Excerpt: "Left unsaid in the headlines and stories that condemned Sanders'
healthcare proposal is that the Brookings Institution and Urban Institute,
the two major organizations behind the Tax Policy Center, have received big
contributions from the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries -
industries whose profits could be reduced by Sanders' single-payer
Medicare-for-all plan."
Madonna Rea shakes hands with Democratic presidential candidate Bernie
Sanders as he has breakfast at Peppy Grill in Indianapolis, May 3, 2016.
(photo: Getty)
Critics of Bernie Sanders' Healthcare Plans Receive Funding From Industries
That Would Be Affected
By Clark Mindock and David Sirota, International Business Times
19 May 16
Soon after the Tax Policy Center released its analysis of Bernie Sanders'
tax and healthcare plans last week, the negative headlines began to pile up
about the Vermont lawmaker's push to extend Medicare coverage to all
Americans. Though a new Gallup poll shows Sanders' plan is widely popular,
news outlets across the country pounced on one of the findings, which said
the plan would increase the U.S. budget deficit by some $18 trillion between
2017 and 2026. One paper, the Washington Post, posted Sanders stories in
just seven hours.
Left unsaid in the headlines and stories that condemned Sanders' healthcare
proposal is that the Brookings Institution and Urban Institute, the two
major organizations behind the Tax Policy Center, have received big
contributions from the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries -
industries whose profits could be reduced by Sanders' single-payer
Medicare-for-all plan. That is on top of money the groups have received from
Wall Street firms , fossil fuel companies, efforts connected to the
billionaire Charles Koch, a foundation founded by the heirs to the Walmart
fortune and others that Sanders has criticized.
The health industry donors to the think tanks include:
. Health insurer Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts delivered
between $300,000 and $600,000 in 2012 and 2014 to the Urban Institute, while
insurer UnitedHealthcare gave Brookings between $2 million and $4 million
since 2012.
. Several of the country's top drug manufacturers and suppliers gave
to Brookings. The think tank's donors include the Roche Group (donated
between $1 million and $2 million since 2012), Sanofi ($125,000 to $250,000)
and Amgen ($100,000 to $200,000).
. Two foundations connected to the pharmaceutical industry also gave
generously. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation - which was started by a
Johnson & Johnson founder in 1972 - gave between $210,000 and $525,000 to
Brookings and an undisclosed amount above $3 million since 2012 to Urban.
The foundation for global pharmaceutical company Bristol-Myers Squibb gave
between $55,000 and $125,000 to Brookings.
. MetLife, which has some health-related insurance business, gave a
combined $300,000 to $750,000 to Brookings in 2013 , 2014 and 2015 .
Brookings and Urban both told International Business Times that their
scholars conduct their research based on objective information and analysis,
and that their institutions take measures to ensure independence. Both noted
that their organizations have diverse funding and that they have policies
against allowing funders to determine research results.
"Brookings' independence is critical to the promise we make to provide
objective, fact-based research, and we have robust policies in place to
ensure that independence, which we routinely review to maintain the highest
standards for safeguarding it. We have a diverse funding base and no person,
entity, or industry influences the research or recommendations produced by
Brookings scholars," David Nassar, the vice president of communications at
the Brookings Institution, wrote in a statement to IBT.
The Urban Institute explained its funding sources in greater detail. Laura
Greenback, Urban's media relations manager, told IBT in an email that Urban
receives 49 percent of its funding from government sources, usually in a
competitive bidding process. Beyond that, researchers are also supported by
the foundation (43 percent of funding last year), other nonprofits (5
percent), as well as trustees, individuals, corporations and universities (1
percent each).
"Urban's policies ensure researcher independence and guarantee that no
funder shall determine research findings, insights, or conclusions of our
experts," Greenback wrote. "Our scholars are independent and empowered to
share their evidence-based views and recommendations shaped by research. The
Urban Institute doesn't take official positions on issues, nor does it have
an advocacy agenda of any kind."
The Tax Policy Center has also released analysis of several other
candidates' tax plans, including Sanders' primary foe, Hillary Clinton.
(Their analysis said her tax increases would target the top 1 percent of
taxpayers, and noted that marginal tax rates would go up, "reducing
incentives to work, save and invest." )
In recent months, several reports have raised new questions about the power
of so-called cognitive capture - scenarios in which organizations that
represent themselves as nonpartisan or academic, but which are funded by
industries that could be affected by the studies, help shape research and
the public debate. Brookings, in particular, has faced some of the toughest
scrutiny: In October, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat,
questioned whether an economist with Brookings who conducted a study was
unduly affected by cozy relationships with Wall Street and the funding
behind his research. A 2014 report, too, noted that pension reform-minded
reports from Brookings were sponsored by the Laura and John Arnold
Foundation, which has pushed to reduce guaranteed retirement benefits for
public workers.
The Tax Policy Center report noted that spending under Sanders' plan could
add as much as $33.3 trillion in new spending over the next 10 years, which
dwarfs the current $14 trillion in debt currently owed by the federal
government. Opponents of Sanders' plan say that such spending, if not offset
by other revenues, would send the economy into a strong downward spiral.
The Sanders campaign has said those estimates assume a much more expensive
healthcare system than the candidate expects, and says low- and
middle-income households would end up saving thousands of dollars a year.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Madonna Rea shakes hands with Democratic presidential candidate Bernie
Sanders as he has breakfast at Peppy Grill in Indianapolis, May 3, 2016.
(photo: Getty)
http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/bernie-sanders-tax-healthcare-plans
-think-tanks-released-critical-study-receivehttp://www.ibtimes.com/political
-capital/bernie-sanders-tax-healthcare-plans-think-tanks-released-critical-s
tudy-receive
Critics of Bernie Sanders' Healthcare Plans Receive Funding From Industries
That Would Be Affected
By Clark Mindock and David Sirota, International Business Times
19 May 16
oon after the Tax Policy Center released its analysis of Bernie Sanders'
tax and healthcare plans last week, the negative headlines began to pile up
about the Vermont lawmaker's push to extend Medicare coverage to all
Americans. Though a new Gallup poll shows Sanders' plan is widely popular,
news outlets across the country pounced on one of the findings, which said
the plan would increase the U.S. budget deficit by some $18 trillion between
2017 and 2026. One paper, the Washington Post, posted Sanders stories in
just seven hours.
Left unsaid in the headlines and stories that condemned Sanders' healthcare
proposal is that the Brookings Institution and Urban Institute, the two
major organizations behind the Tax Policy Center, have received big
contributions from the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries -
industries whose profits could be reduced by Sanders' single-payer
Medicare-for-all plan. That is on top of money the groups have received from
Wall Street firms , fossil fuel companies, efforts connected to the
billionaire Charles Koch, a foundation founded by the heirs to the Walmart
fortune and others that Sanders has criticized.
The health industry donors to the think tanks include:
. Health insurer Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts delivered
between $300,000 and $600,000 in 2012 and 2014 to the Urban Institute, while
insurer UnitedHealthcare gave Brookings between $2 million and $4 million
since 2012.
. Several of the country's top drug manufacturers and suppliers gave
to Brookings. The think tank's donors include the Roche Group (donated
between $1 million and $2 million since 2012), Sanofi ($125,000 to $250,000)
and Amgen ($100,000 to $200,000).
. Two foundations connected to the pharmaceutical industry also gave
generously. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation - which was started by a
Johnson & Johnson founder in 1972 - gave between $210,000 and $525,000 to
Brookings and an undisclosed amount above $3 million since 2012 to Urban.
The foundation for global pharmaceutical company Bristol-Myers Squibb gave
between $55,000 and $125,000 to Brookings.
. MetLife, which has some health-related insurance business, gave a
combined $300,000 to $750,000 to Brookings in 2013 , 2014 and 2015 .
Brookings and Urban both told International Business Times that their
scholars conduct their research based on objective information and analysis,
and that their institutions take measures to ensure independence. Both noted
that their organizations have diverse funding and that they have policies
against allowing funders to determine research results.
"Brookings' independence is critical to the promise we make to provide
objective, fact-based research, and we have robust policies in place to
ensure that independence, which we routinely review to maintain the highest
standards for safeguarding it. We have a diverse funding base and no person,
entity, or industry influences the research or recommendations produced by
Brookings scholars," David Nassar, the vice president of communications at
the Brookings Institution, wrote in a statement to IBT.
The Urban Institute explained its funding sources in greater detail. Laura
Greenback, Urban's media relations manager, told IBT in an email that Urban
receives 49 percent of its funding from government sources, usually in a
competitive bidding process. Beyond that, researchers are also supported by
the foundation (43 percent of funding last year), other nonprofits (5
percent), as well as trustees, individuals, corporations and universities (1
percent each).
"Urban's policies ensure researcher independence and guarantee that no
funder shall determine research findings, insights, or conclusions of our
experts," Greenback wrote. "Our scholars are independent and empowered to
share their evidence-based views and recommendations shaped by research. The
Urban Institute doesn't take official positions on issues, nor does it have
an advocacy agenda of any kind."
The Tax Policy Center has also released analysis of several other
candidates' tax plans, including Sanders' primary foe, Hillary Clinton.
(Their analysis said her tax increases would target the top 1 percent of
taxpayers, and noted that marginal tax rates would go up, "reducing
incentives to work, save and invest." )
In recent months, several reports have raised new questions about the power
of so-called cognitive capture - scenarios in which organizations that
represent themselves as nonpartisan or academic, but which are funded by
industries that could be affected by the studies, help shape research and
the public debate. Brookings, in particular, has faced some of the toughest
scrutiny: In October, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat,
questioned whether an economist with Brookings who conducted a study was
unduly affected by cozy relationships with Wall Street and the funding
behind his research. A 2014 report, too, noted that pension reform-minded
reports from Brookings were sponsored by the Laura and John Arnold
Foundation, which has pushed to reduce guaranteed retirement benefits for
public workers.
The Tax Policy Center report noted that spending under Sanders' plan could
add as much as $33.3 trillion in new spending over the next 10 years, which
dwarfs the current $14 trillion in debt currently owed by the federal
government. Opponents of Sanders' plan say that such spending, if not offset
by other revenues, would send the economy into a strong downward spiral.
The Sanders campaign has said those estimates assume a much more expensive
healthcare system than the candidate expects, and says low- and
middle-income households would end up saving thousands of dollars a year.
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
