Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Last July, Kucinich claimed the bill was stronger and would hold insurance companies accountable

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 04:46 PM
Original message
Last July, Kucinich claimed the bill was stronger and would hold insurance companies accountable
Edited on Mon Mar-15-10 04:57 PM by ProSense
He based his comments on these provision:

Kucinich Strengthens Health Care Bill

Secures Four Amendments in Health Care Reform Bill

Congressman Kucinich 111th

Washington, Jul 17, 2009 -

In addition to securing a historic victory for states’ single-payer health care, Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) today won adoption of four other amendments in HR 3200, America’s Affordable Health Choices Act. The Kucinich amendments:

• drive down the cost and increase the access of prescription drugs by ending the pharmaceutical industry’s practice of manipulating physician prescribing habits to pharmaceutical representatives;
• ending the insurance industry practice of raising costs or decreasing coverage for Americans during the time Americans are not allowed to switch plans;
• require the disclosure of insurance company costs like advertising and marketing costs, as well as executive compensation, that use consumer’s money to increase profits instead of covering care;
• improve access to integrative medicine by requiring its consideration for standard coverage and by requiring the identification of integrative medicine providers .

“With the addition of this language, this is a stronger bill that will protect Americans and hold health insurance companies accountable to their customers,” said Kucinich.

How on earth did Kucinich come to the conclusion that those provisions would hold health insurance companies accountable? Also how has the bill changed since then? Well, it includes:

Sanders' sate single payer provision.


This:

The president’s bill would grant the federal health and human services secretary new authority to review, and to block, premium increases by private insurers, potentially superseding state insurance regulators. The bill would create a new Health Insurance Rate Authority, comprised of health industry experts that would issue an annual report setting the parameters for reasonable rate increases based on conditions in the market.

link



This:

You’ll buy your individual plan from a health insurance exchange where all plans will have to meet minimum standards for coverage and spend about 80 to 85 percent of premiums on health care on their customers, instead of on overhead, profits, and executive perks.

link



This:

Another piece of the proposal would allow the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to regulate the interactions between brand-name and generic drug companies. At issue is the revelation that brand-name drug companies have been paying off generic drug companies for support on patent extensions for certain drugs. This means that consumers will see serious delays in the release of certain generic drugs and therefore still face the higher costs of brand-name drugs. The FTC is filing suit against the drug companies to end this practice and the White House proposal aims to give the FTC authority to regulate and end this practice. The summary of the proposal states that the White House would, “ anti-competitive and unlawful any agreement in which a generic drug manufacturer receives anything of value from a brand-name drug manufacturer that contains a provision in which the generic drug manufacturer agrees to limit or forego research, development, marketing, manufacturing or sales of the generic drug.” The White House claims that payouts to generic drug companies cost consumers up to $35 billion a year.

link


What I'm not understanding is why Kucinich believes these significant accountability measures make the bill less likely to "hold health insurance companies accountable"?





edited extra word, typos
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Eric J in MN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 04:51 PM
Response to Original message
1. Kucinich on the Sanders' single-payer amendment
Edited on Mon Mar-15-10 04:52 PM by Eric J in MN
REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: "Well, it provides for a waiver; it doesn’t grant the waiver. And it takes effect 2017. But by then, we’ll already have a system in place that will be very difficult to move out of. And it doesn’t cure the attack that insurance companies can make on state plans using the Employee—the ERISA Act. And so, my amendment that was passed in committee would have protected states from illegal challenge by insurance companies. The Sanders amendment doesn’t do that, so you still have the problem that, no matter what reforms are enacted, can be knocked out. I mean, I talked to the President personally about this. I’ve met with the President three times on this bill. The White House knows my position."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x221649
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Sanders' amendment
is superior to Kucinich's.

Still, what does that have to do with holding insurances companies accountable?





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eric J in MN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. Making states wait until 2017 to apply, and then perhaps getting rejected...
...doesn't seem better.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. It's better because
Kucinich amendment: "instead of the public health insurance option or the National Health Exchange."

Now why do you suppose Kucinich's amendment gained the support of 13 Republicans in committee?

Right now, what's to stop a Republican governor from requesting (not applying, but requesting) the waiver just to opt out of the national plan?

No support, no funding, just a desire.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eric J in MN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-16-10 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #8
16. 13 Republicans also want states to be able to address health care their own way...
...and that proves Kucinich is wrong?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-16-10 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. So because you and Kucinich have faith in Republicans
people in their states with Republican governors should be denied access to the public option and national exchange?

Why include this provision?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eric J in MN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-16-10 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. So that a state going single-payer has a bigger pool in its single-payer plan. NT
NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 05:06 PM
Response to Original message
3. No more comments? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Winterblues Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 05:13 PM
Response to Original message
4. The House Bill is but it isn't what is going to be passed.
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 05:17 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. That doesn't address the question n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 05:52 PM
Response to Original message
7. More cries of "burn the heretic?" Color me surprised. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Moronic. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-16-10 12:42 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. Most of these screeds you post are, yes. Glad you agree. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-16-10 01:02 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Ignis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-16-10 01:04 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. Please provide one iota of proof I'm a "cultist."
Thanks for the unfounded smear, by the way. :hi: It says a lot about you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-16-10 01:08 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-16-10 08:23 AM
Response to Reply #10
14. Why not refute the OP? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
suzie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-16-10 08:33 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Edweird Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-16-10 04:22 PM
Response to Original message
19. You sure you want to start bringing up what people said? Obama has said a lot.
It's all on video.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-16-10 04:28 PM
Response to Original message
20. Notice how he links to his previous screed to 'verify' his false premise, which has or course, been
thoroughly debunked many times for the distortion and outright lies it contains.

Right out of the Neo-con playbook;

Person A tells person B a lie that person B repeats to reporter C who 'confirms' with person A...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 10:22 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC