Kucinich: House Dems bill not better than status quo

Kucinich: House Dems bill not better than status quo

Really?



Text of amendments: PDF


Weiner Statement on Passage of Historic Health Care Legislation

Must hide them to keep up the charade.

Not in the article. Not in his statement.
http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/11927

Now just who is engaging in hyperbole.

Why I Voted NO

by Dennis Kucinich


We have been led to believe that we must make our health care choices only within the current structure of a predatory, for-profit insurance system which makes money not providing health care. We cannot fault the insurance companies for being what they are. But we can fault legislation in which the government incentivizes the perpetuation, indeed the strengthening, of the for-profit health insurance industry, the very source of the problem. When health insurance companies deny care or raise premiums, co-pays and deductibles they are simply trying to make a profit. That is our system.

Clearly, the insurance companies are the problem, not the solution. They are driving up the cost of health care. Because their massive bureaucracy avoids paying bills so effectively, they force hospitals and doctors to hire their own bureaucracy to fight the insurance companies to avoid getting stuck with an unfair share of the bills. The result is that since 1970, the number of physicians has increased by less than 200% while the number of administrators has increased by 3000%. It is no wonder that 31 cents of every health care dollar goes to administrative costs, not toward providing care. Even those with insurance are at risk. The single biggest cause of bankruptcies in the U.S. is health insurance policies that do not cover you when you get sick.

But instead of working toward the elimination of for-profit insurance, H.R. 3962 would put the government in the role of accelerating the privatization of health care. In H.R. 3962, the government is requiring at least 21 million Americans to buy private health insurance from the very industry that causes costs to be so high, which will result in at least $70 billion in new annual revenue, much of which is coming from taxpayers. This inevitably will lead to even more costs, more subsidies, and higher profits for insurance companies - a bailout under a blue cross.

By incurring only a new requirement to cover pre-existing conditions, a weakened public option, and a few other important but limited concessions, the health insurance companies are getting quite a deal. The Center for American Progress' blog, Think Progress, states, 'since the President signaled that he is backing away from the public option, health insurance stocks have been on the rise.' Similarly, healthcare stocks rallied when Senator Max Baucus introduced a bill without a public option. Bloomberg reports that Curtis Lane, a prominent health industry investor, predicted a few weeks ago that 'money will start flowing in again' to health insurance stocks after passage of the legislation. Investors.com last month reported that pharmacy benefit managers share prices are hitting all-time highs, with the only industry worry that the Administration would reverse its decision not to negotiate Medicare Part D drug prices, leaving in place a Bush Administration policy.

During the debate, when the interests of insurance companies would have been effectively challenged, that challenge was turned back. The 'robust public option' which would have offered a modicum of competition to a monopolistic industry was whittled down from an initial potential enrollment of 129 million Americans to 6 million. An amendment which would have protected the rights of states to pursue single-payer health care was stripped from the bill at the request of the Administration. Looking ahead, we cringe at the prospect of even greater favors for insurance companies.

Recent rises in unemployment indicate a widening separation between the finance economy and the real economy. The finance economy considers the health of Wall Street, rising corporate profits, and banks' hoarding of cash, much of it from taxpayers, as sign of an economic recovery. However in the real economy - in which most Americans live - the recession is not over. Rising unemployment, business failures, bankruptcies and foreclosures are still hammering Main Street.

This health care bill continues the redistribution of wealth to Wall Street at the expense of America's manufacturing and service economies which suffer from costs other countries do not have to bear, especially the cost of health care. America continues to stand out among all industrialized nations for its privatized health care system. As a result, we are less competitive in steel, automotive, aerospace and shipping while other countries subsidize their exports in these areas through socializing the cost of health care.

Notwithstanding the fate of H.R. 3962, America will someday come to recognize the broad social and economic benefits of a not-for-profit, single-payer health care system, which is good for the American people and good for America's businesses, with of course the notable exceptions being insurance and pharmaceuticals.

What utter nonsense. See the OP.

The house bill requires them to submit to a little more regulation in exchange for customers in perpetuity (whose participation is guaranteed under threat of law) and lots of dough. And the Senate isn't done with it, yet.

It also makes it illegal for for them, beginning next year, to drop people based on pre-existing conditions. Are you going to tell me they welcome that?

And yes, the spokesperson from AHIP said that they like the mandates.

He is a one man spin machine LOL.

I no longer believe he is a decent spokesman for progressives.

and he should lose the trust of objective progressives. He could learn a lot from Grayson on how to be feisty yet retain credibility.

term credibility on those, also.

but a title created by an editor, Kucinich is a liar?

From the article:

"This bill doesnt effectively moderate what can charge for premiums, or co-pays, or deductibles; it just says people will have to have insurance," the congressman added. "Well, insurance doesn't necessarilly equate to care, and care comes at a cost."


Really?

He states that "the bill doesn't effectively moderate what can charge for premiums". Yes, there may be a cap on what you pay, but does the bill "effectively moderate... premiums"? Not that I'd expect you to answer that question or even entertain it as a valid concern.

asking a follow up question.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/11/08-0

Why I Voted NO

by Dennis Kucinich
We have been led to believe that we must make our health care choices only within the current structure of a predatory, for-profit insurance system which makes money not providing health care. We cannot fault the insurance companies for being what they are. But we can fault legislation in which the government incentivizes the perpetuation, indeed the strengthening, of the for-profit health insurance industry, the very source of the problem. When health insurance companies deny care or raise premiums, co-pays and deductibles they are simply trying to make a profit. That is our system.

Clearly, the insurance companies are the problem, not the solution. They are driving up the cost of health care. Because their massive bureaucracy avoids paying bills so effectively, they force hospitals and doctors to hire their own bureaucracy to fight the insurance companies to avoid getting stuck with an unfair share of the bills. The result is that since 1970, the number of physicians has increased by less than 200% while the number of administrators has increased by 3000%. It is no wonder that 31 cents of every health care dollar goes to administrative costs, not toward providing care. Even those with insurance are at risk. The single biggest cause of bankruptcies in the U.S. is health insurance policies that do not cover you when you get sick.

But instead of working toward the elimination of for-profit insurance, H.R. 3962 would put the government in the role of accelerating the privatization of health care. In H.R. 3962, the government is requiring at least 21 million Americans to buy private health insurance from the very industry that causes costs to be so high, which will result in at least $70 billion in new annual revenue, much of which is coming from taxpayers. This inevitably will lead to even more costs, more subsidies, and higher profits for insurance companies - a bailout under a blue cross.

By incurring only a new requirement to cover pre-existing conditions, a weakened public option, and a few other important but limited concessions, the health insurance companies are getting quite a deal. The Center for American Progress' blog, Think Progress, states, 'since the President signaled that he is backing away from the public option, health insurance stocks have been on the rise.' Similarly, healthcare stocks rallied when Senator Max Baucus introduced a bill without a public option. Bloomberg reports that Curtis Lane, a prominent health industry investor, predicted a few weeks ago that 'money will start flowing in again' to health insurance stocks after passage of the legislation. Investors.com last month reported that pharmacy benefit managers share prices are hitting all-time highs, with the only industry worry that the Administration would reverse its decision not to negotiate Medicare Part D drug prices, leaving in place a Bush Administration policy.

During the debate, when the interests of insurance companies would have been effectively challenged, that challenge was turned back. The 'robust public option' which would have offered a modicum of competition to a monopolistic industry was whittled down from an initial potential enrollment of 129 million Americans to 6 million. An amendment which would have protected the rights of states to pursue single-payer health care was stripped from the bill at the request of the Administration. Looking ahead, we cringe at the prospect of even greater favors for insurance companies.

Recent rises in unemployment indicate a widening separation between the finance economy and the real economy. The finance economy considers the health of Wall Street, rising corporate profits, and banks' hoarding of cash, much of it from taxpayers, as sign of an economic recovery. However in the real economy - in which most Americans live - the recession is not over. Rising unemployment, business failures, bankruptcies and foreclosures are still hammering Main Street.

This health care bill continues the redistribution of wealth to Wall Street at the expense of America's manufacturing and service economies which suffer from costs other countries do not have to bear, especially the cost of health care. America continues to stand out among all industrialized nations for its privatized health care system. As a result, we are less competitive in steel, automotive, aerospace and shipping while other countries subsidize their exports in these areas through socializing the cost of health care.

Notwithstanding the fate of H.R. 3962, America will someday come to recognize the broad social and economic benefits of a not-for-profit, single-payer health care system, which is good for the American people and good for America's businesses, with of course the notable exceptions being insurance and pharmaceuticals.

What utter nonsense. See the OP.

"Yes it is."

"No it isn't."

"Yes it is."

"No it isn't."

"Yes it is."

"No it isn't."

"Yes it is."

"No it isn't."

"Yes it is."

"No it isn't."

"Yes it is."

"No it isn't."

Period.

namely with what has happened with Social Security. His amendment on giving states more options on health care was odd since states sure as hell can't print the money to pay for coverage. He also overlooked the inconsistency of coverage that can come up from state to state. The guy talks more about money on this instead of human lives.

I've lost a great deal of respect for him over this too.

His only quotes in the article you posted from are:

"It locks us into a for-profit system that the government subsidizes," Kucinich told Democracy Now on Monday. "It's not going to save money in the long run, it's not going to provide the broad healthcare services the American people need. It's going to limit choices people have over a longer period of time, and people will have to buy private insurance."

"This bill doesnt effectively moderate what can charge for premiums, or co-pays, or deductibles; it just says people will have to have insurance," the congressman added. "Well, insurance doesn't necessarilly equate to care, and care comes at a cost."

House Democrats expected Kucinich to vote against their healthcare bill because it lacked either a robust public option or a single-payer insurance system -- two provisions he staunchly defended (and said Democrats had abandoned) throughout the healthcare debate.

But Kucinich on Monday admitted that the inclusion of single-payer provision in particular would have been a "tough ride," considering the country's current political climate. However, he said he knew of no cogent reason why Democrats did not at least permit states the ability to pursue their own variations of such a system, another policy alternative he pushed to include in the final bill.

"If we were able to ... protect the right of states to have a single-player plan, then maybe this bill would have been worth voting for," he said, adding he wanted protection for single-payer states from insurance companies' legal attacks. "But what are we left with now: for-profit health insurance that the government subsidizes."

"We have to ask ourselves, why is this the best we can do?" Kucinich inquired. "Why should we settle for this without fighting back? Why shouldn't we insist that a robust public option is the only way the American people have a fighting chance with the insurance companies?"

He is saying it has as many flaws as our current system does. He does not say, here anyway, "House Dems Bill not better than Status Quo."

See the OP>

Kucinich said status quo in his article or in his statement. I suppose in the future you will take "some people say" as an honest assessment of the facts.

http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/11927

you can read his statement http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/11/08-0 Then, if you are interested in an honest discussion, you would address the substance of his argument rather than pose loaded questions.

and that makes ProSence very very sad.

:rofl:

Nothing about the facts in the OP, just comments about me. Who would ever believe that like the wingnut their would be a progressive movement built on promoting distortions. At least debate the merits of what he's saying instead of just taking his statement as the last word. He is clearly wrong here.

You erroneously present the headline of the Hill's article as the basis of Kucinich's position, then proceed to present your argument to the headline rather than against any of Kucinich's actual statements.

You are the one who presented a distortion. You are the one engaging in wingnuttery behavior.

Just because you're hung up on the Hill's title, doesn't make his false statements any less inaccurate.

you had better be prepared to defend it. And after a dozen threads, you haven't successfully presented a false statement. I am looking forward to your next post in which you demand that Kucinich present his birth certificate.

n/t

just too bad. Maybe dennis should stick to them instead of lying.

He said there would be no Public Option and then he votes to make sure of it.

Also, his vote had nothing to do with the the "public option". The bill passed and has what is cynically being called a "public option", for now.

plays fast and loose with them.

"It locks us into a for-profit system that the government subsidizes," Kucinich told Democracy Now on Monday. "It's not going to save money in the long run, it's not going to provide the broad healthcare services the American people need. It's going to limit choices people have over a longer period of time, and people will have to buy private insurance."

"This bill doesnt effectively moderate what can charge for premiums, or co-pays, or deductibles; it just says people will have to have insurance," the congressman added. "Well, insurance doesn't necessarilly equate to care, and care comes at a cost."

IOW, no better than the status quo, really.

But you keep on with your delusion. Still giving me a chuckle at the irony in your username.

And in close, also from the article you linked:

"We have to ask ourselves, why is this the best we can do?" Kucinich inquired. "Why should we settle for this without fighting back? Why shouldn't we insist that a robust public option is the only way the American people have a fighting chance with the insurance companies?"

Well, Dennis, I have that answer. It's the best we can do because we have a bunch of empty suit do-nothings bought and paid for and a nation of people willing to settle for whatever bullshit is put on their plates and called steak. They're more than happy to bend over and just take it so they can call it a WIN!

"This bill doesnt effectively moderate what can charge for premiums, or co-pays, or deductibles; it just says people will have to have insurance," the congressman added. "Well, insurance doesn't necessarilly equate to care, and care comes at a cost."


Really?

Pelosi? Whatever. Keep shilling though!

It's her salesmanship of it, and I wouldn't trust her to tell me the truth any more than I would trust her with the keys to my bike chain, Ms Impeachment Is Off the Table.

"I wouldn't trust her to tell me the truth any more..."

Ah, so you rely on Kucinich? Ever tried reading the bill?

Cuz you're jumping to a bunch of them.

I doubt Pelosi's opinion/rendition as you quoted it, for the reasons I stated. At no point did I say that "nothing that's in the bill is a fact" now did I?

You want to take another swing? Try harder, and we'll call this a learning experience.

This bill is nothing more than a discussion right now. It doesn't do anything yet.

No matter how you spin it. And for the record, be honest for a change...you didn't read the bill. You're picking soundbytes and talking points from your favorite sources and shills.

Oh brother.

:rofl:

You have no argument at all, so you nitpick at semantics. Nothing to back up your point, nothing to refute what others say.

You suck at this, frankly.

You're bleeding crediblity to defend Kucinich's bogus statements.

And now you're boring, and no longer worth my time. Have a good one.

*yawn*

rational argument throughout this discussion. So bye!

It will be debated (a fancy word for "discuss") in the Senate, it will then go to reconciliation. So yes, the bill is still in the discussion stage. It could, in the end, not pass at all.

He voted against the House bill using bogus claims as his defense.

but rather it was a discussion about your "proof" that this bill is a boon for U.S. citizens. Pelosi can make all the claims she wants about what the bill will do or not do but since the Senate hasn't weighed in yet, her claims are nothing but speculation about the ultimate outcome.


And you haven't presented one whit of proof that Kucinich's claims are bogus.

Kucinich voted against the House bill. That bill is real, not a "discussion."

that my doctor prescribes. There is nothing in the bill to stop that. So, yes, for me and many others, insurance does not necessarily equate to care.

Show me where in the bill that it "effectively moderates premiums", because I've read the bill and I see no mechanism for effectively moderating premiums.

are required to okay treatment recommended by doctors. You can't because it is not there.

You're thinking about this in terms of what they do now, that will change.

you all can be thankful for your corporate master's minuscule crumbs but the sacrifice is too much for me.
I would rather die than live under corporatism.

Not for others.

Mandates are the whole point of a universal system.

Hardly. Laughable assertion at best

The main apparent benefit of a single payer system is that the premiums for that coverage are baked in to an amorphous tax obligation.

Afterall, you suggested the POINT of UHC is mandates (which in this context, refers to forced commerce on an individual level). The point is really to cover everyone in affordable and efficient ways to benefit society. There is no similar mandate in Canada at all, being that the government has a monopoly on basic medical services. Hence, no marketplace exists for those services and people are not being forced to enter it as individuals.

Are you just misunderstanding the concept, or purposely resorting to twisted logic to justify bad public policy?


"The main apparent benefit of a single payer system is that the premiums for that coverage are baked in to an amorphous tax obligation"

One benefit is that the funding, per individual, is not dependent upon risk or age, but rather what what each person can affordably and fairly pay according to the tax code. Just as with funding roads, everyone's contribution is income based rather than static or based on usage (regressive).

Another benefit is simply reducing overhead and profits (up to 30%) that go to shareholders who are immaterially involved in business operation. And by eliminating the complication of dealing with 400+ payers, you also can save health care deliverers 10% on the back end when they avoid outsourcing billing (or hiring specialty staff).

Then there is the ability for a large pool to collectively negotiate payment rates...

So no, "the main apparent benefit" of single payer is not that people are merely forced, by taxes, to pay for it.

Im not sure why I try. If you don't understand this by now...

will be mandated to go to private doctors and purchase care as a private individual. The only mandate being discussed is that forcing individuals to enter the insurance market place as individuals and purchase coverage. The ONLY system where that will happen will be in the US system.

Seriously, why are you going this far to justify bad policy?

You have to know you are just contorting reality at this point in the name of a "win"

health care. Thanks for clearing up your priorities.

I have a dictionary around here if you want to borrow it.

I trust Kucinich and Sanders. We'll see.

If you honestly give a shit about this bill....that guy is your problem, not Dennis.

Don't think, it's obviously hard.

:rofl:

So will it be a week till your Kucinuch Tirade is over.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_jpVm59Q7Xb0/SDd5N73YdVI/AAAAAAAACaw/cVjXUyOw388/s320/A+Hillary+Laughing+hillary.jpg


(that one is in my hometown)

I'm happy. LOL!

The article from The Hill consists of two lines. It is perhaps the shortest news article I've ever seen. Can we please be given the exact excerpt in which Kucinich allegedly compares the bill to the status quo?

hurt millions more than it helped.

The Kurds were and are almost solidly behind the Iraq war. They will tell you right now about how many millions it helped. And they of course are correct, when you look at it from their point of view. Just as you are correct about this house health care bill, when you look at it from your point of view.

But from my point of view, this House HCR bill will do more harm than good over all and in the long run. I don't believe it fixes the basic problems of affordabilty and accessibility. It just puts off addressing those problems.

After the Senate is through with it, it will be worse than it is now. They will almost certainly remove the drug price negotiations and they will most likely remove the ineffective and useless PO so that it can't be made more effective and useful at some future date. But even if they don't, it still side steps the most basic aspect of health care reform, which is cost containment. And that is the basic problem. We are paying far too much and getting far too little, and if the house bill were to go through exactly as it is now written, we would still be paying far too much and getting far too little. That means we will see our benefits cut in the future because it's not sustainable.

This is what is happening in MA, where they outlawed pre-existing conditions, mandated coverage, and subsidized private insurance. They now are paying much more for their insurance coverage than before and than the rest of the country and so benefits are being cut as a result. They didn't solve the problem of affordability and accessibility. They just covered it up for a little while.

And that isn't a solution.

Moot point really. The Senate will pass a bill.** Then both bills go to Conference. The final product probably won't resemble either House or Senate bill as they read now.

** I did read something about using Reconciliation and that a robust public option is likely to be issued because it best reduces the deficit. That would be cool.

"The healthcare bill House lawmakers passed Saturday is just as troubling as the country's current insurance system, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) stressed Monday."

What's being asked is the words of Kucinich himself.

He is even acknowledging that single payer cannot pass in this climate. So what is the alternative?

That's a slippery interpretation of what he actually said. 'Troubling." Yes there are aspects of the House bill that are troubling.

Is it better than the status quo? Kucinich voted against an entire reform package, knowing the alternative was no bill, why?

Kucinich did not make that claim.

Where was the alternative to the bill that emerged?

in his statement about withdrawing the Weiner amendment and in the Hill article:



His vote was akin to a tantrum.

His vote serves to highlight his disagreement with some of the provisions. You can interpret it anyway you want, but his vote was like countless others meant to send a message or for principle in an instance where the defection from the pack means absolutely nothing to the outcome. I think there's a politically inexperienced shortsightedness to all of these complaints about his action. It's as if there's no concern at all that there's still a chance to fix the 'troubling' aspects of the bill in the Senate where a bill hasn't even emerged for debate. What kind of lily-liveried politics is it to concede those points he's making before the process is complete? Who does it serve to work to discredit the man for protesting aspects of the bill which everyone admits need 'work'? His stance and protest will most likely serve to highlight his positions during the next phase of the debate in the Senate and in reconciliation (positions which many folks say they agree with) more than they'll work to derail the bill. But these attacks on the congressman's character for standing firm to his written pledge and promises only serve the opposition.

So he threw a tantrum? You seem to be trying the spin that he would have voted for it had his vote been the deciding one, which means he was grandstanding. Under what circumstance would the bill have been better (see Kucinich's claims) if his vote was the deciding factor?

project much?

Who knows what he would do if his vote was the deciding one? You don't. I've seen countless votes like his (inconsequential to the final outcome) which haven't been twisted into the smear you're attempting here. I haven't seen any of the other members who voted for the legislation condemning Kucinich like you are. They all know that there might come a day when they'll take a similar stand on some other bill. Where is the groundswell outside of DU to condemn the Rep.? There isn't any because rational observers realize that his stance was a standard political act in Congress.

Conyers and Weiner are both strong single payer advocates who didn't cut off their nose to spite their face.

despite all the histrionics around here about his inconsequential vote

And even if we agree that the vote of Saturday passed is more important to nitpick than the Senate bill is to influence, one has to wonder about that stack of 24 Democrats that voted for Stupack, and then against the final bill. Why do they get a pass? A couple of dozen Democrats who voted against this bill, who get nary a word of criticism from the relentless DK attackers. So if this is about Democrats who voted against it, why is the only one being mentioned the one who voted no for well expressed reasons that millions of Americans are in full agreement with? Why not the anti woman, anti any reform crowd, which is dozens large? Why just the guy who wanted a better bill? Why indeed.
Mediocrity is all we can expect from mediocre minds, but that does not mean a voice should not be raised for excellence. If that raises mediocre self interested hackles, really, that is just gravy to me at this point. The frothing at the mouth and falling over backwards routine is always a crowd pleaser!

Kucinich is wrong.

Great post, by the way.