Campaign contributions reveal health ‘interests’

Requiring everyone to buy expensive health insurance from companies that are neither competitive nor compassionate is not my idea of health reform.

Neither is the denial of senior citizens' opportunity to purchase less expensive pharmaceuticals from other countries.

Perpetuation of huge income gaps between primary care doctors and specialists does not contribute to health reform, either.

So why are taxpayers being denied better options?

Figures from the Center for Responsive Politics are enlightening. For example, from 2003 through 2008, Sen. Chuck Grassley received campaign contributions of $812,077 from health professionals, $644,643 from the insurance industry, and $353,222 from pharmaceuticals/health manufacturers (www.OpenSecrets.org.)

No doubt these heavy contributors have a vested interest in maintaining the current dysfunctional but commercially profitable health care system and hope to derail any effort at reform. Money buys access.

Who seems to be influencing Grassley more - the health/insurance industry, or the majority of his Iowa constituents who want health care reform?

Patricia Gorton

Cedar Rapids