Is Kucinich right on health care?

[penguin7]

To my mind this issue alone compels a vote for Kucinich.

[Lasher]

1. Yes he is.

I am not a one issue voter but I've got to agree that his position on health care, which is sadly unique among Democratic contenders, is a significant reason to support him. All the rest of the candidates are scared of the big money insurance industry.

Kucinich is going to get my vote in the primary.

[poverlay]

2. Me too...n/t

[unkachuck]

40. me too....n/t

[napi21]

3. I'm not sure. It sounds good on it's face, but there are a lot of

Doctors already not accepting any new medicare patients. I'm guessing that's because of the amount they are paid doesn't even cover their costs. I think we need a lot more details before simply accepting Medicare for all.

[John Q. Citizen]

11. Are you suggesting they would leave the country and practice somewhere

else where there is no national healthcare system?


Where would that be?

Fees for services would negotiated. Some doctors might quit and go into lawn care but I doubt too many would do that. Your fears seem more based on "guesses" than on the actual experiences in many different countries where there is national health insurance system that covers everybody.

[Hippo_Tron]

33. The very wealthy will buy private insurance even if there is single payer

And it's possible that some specialists will make a living just treating wealthy patients. Not saying it's not a good reason to have single-payer, but it's something to consider.

[John Q. Citizen]

36. The very wealthy can afford to pay cash. Why buy the extremely expensive

(small pool) insurance?

As you probably know, the smaller the insurance pool, the more costly the insurance.
The larger the pool, the more the risk is spread, and the cheaper cost per person.

This is but one reason why single payer is much cheaper for everyone, because the pool is so much larger.

If the very wealthy want to pay into the single payer pool through their taxes and also want to buy into another (very small) pool and pay excessive rates, (or just pay cash) who cares?

You are talking about a fraction of the population, it won't mess up a single payer plan in the least.

Right now there are some doctors who won't except any insurance, only cash. So what?

It's not an issue really. Look at Canada. They are spending about 40% less per capita and everyone gets high quality health care, no one loses their home because of a sickness in the family. Now that is a big deal.

Cutting private insureres out of the pie saves big money. The ability to negotiate drug prices, equipment prices, and fees saves more big money.

Medicare runs at about a 1% to 3% overhead. That means for every dollar spent, .97 to .99 cents is spent on actual healthcare. Private insurance companies operate at between 15% to 25% overhead. That means for every dollar spent .75 to .85 cents per dollar is spent on actual healthcare. And that healthcare is at highly inflated prices. (ever see what an asprin costs in a US hospital?)

Also with single payer everybody with an income is contributing something to the system. No more cost shifting where employed people without insurance (and no assests) end up paying nothing, and employed people with insurance end up paying extra to cover the cost of the uninsured.

No more staying with an employer you can't stand because of the insurance. No more people losing their houses, there life savings, etc because of an accident or an illness.

What you brought up, that a few doctors might opt out, is insignificant in the bigger picture. Canada hasn't been negatively effected by this (even though it was predicted it would be when their system started up.)

[Hippo_Tron]

43. I've heard that in Britain they have a significant number of doctors that work outside of the NHS

Again, Single-Payer is a great idea. We just need to consider these things when we implement it.

[John Q. Citizen]

44. Britain doesn't have a single payer fee for service system. They have

socialized medicine, which is significantly different than socialized health insurance.

If you check out the link down thread to the Kucinich/Conyers bill, you will see right near the begining that the bill calls for a Government run single payer fee for service system that works within a private healthcare delivery environment, same as we now have.

Our doctors will be private, and we can choose to go to any doctor we wish. If you are in El Paso and you need health care, you just find a physician or clinic with an appointment opening and go. Or in Spokane or your home town/city. Change doctors if you want, no problem, no paper work except you would provide your health pin so the care provider can bill the insurance pool and get paid for the services they have provided you with.

[Hippo_Tron]

59. I'm aware of the difference between socialized medicine and Single Payer

Single payer may still present the same problem that I've stated above because some doctors may stand to make more money only treating rich people instead of accepting the single-payer. It depends on how many people are willing to cough up the money for private insurance.

[divinecommands]

60. Why not outlaw private insurance?

Why not just compel the wealthy to use the public system like everyone else?

[ProudDad]

17. If their only choice is Single-Payer patients

They'll HAVE TO TAKE US...

A few specialists may have to take a pay cut from their multi-million dollar a year free rides...

Just like many of us in the computer business have had to take cuts from 100K to less than 40K thanks to outsourcing... My reaction is tough shit...

Not a good excuse at all.



Check out the Conyers plan (Kucinich is a co-sponsor)

http://www.house.gov/conyers/news_hr676_2.htm

Brief Summary of HR 676


* The United States National Health Insurance Act establishes an American national health insurance program. The bill would create a publicly financed, privately delivered health care system that uses the already existing Medicare program by expanding and improving it to all U.S. residents, and all residents living in U.S. territories. The goal of the legislation is to ensure that all Americans will have access, guaranteed by law, to the highest quality and most cost effective health care services regardless of their employment, income, or health status.

# With over 45-75 million uninsured Americans, and another 50 million who are under- insured, the time has come to change our inefficient and costly fragmented non health care system.

Who is Eligible

# Every person living in or visiting the United States and the U.S. Territories would receive a United States National Health Insurance Card and ID number once they enroll at the appropriate location. Social Security numbers may not be used when assigning ID cards.

Health Care Services Covered

# This program will cover all medically necessary services, including primary care, in patient care, outpatient care, emergency care, prescription drugs, durable medical equipment, long term care, mental health services, dentistry, eye care, chiropractic, and substance abuse treatment. Patients have their choice of physicians, providers, hospitals, clinics and practices. No co-pays or deductibles are permitted under this act.

Conversion To A Non-Profit Health Care System

# Private health insurers shall be prohibited under this act from selling coverage that duplicates the benefits of the USNHI program. Exceptions to this rule include coverage for cosmetic surgery, and other medically unnecessary treatments. Those who are displaced as the result of the transition to a non- profit health care system are the first to be hired and retrained under this act.

Cost Containment Provisions/ Reimbursement

# The National USNHI program will set reimbursement rates annually for physicians, allow for "global budgets" (annual lump sums for operating expenses) for health care providers; and negotiate prescription drug prices. The national office will provide an annual lump sum allotment to each existing Medicare region; each region will administer the program.

# The conversion to a not-for-profit health care system will take place over a 15 year period. U.S. treasury bonds will be sold to compensate investor-owned providers for the actual appraised value of converted facilities used in the delivery of care; payment will not be made for loss of business profits. Health insurance companies could be sub-contracted out to handle reimbursements.

Proposed Funding For USNHI Program:

# Maintaining current federal and state funding of existing health care programs. A modest payroll tax on all employers of 3.3%. A 5% health tax on the top 5% of income earners. A small tax on stock and bond transfers. Closing corporate tax loop-holes, repealing the Bush tax cut.

[barack4prez]

23. Here's what scares me about

this sort of plan, even if it is correct about how it can be paid for (which I question as well). What is to keep employers from ending health coverage as an employment benefit, justified by the fact that employees will have coverage, anyway? Then, the costs of the plan would skyrocket, and who would end up paying? The employees who had their employer-paid coverage terminated.

[ProudDad]

24. Health Care MUST BE ENDED as an "employee benefit!"

1) Most employees do not get or cannot afford the Health INSURANCE "benefit" from employers.

2) Even those who get "health insurance" don't necessarily get HEALTH CARE. As has been proven, their insurance may not even furnish Health Care since the for-profit health insurance mafia is in the business of DENYING CARE in order to increase profits rather than providing care.

3) A large (majority?) of people who do get health insurance as a "benefit" are therefore TIED TO THEIR JOBS and are effectively slaves to their employers since they cannot leave their employer without losing their health insurance -- in many (most) cases permanently...

4) American businesses who DO offer "health insurance" would be freed from the abnormally high expense of for-profit health insurance.


As for paying for the new system:


"A modest payroll tax on all employers of 3.3%"

All employers will be required to pay a small tax for their everyone's health care.

The People of the U.S. already pay half again per person what the rest of the world does and leaves 47 MILLION of us OUT and ranks 37th in the world in Health Care. The rest of the world is PROVING that we could pay less than we do now and get better health care for EVERYONE.

[Lasher]

26. Employers are going to stop providing healthcare benefits anyway.

They are all headed toward high-deductible, high-premium for employees, catastrophic only benefits for which the employer serves only as a mediator and pays nothing.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=210673

[barack4prez]

27. Other than this

is there anything showing that anything like this is likely to come to pass? I don't know of anything like that--this is the first I've heard of this.

[Lasher]

28. Here's what it looks like.

Look for proposals that include Health Savings Accounts, coupled with high deductible, catastrophic-only health insurance. Proponents propagandize the issue by saying employees will be motivated to pick the most cost effective or competitive plan, blah blah. Junior has proposed giving tax breaks to employees to help them pay for medical insurance themselves. This applies to bare-bones policies only. He's also said traditional health care benefits (anything better than bare-bones) should be taxed as income. That's the carrot and stick to get you to switch. Another incentive to rob you of your employee benefits is to eliminate the tax break employers get when they provide your health care benefits.

Not much in the news about this right now. All of Junior's focus lately has been on his failed immigration reform bill. But you can be sure it's not going away. This is being sold like they're providing insurance for employees who don't have it, but the real goal is to relieve employers of the responsibility to provide traditional employee and retiree health care.

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070613/OPINION03/706130334/1110

http://www.reuters.com/article/governmentFilingsNews/idUSN1230790920070613

[antigop]

29. Lasher, there has been a recent announcement.....

http://www.hrpolicy.org/press/2007/RHA_release_062107.htm

Take a look at this....

I think large companies will no longer be self-insured for their retiree medical. It looks like they are handing it over to Aetna -- companies will only be "subsidizing" the premiums. Of course, that subsidy could be zero.

[antigop]

30. And I'll bet your "choices" from Aetna will be high-deductible plans.....n/t

[Lasher]

46. But of course.

And like I said upthread, this is being made to look like the benevolent corporations only want to provide health care for those who don't have it. There is some truth to this lie, as employers and their agents will negotiate a package deal on behalf of their employees, whereby individuals can not be excluded on account of pre-existing conditions. But beneath this veil the true motive lies: shift the burden of paying for health insurance from employers to employees.

And even if some companies do pay some of the cost at the beginning, you can be sure that their cost will change to zero over time. Average employees won't even notice that their employers stopped paying. All they'll know is their premiums keep going up and up.

There are still a few who have employee health care, where they pay no premiums and there are no copays. Most of these people have their unions to thank for this. But these days are numbered. I don't see how this can be stopped.

The best strategy is to move everybody to single provider universal health care for everybody.

[Crunchy Frog]

42. Then maybe they would stop moving their plants to other countries

that have single payer health care. This is actually a terrible burden for employers and acts as a tremendous incentive for outsourcing. I really don't understand the justification for maintaining that system.

[Lasher]

48. This won't stop offshoring

Corporations will still move factories to countries where they can find cheap labor. And those countries do not tend to have either single payer universal health care or employee benefits. And if employees in that country start getting uppity by expecting to be paid a decent living wage, they'll move to yet another country.

After WW II companies started providing benefits and pensions instead of higher pay. In that way they were able to defer costs, since most expenses would occur in the future. For many who bought into that deal the future is now. They are in or nearing retirement, and their age puts them in greater need of employee and retiree health care benefits that their employers promised to provide in lieu of pay raises.

But now greedy corporations have decided to renege. We hear a lot these days about how companies can't afford to pay for employees' pensions and health care, but they somehow manage to provide corporate jets to retired senior executives for the rest of their lives.

[John Q. Citizen]

4. Kucinich is right on healthcare, right on Iraq, right on the defense budget, right on

impeachment, right on the war on drugs, right on labor issues including NAFTA and all the acrimyms, right on the Patriot Act, and the list goes on and on.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

5. Absolutely

I work with folks who practice regular and alternative medicine, and I gave them DK's position paper on health care. They are all 100% in favor of him--and one is a Republican!

[RufusTFirefly]

6. Right on health care. Right on Iraq. Right on NAFTA

If you haven't seen it already, Kucinich gave a great speech before the United Steel Workers, where among other things he introduced HAFTA, as in, "We hafta get rid of NAFTA."

Also, in the same speech, he said something that I doubt any other candidate (except perhaps Gravel) would admit:

"We see that Wall Street has really separated itself from the aspirations of Main Street. Wall Street has been about the growth of an economy without regard as to whether or not it’s the American economy that’s growing."

Here's the video for the speech

Please give it a K and R if you care to. It's almost there.

[MonkeyFunk]

7. Right or not

making him President won't give him the power to implement it. In fact, he has more power now as a congressman to effect the legislation he wants.

[RufusTFirefly]

8. Yeah, right

That's why everyone is vying for Dennis' seat in the House. Who wants to be stinkin' President? No power or influence in that job.

[MonkeyFunk]

9. That's not what I said

My point is that he's not running for dictator. He's running or President.

A position on the issues doesn't mean much if he can't actually get it accomplished, and Kucincich doesn't have a great record of accomplishment.

Making him President won't get his health care plan passed.

[RufusTFirefly]

10. Here's what you're overlooking

If a President runs on a platform of single-payer health care and is elected, it sends a strong message to members of Congress that Americans favor universal single-payer not-for-profit health care. Furthermore, it may even have a coattails effect, propelling candidates into office who have similar ideals. Either way, members of Congress will see the writing on the wall and assuming they can break the death grip of the insurance industry will support legislation that finally brings Americans into the civilized world in terms of health care.

Hope that helps. Or are you just being deliberately obtuse? If so, never mind.

[John Q. Citizen]

12. Very true. If you don't ask for it you won't get it. The candidates who are

asking for peanuts (aka tax payer subsidies for private insurance companies) probably won't even get those if they win.

[elocs]

13. Here's what you are overlooking: Kucinich will not get the Democratic nomination.

In the real world we are all living in and not a heartwarming Frank Capra movie.

[RufusTFirefly]

15. Well, alrighty then. Enjoy corporate domination

Perhaps you should investigate the Stockholm syndrome.

[elocs]

19. Whether you like it or not, it's called reality.

As much as I wished I lived in some fairy tail world, I have to live here. Just because you really, really want something to happen does not mean it will. Otherwise I would have won the Powerball by now. You know as well as I do that Kucinich will not will the nomination and he knows it too. It's called reality.

[John Q. Citizen]

37. Here it doesn't matter who votes for who. The machines just take care of it.

Welcome to the real world.

But if it's close they can't steal it? Who says? How would you even know? 10,000 missing votes in Florida's congressional district is quite a few. That's not close. But they stole it.

Your contention that people should vote for someone who will (or might) win, in a primary no less, tells me that I should have voted for Reagan, bush, Clinton Clinton, bush, because that's the real world. But that's ridiculous. I have to vote my hopes and dreams, not my eternal servitude, real world or not.

Who would have thought three steel building would all fall down in one afternoon? The day before you would have said that was impossible.

Heck, Hillary could die of cancer, Obama might be hit by a car, and Edwards could suffer a nervious break down. At that point Dennis' chances would look a lot better I'd imagine. Or a lot of things could happen.

They say a week is a year in politics. There's a reason they say that.

I agree that from a betting perspective, Dennis has a lot higher odds to win the nomination than you do of winning powerball. After all, there are eight current candidates in the race and we already know that 7 of them will lose the nomination. If others enter (such as Gore, who endorsed single payer health insurance back in 2002) then all eight of the current candidates could lose. Of course in politics as well as powerball, if you don't buy a ticket then your odds are zero.

I'm just saying that voting by the odds is a poor way to choose a candidate for a voter. Voters should vote their hopes and dreams, or it is 100% certain they won't realize their hopes and dreams.

[RufusTFirefly]

49. Reality? Or self-fulfilling prophecy??

I would've like to hear your "realistic" assessment for ending slavery, ending apartheid, ending the Cold War, passing the Civil Rights Act, etc.

[ProudDad]

20. Then why bother having primaries

and caucuses?

Why not just have Corporate CEO's vote for their favorite Dem and repuke and then we'll have to choose between them.

Of course, the current system operates in just that way -- we usually get Tweedledee and Tweedledum the two right-wings of the business party candidates under the current corporate financed electoral system.

[RufusTFirefly]

51. Who chooses?

This cover ran at the end of last year, more than two years before the first primary.

[ProudDad]

18. "Making him President won't get his health care plan passed"

but it would get it signed.

None of the others, bought and paid for by corporate amerika, would sign it.

[MonkeyFunk]

21. rather a pointless argument

because it wouldn't get to the desk of ANY president.

But yes Kucinich would sign an imaginary bill, if that makes you feel better.

[ProudDad]

25. If Kucinich could get elected President

I'm sure a Progressive Congress would be elected too.

I don't believe that Kucinich or a Progressive Congress can be elected now.

The corporate capitalist masters run the show and they won't allow it.

The People are too fearful or asleep or, usually, both to do anything about it although they would have the power.

These facts are not enough to make me abandon my principles. I will be voting for the MOST progressive candidate available in the Dem Primaries.


My question would for you is: are you for Universal Health CARE or not? If not, why not?

[MonkeyFunk]

50. Yes

I am for universal health care.

[Capn Sunshine]

14. He's totally right on that.

But he's not a viable candidate.

[ProudDad]

16. Without a doubt (n/t)

[EndElectoral]

22. Yes, absolutely

[nealmhughes]

31. Along with General Clark, yes.

[John Q. Citizen]

38. Has Clark come out for single payer, actually endorsed it? Or has he just put it

as an option to consider?

I ask, because last I checked he was at the latter.

Gore has endorsed single payer. Back in 2002.

[nealmhughes]

55. He said that he wants the same model he has: via the US Army for everyone.

I do not know if he has any specifics yet. I would assume that he would be keeping them close to his hat as the other candidates try to beat one another up, personally, then spring his Next Deal upon us all this Fall. At least that is what I hope.

[John Q. Citizen]

57. i think a Gore/Clark ticket would be very strong. We'd have a couple of

genius visionaries in the executive branch. Strong on defense, strong on peace, strong on the environment, strong on social and economic justice, and able to deal with a wide array of adversaries and entrenched assholes within the bureaucracy. And they would have a lot of allies to help them. They would compliment each others strengths and weaknesses.

[Progressive Friend]

32. Agreed

I agree, his position on health care is the best of any of the candidates.

[Hippo_Tron]

34. He is right that single-payer is the best form of coverage, but coverage isn't the only problem

Health care is only going to be as good as we are willing to pay for it. Taking profit out of coverage is going to make it less expensive. But we need to pay nurses more and invest in more medical schools to deal with the shortage of doctors. We also need to worry about a government that tends to cut budget deficits on domestic spending rather than touching the bloated Pentagon budget. For single-payer to work, we need to have our priorities straight.

[Greyhound]

35. As the only non-corporate candidate, of course he is. If you like the ass-fucking you've been taking

for the last 30 years, vote for one of those "electable" candidates, if not Kucinich is your choice.

[John Q. Citizen]

39. I'm working for Kucinich and hoping for Gore, who also has endorsed single payer.

[Greyhound]

54. He has said some good things, but until he actually enters the campaign,

I have to judge him by his previous record and that is simply terrible. He has been a strong advocate for corporate rule for many years.

I'm also very disappointed in Wes Clark's position on health care, it boils down to another multi-billion dollar giveaway to the insurance industry.

[John Q. Citizen]

58. I agree with you. Kucinich is the more honest, direct, no bullshit between

the two. Of course Dennis changed his views on choice, which is great, I think Gore has changed his views too, and embraced populism. They have slightly different styles, Dennis is more about what if..why not... and Gore is more about how do we get from here to there.

One thing that strikes me about both is that they both acheived certain measures of success, and then both were forced out and spent their own time in their own political wilderness so to speak. I think that in both cases it transformed them into better humans. Adversity seems to have that effect on many people.

I cast a stratigic vote for Nader in 2000 (I live in MT, I knew bush was going to take our 3 electoral votes) because of Gore's addiction to corporate power. I think he may have kicked it though. I hope so.

[TheFarseer]

41. any plan that doesn't address the high costs

of health care will fail. Don't tell me how making it a government program will reduce costs. I know first hand the abuses of Medicare. Healthcare workers run tests and get specialists just because someone can make a buck off the government, even when the extra service is totally unnecessary. Of course I'm not in favor of the current system, but I have to advise against blundering into a single payer system without thinking it through.

[DemBones DemBones]

45. Yes, and people should be supporting him for this and because

he will end the war, repeal the PATRIOT Act, get us out of NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT, and the WTO, and penalize corporations who offshore and outsource.

Naysayers need to stop with the "He can't win" and work to help him win. Donate $50 or more -- he's not taking corporate money.

With our help getting his message out -- past the media which is going to continue ignoring him -- he can reach the voters and win. He's for the things people want.

Help Dennis prove the pundits and DU naysayers wrong.

[Totally Committed]

47. I believe he is.

TC

[Vidar]

52. Of course.

[Cleita]

53. Yes, he is but so is Edwards. Kucinich wants to institute

single payer universal health care by extending an improved Medicare to all American citizens and residents and cutting out the middlemen, the private health insurers and HMO's. This would result in the health care dollars that are now reaped for profit by those entities would instead be delivered to the single payer government system that would disperse the money for actual health care for everyone. He is of course correct in this.

However, Edwards, also on the more practical side has surmised correctly that those for-profit health care entities aren't going to be put out of business so easily. They will pull every dirty trick in the business as they have in the past to derail any efforts towards this and sway the public with fear tactics and propaganda to turn public opinion against the idea. So he has proposed making an improved Medicare available on the market to compete with the private health care purveyors. Since Medicare can charge about two-thirds less for equal and perhaps more comprehensive health care than private insurers, Edwards theorizes that they won't be able to compete, making them get out of the business voluntarily and therefore paving the way for a plan like the one Kucinich proposes.

At the end of the day, if either candidate is elected President, he will have to push his plan through Congress first and that is where the health care cake will be baked in the end.

[LWolf]

56. Yes.

Kucinich is correct on health care.

He is correct on Iraq.

He is correct on civil liberties, on labor, on the environment, on public education, on media reform, on election reform...

What else does he need to be correct on to get the respect he deserves from his own party?