    Or the "we don't need no stinking individual mandate" idiots.

    We ALREADY HAVE an individual mandate. It's called FICA and if it did not exist we'd not have Social Security nor Medicare and our streets would have elderly living in cardboard boxes if we had not made them save (pay taxes into FICA).

    In 1993, Newt Gingrich and Tom "tea party" Armey – BOTH SUPPORTED health care that was based on individual mandate then what happened?

    I'm not sure what terrible sins that America committed to cause God to send us the Tea Party but I do hope we are getting points for penance.

    If the anti-health care folks had one ounce of principles n their opposition – they'd come out and advocate repeal of Social Security, Medicare AND EMTALA.

    Then enough people would know what they really are about – see the lies for what they are – and we could then move on to some real solutions instead of all this fraudulent stuff coming from Cantor and company.

  11. Look, the most valuable property you have is your life. As long as government insists on protecting some lives more than others, then anyone in the wrong bracket is being robbed: paying taxes to protect some one else's life which is deemed more valuable than your own.

    Health care expenses should be judged in the same context. We should not spend more ( or less) saving lives in the emergency room than we spend saving lives on swimming pool safety, auto safety, air safety, environmental safety, or anything else.

    Then the money we spend will be spent to protect everyone equally, however much that is.

    Looked at that way, there is no rational choice in repealing health care, unless you are willing to repeal all life saving laws.

    Which, the extreme nut cases think we should do, starting with gun laws.

    A property rights argument is the best one to use against such people.

  12. what entitles a child to anything more than what his/her parents can provide to them – more or less than other kids and their parents?

    what "property rights" does any child have that they are not given by someone their parents – or others through taxes or laws/policies?

    In Medieval times – your "rights" as a child – accrued from others and could and did vary considerably.

    there was not "equality" of "property rights" at all.

    Is the purpose of "govt" to grant each child equal property rights no matter their familial or economic circumstances?

  13. The governments primary job is protecting people and their property. All the rest is just details. I submit that you are entitled to no more protection than I am.

    Apparently, most people don't subscribe to that idea, so they petition for extra protection at their neighbors expense. The result is subsidies, one way or another.

    Twice as many men die of prostate cancer as women die of breast cancer, but we spend three times as much on breast cancer.

    Are women's lives worth six times as much as men's?

    I'm arguing that if you believe that lives should be protected equally, then you cannot argue against health care.

    If you are in favor of the "fair tax" or flat tax, you are arguing for equal protection of property ( or at least equal confiscation) . If you believe that is fair, then you must believe in equal protection of people, and therefore health care reform.

    But until we can explain why we spend more money to protect a person from cancer than from weapons, how can we justify anything govt does.

    The only justification for government is to protect people equally, and we are not doing that.

    It is a moral and ethical cesspool.

  14. That child is entitled to protection from abuse by his parents, and every child is entitled to the same level of protection. Not every child will be protected, because no system is perfect, but government may not choose to protect one more than another.

    We don't live in medieval times.

  15. Yes, it is the business of government to protect all property. Therefore, whatever property that child has is equally protected. That does not mean that everyone has equal property, but the penalty for burglary is the same whether you burgled a poor mans hat or a rich mans hat.

  16. If a police officer observes me to strike someone in the nose, his action towards me should not be determined by whose nose it is or whether the nose is white or black. If he happens to be an EPA police officer and his job is to prevent nose striking via pollution, the same idea holds. Everyone gets the same protection. And, just as the officer will react the same whether the blow is left handed or right handed, the EPA officer ought to have the same concern for different pollutants with equal effects. Just as the officer will intervene equally whether the blow lands on the nose or breast or scrotum, so should the EPA. And by extension, all of government.

    We already make policy based on the value of human life. Just as we buy life insurance, X$ per hundred grand. But insurance companies treat us more equally than government does. Because they have markets to contend with.

    We know government justifies its actions based on a dollar value per life, and we know those justifications are not uniform.

    Why do we stand for this? We try not to let police officers do profiling, why would we let any other official whose duties depend on the police power to do so?

    Including Cantor.

  17. Johnny has six marbles and Rufus has one. A bully takes one of Johnnie's marbles, and the teacher says "Johnnie, what is your problem? You still have five marbles. "

    Is that acceptable?

    If the bully takes the marble from Rufus, Rufus gets his only marble back, and the bully is charged with a hate crime.

    What if the bully is black, and he targets Johnnie preferenctially over Rufus, on account of color. Is that a hate crime, too? Or just opportunity because that's where the marbles are.

    If every marble is protected equally, why does government (or Johnnie) need to care about motive?

    But wait, now johnnie is getting MORE protection, because he has got more marbles.

    And that is why he pays more taxes.

  18. apnasindh Avatar

    bes of lcuk Prince Eric

Leave a Reply