Dennis Kucinich: Health Care: Change the Debate

[marmar]

from Truthdig:



Health Care: Change the Debate

Posted on Jul 15, 2009
By Rep. Dennis Kucinich


In mid-May, in an effort to reach consensus, President Obama secured a deal with the health insurance companies to trim 1.5% of their costs each year for 10 years, saving a total of $2 trillion, which would be reprogrammed into health care. Just two days after the announcement at the White House, the insurance companies reneged on the deal that was designed to protect and increase their revenue at least 35%.

The insurance companies reneged on the deal because they refuse any restraint on increasing premiums, co-pays and deductibles—core to their profits. No wonder a recent USA Today poll found that only 4 percent of Americans trust insurance companies. This is within the margin of error, which means it is possible that no one trusts insurance companies.

Then why does Congress trust the insurance companies? Recently, HR 3200 “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act,” a 1,000-page bill, was delivered to members. The title of the bill raises a question: “Affordable” for whom?

Of $2.4 trillion spent annually for health care in America, fully $800 billion goes for the activities of the for-profit insurer-based system. This means one of every three health care dollars is siphoned off for corporate profits, stock options, executive salaries, advertising, marketing and the cost of paperwork (which can be anywhere between 15 to 35 percent in the private sector as compared to Medicare, the single payer plan which has only 3 percent administrative costs). ............(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090715_healthcare_change_the_debate/

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. As usual, Dennis hits the nail on the head

I don't think any small town MD or anyone who has to file insurance for said MD would disagree with what he says.

[Davis_X_Machina]

2. He sits in the House.

In the same Democratic caucus as this guy

You'd think he'd have some conception of what would and would not pass that body.

I get his point, but what, besides vote against the House version, and probably against the conference report, does he propose to do?

[RufusTFirefly]

4. Why is it not going to pass in the House? What's your explanation for that?

Is there a legitimate case to be made against Medicare for All? Or are you simply acknowledging the corruption of the system and suggesting that we just relax and enjoy it because we aren't going to be able to fight it?

Just curious.

Personally, I try to accept and respect legitimate disagreements on policy, but with all due respect, I don't think that's the case here. The insurance industry owns much of Congress. That's why we don't have Medicare for All.

[Davis_X_Machina]

5. Great.

I don't think that's the case here. The insurance industry owns much of Congress. That's why we don't have Medicare for All.

Having identified the problem, how do you solve it? And in what time-frame?

Me, I want a UK-style national health service. That's what my avatar (Democratic Socialists) is all about. But I'm not going to sit in the ruins of a broken system heightening the contradictions until the perfect bill, and a parliamentary majority both simultaneously occur.

[RufusTFirefly]

6. How to start solving the problem

We can begin by admitting that Medicare for All is not being defeated by the popular will. It is being defeated by corporate power and influence.

The explanations for why we can't do anything are downright tautological. It's like a mobius strip.

Currently, the "public option" is being set up as some sort of radical change by some, just as Pres. Obama was mislabeled a liberal in the last election. In each case, the resulting skirmish has been moved so far to the right that even if we "win," we don't really win.

The goal we should actually be fighting for is barely being discussed. And even when it is, it is treated with eye-rolling and derision. No wonder that Dennis Kucinich is out front on this. He understands that reaction all too well.

My genuine concern is even if it isn't thoroughly watered down by a desire for "compromise" that the so-called "public option" may actually prove to be almost worse than nothing as the government will be forced to provide health care on private industry's terms, where the most important thing is cost and not care.

Furthermore, I'm concerned that the resulting health care policy will be a fiasco that the Democrats will own in no uncertain terms, just as we now own Afghanistan. And if I'm right, when Nov. 2010 arrives, it isn't going to be pretty.

[slipslidingaway]

#8 n/t

[slipslidingaway]

3. delete - dupe