* Reporters often write only about what they see, or what they want to see. Here’s a standard article…

The Illinois Hospital Association took no chances as state lawmakers debated in recent weeks whether nonprofit hospitals should pay property taxes. It unleashed a self-described media blitz.

“My baby is sick — anyone help, please!” screamed an actress portraying a mother in radio ads aired in Chicago and 41 other markets starting in early May. A baby wailed, an ambulance siren blared and a voiceover asked what the terrified parent would do if no hospital were around.

The blitz worked. The Illinois General Assembly this week handed hospitals a long-sought victory: a sweeping legislative antidote to a recent state Supreme Court decision that threatened to slap many hospitals with potentially millions of dollars in tax liabilities just as they say they’re struggling to survive.

The radio ads worked? That was what passed the bill? OK. Or maybe it was the ad the IHA bought here. That seems more likely, actually, because legislators and staff actually saw that one. But, whatever. Ads weren’t the only factor highlighted in the story…

The association, representing about 200 hospitals and health systems, urged Illinoisans to write to state officials. By this week, the IHA reported, more than 12,000 people had signed an online petition. The group created templates for member hospitals to customize anti-tax e-mails to legislators and letters to local newspaper editors. And it suggested members provide kiosks or special computers for workers to send notes condemning property taxes for hospitals and Quinn’s proposed $2.7 billion in reductions to projected Medicaid payments.

An online petition worked? Well, maybe. I’m not sure how many legislators actually saw it, though. And then, of course, there was this…

For 2011 and the first quarter of 2012, the association contributed about $397,000 to state office holders, candidates and the state Democratic Party, according to the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, a watchdog group. That included $143,000 to legislative leaders of both parties and $198,000 to other lawmakers in the General Assembly.

The IHA gave even more than that in 2010: $725,089.56. It has a very active, very aggressive political organization.

* But there’s more to this story. Hospitals are in every legislative district. And hospital boards are usually made up of the region’s biggest bigshots, who are accustomed to hob-knobbing with local politicos. Hospitals are also large employers, and their workers usually earn pretty good salaries. They are almost always involved with local charitable causes, spend big money on public relations and they advertise heavily in local media. As a result, they’re the most trusted institutions in almost every region. Crossing them ain’t easy.

The IHA lost its top lobbyist and political guru when Howard Peters retired. It recently hired AJ Wilhelmi right out of the state Senate. Wilhelmi had never been a lobbyist before, but he worked like a dog. He returned one of my calls after midnight one evening, waking me up.

Add all that up and it’s no great feat to figure out why they did pretty well this year. They almost always do.

That’s not to say they’re right all the time. They used to constantly battle with nurses in Springfield. Those fights hurt them. And getting crossways with the attorney general has had many downsides. She was right to question their level of charity care. Some of what they classified as charity was just silly PR.

* And they’ve been one of the most aggressive bill collectors of any industry, prompting legislation to clamp down on entities that seek to put people in jail for not paying a bill. From a press release…

Attorney General Lisa Madigan today applauded state lawmakers for supporting the Debtors’ Rights Act of 2012, a measure that would protect poor people from being jailed over unpaid debts.

House Bill 5434 would prevent creditors from abusing the court system to put debtors in jail to collect on a debt they are clearly unable to pay. Over the last year, Madigan has learned that residents in roughly a third of Illinois’ counties commonly face incarceration when they fail to appear in court over a previously entered judgment to pay a debt. In many of these cases, notices of court hearings were mailed to addresses that were no longer valid, leaving many debtors unaware of the hearings. In spite of the failure to notify the debtors, courts have frequently issued warrants for their arrests.

“Long ago, our society recognized that it was immoral to send a poor person to debtor’s prison. Yet this practice has reappeared in Illinois through creditors’ abuse of the courts,” Madigan said. “This legislation will ensure that people who have the means will pay their debts, while also preventing poor older and unemployed persons from being illegally and unfairly incarcerated.”

Compounding the problem, Madigan said, is that many victims of these practices are living solely on income that is legally protected from being used to pay outstanding debt judgments, including Social Security, unemployment insurance or veterans’ benefits.

Madigan’s legislation would also ban abusive and burdensome “pay or appear” orders that are routinely entered against debtors in some Illinois counties. These orders – which usually remain in effect for three years – require debtors to make a monthly payment or appear in court each month to explain why they are unable to pay, even if their financial circumstances have not improved. Madigan said if a debtor misses just one payment and court hearing, they can end up in jail. Debtors who have been victim to this practice typically owe outstanding medical bills, credit card debts or payday loans.

The legislation would amend the Code of Civil Procedure to codify and clarify practices followed by attorneys, creditors and courts across Illinois to ensure that courts make a finding of a consumer’s ability to pay before entering a payment order. The legislation also would prohibit payment orders that rely on legally protected income and prevent arrest warrants from being issued unless the debtor was personally served with a hearing notice.

The combination of mandated free care (pushed by AG Madigan) and the attorney general’s debtor protection bill were not hospital “wins.” But like all smart organizations, they recognized that getting what they wanted required giving up something else. So, they agreed to a scaled back (but still significant) Medicaid rate cut and they accepted the attorney general’s demands. That’s an optimal conclusion for pretty much everybody.