Kucinich on health care - from his email ....

[slipslidingaway]

"...Together with Representative John Conyers, I’ve led the effort on single-payer, passed an amendment in committee to protect the rights of states to pursue single-payer and voted in committee for the bill that had a public option. I will continue to oppose any healthcare bill that does not have a robust public option. I will never give up on the dream of Medicare for All! Your continued support makes it possible for me to take strong progressive positions."

[laughingliberal]

1. Looks as if he will vote for a bill with a robust public option.

And continue to push for single payer. I like that.

[slipslidingaway]

5. Me too, here is what he said about the public option ...

Kucinich - 'Kip Sullivan has figured out the real story' - Bait and Switch author ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6458841&mesg_id=6458841

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090903_dont_be_fooled_by_the_public_option/?ln

"....The fight over the public option has occupied much of the media coverage, but left unsaid is the fact that weeks of behind-the-scenes negotiations have weakened the public option proposal to the point that it is hardly an option at all.

I discussed the matter with Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio. Kucinich favors universal health insurance coverage, not the public option. So do I.

A health care reform bill was approved by the House Energy and Commerce Committee in July. Kucinich said that a final version—the real bill—is now being rewritten and will be presented to committee chairs and other leaders, who will bring the revised version to the House floor. “It’s happening now,” he said. “It’s being done by the leadership, and we don’t know what’s going on.”

Kucinich is the author of an amendment to the House bill that would ease federal barriers to states wanting to enact universal care plans of their own. Legislators are engaged in such efforts in California, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota, Montana, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Washington. He told me it “was one of the few provisions in a badly flawed bill that could provide benefits.”

Kucinich suggested I read articles written by health insurance expert Kip Sullivan on the Web site of Physicians for a National Health Program, which advocates government-run universal health care. Sullivan, he said, has figured out the real story..."


http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/07/20/bait-and-switch-how-the-%E2%80%9Cpublic-option%E2%80%9D-was-sold/

http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/08/08/reply-to-critics-of-%E2%80%9Cbait-and-switch-how-the-%E2%80%98public-option%E2%80%99-was-sold%E2%80%9D/

"by Kip Sullivan, JD

Conservatives never base their opposition to single-payer on the ground that it is “politically infeasible.” They oppose single-payer on policy grounds and they say so. The “political feasibility” argument is used exclusively by proponents of universal health insurance who profess to admire single-payer systems but who refuse to support single-payer legislation in any meaningful way (and often support legislation that impedes single-payer’s progress) on the ground that single-payer cannot be enacted, soon or at all. Merton Bernstein and Ted Marmor refer to these people as “political yes buts.”

“Political yes buts” have been lecturing single-payer advocates since the modern American single-payer movement began in the late 1980s. Several “yes buts” took issue with a comment I posted on July 20 on this blog entitled “Bait and switch: How the ‘public option’ was sold.” In that comment, I compared the original version of the “public option” promoted by Jacob Hacker, the intellectual godfather of the idea, and Health Care for America Now (HCAN) with the version incorporated in two bills introduced by congressional Democrats in July.

I reported that Hacker’s original proposal called for a public health insurance program that would enroll 130 million people whereas the “public option” contained in the Democrats’ House bill would enroll 10 million at most and the “public option” in the Democrats’ Senate HELP Committee bill would enroll approximately no one. (Now that Democrats in the House have compromised away to the Blue Dogs a requirement that the “public option” use Medicare’s rates plus 5 percent, I assume the Congressional Budget Office will attribute roughly zero enrollment to the House version too.)

I stated that a “public option” with zero to 10 million enrollees might not survive and, if it did, it would have little effect on health care costs and the number of uninsured and underinsured. I criticized the leaders of the “public option” movement for failing to notify the public that the mousey “options” in the Democrats’ bills bear no resemblance to the huge “public option” originally proposed by Hacker and celebrated by HCAN..."

[quiet.american]

2. So, the Senate bill does pave the way for state single-payer & he's still voting against it.

Why does that sound familiar.

[slipslidingaway]

6. Would you please point to the robust public option in the Senate bill...

also see post #5.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7679592&mesg_id=7679695


"Kucinich suggested I read articles written by health insurance expert Kip Sullivan on the Web site of Physicians for a National Health Program, which advocates government-run universal health care. Sullivan, he said, has figured out the real story..."


"I reported that Hacker’s original proposal called for a public health insurance program that would enroll 130 million people whereas the “public option” contained in the Democrats’ House bill would enroll 10 million at most and the “public option” in the Democrats’ Senate HELP Committee bill would enroll approximately no one."

[quiet.american]

7. No, because it's not there, but I'll point to my point about single-payer:

WASHINGTON, December 19 – A $10 billion investment in community health centers, expected to go to $14 billion when Congress completes work on health care reform legislation, was included in a final series of changes to the Senate bill unveiled today.

The provision, which would provide primary care for 25 million more Americans, was requested by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

He said the additional resources will help bring about a revolution in primary health care in America and create new or expanded health centers in an additional 10,000 communities. The provision would also provide loan repayments and scholarships through the National Health Service Corps to create an additional 20,000 primary care doctors, dentists, nurse practitioners, physician assistants and mental health professionals.

Very importantly, Sanders also said the provision would save Medicaid tens of billions of dollars by keeping patients out of emergency rooms and hospitals by providing primary care when then needed it.

Sanders has worked with House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) to include $14 billion in the House version of the legislation.

Sanders is also working with Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) to improve language already in the bill to provide waivers for states that want to provide comprehensive, affordable health care and curb rapidly-rising costs for money-making private health insurance companies. The waivers could clear the way for a state-run, single-payer system.

http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=30b2a415-4ade-4367-af7d-4c3306e31b58

[laughingliberal]

9. "working with Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) to improve language for states

that want to provide comprehensive, affordable health care and curb rapidly-rising costs for money-making private health insurance companies. The waivers could clear the way for a state-run, single-payer system."

Well, get it done. Then we'll see. Pretty nebulous at this point.

[quiet.american]

11. However, the language is already in the bill. Along w/billions for local health centers.

Pretty good start to me.

[slipslidingaway]

13. We do not need this mandate to buy private insurance bill in order provide...

more money for local health care centers.

One of the things Kucinich has said is that we can pass some of the good parts without giving the private insurance companies mandated customers.

The insurance companies have been losing customers and they stand to lose many more in the next couple of years as the boomers begin to move to Medicare, they know this and wanted this bill even before Obama was elected.

What they do not want is competition through a strong PO, but what they fear most is a national, not for profit HC system that well over half of the American people want.

[quiet.american]

20. I prefer Sanders' way - he didn't like the bill, but he tremendously improved it.

And improved it in a real-world way that will help not only Sanders' district, but the districts nationally of his fellow Democrats.

Kucinich votes no, and if his vote were the deciding one, what is his district is left with? Nothing.

Constructive participation vs. destruction participation. That's what I'm talking about.

[slipslidingaway]

25. Kucinich did as well - Dennis Kucinich; Exciting Single Payer Healthcare Update

People make it sound as if Kucinich is sitting in a corner saying I will not work or make any compromises - I want my way!

The real difference that I see is that some people are willing to CONTINUE compromising instead of saying at some point that the bad outweighs the good.

Kucinich has said that there are mandates for people to buy private insurance, but there is no cap on premiums.

And now "surprisingly" Sebelius and Obama are talking about the 39% BCBS increase in California - DUH!


http://www.opednews.com/articles/Dennus-Kucinich-Exciting-by-Dennis-Kucinich-090717-293.html

July 17, 2009

"Dear Friends,

With your support, your phone
calls, your emails, we won a major legislative victory today for a
state single payer health care option in the House of Representatives
in Washington, DC. The House Education and Labor Committee approved the
Kucinich Amendment by a vote of 27-19, with 14 Democrats and 13
Republicans voting yes.

...Under the Kucinich Amendment a state's application for a waiver from ERISA is
granted automatically if the state has signed into law a single payer
plan. With the amendment, for the first time, the state single payer
health care option is shielded from an ERISA-based legal attack. Now
that the underlying bill has been passed, as amended, by the full
committee, we must make sure that Congress knows that we want the
provision kept in the bill at final passage!

The state single payer option was one of five major amendments which I obtained support
to get included in HR3200..."

[Lydia Leftcoast]

32. Excellent!

This will be great for the single-payer efforts in states like California and Minnesota.

[slipslidingaway]

36. Except that the Dems took it out of the final House bill ...

it was reported that Pelosi did this at the request of the WH. Who else would object to this amendment other than the insurance companies.

:(


Pelosi: Single-Payer Amendment Breaks Obama's Health Care Promise

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/05/pelosi-single-payer-amend_n_347017.html

"An amendment to allow states to pursue single-payer health care without incurring insurance-industry lawsuits was stripped from the House bill, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Thursday, adding that it would break President Obama's commitment to people keeping their current insurance plan if they like it..."

[Lydia Leftcoast]

38. Damn, they are so totally corrupt

What good are they?

[557188]

42. Sanders did nothing to improve it

He sold out. You can't improve mandatory corporate insurance. A socialist should know that and Sanders proved he's a capitalist pig like the rest of them.

Kucinich is the one who is actually working to improve it.

[laughingliberal]

16. then why are they working to improve the language?

I'm glad it's good enough for you. It is not for me. There are still too many loopholes in the bill with which to screw the consumers who will be ordered to buy the insurance. Leaving in the rescission loophole was a big fuck you to the American people compliments of the Senate corporatists. Letting the Ensign amendment in there to allow your employer access to your PHI is criminal. Oh, wait. It's not. Cause BUSH signed an executive order allowing employers to invade your privacy in this way. Add in the seeds for the privatization of Medicare and it's beyond a bad bill. It's a destructive bill.

I know people are sincere in their belief that this bill will help but I also know they are in for some serious disappointment if it passes.

[quiet.american]

19. Because perhaps if you can't leap a tall building in a single bound, you shouldn't just walk away?nt

[laughingliberal]

27. That's all well and good

but I wouldn't fault anyone for not voting for it until it's improved.

[slipslidingaway]

12. As Kucinich said ...

"...I will continue to oppose any healthcare bill that does not have a robust public option..."

P.Obama listed in his HC plan that ANYONE would have the choice of a public plan or a private plan, that is not what is in the bills.

There was a time when Obama made the case for the public option as it was needed to control HC costs, we start to lose the price controls when the PO becomes a shadow of itself or is eliminated altogether.

Was the P. Obama wrong then and correct now.

:shrug:

[quiet.american]

21. So, he continues to oppose based on a boat that's sailed, & says "no" to real help for his district.

As far as public vs. private, there will be an exchange, and two national plans administered by OPM as well as Sen. Sanders' newly-created community health centers. If your employer covers you already and it does not exceed a certain percentage of your income, then no, you're not eligible to shop the exchanges. All others not covered have access. If you lose your job, you'll have access as well as subsidies. CBO stated 93%-96% will be covered. That's a good start to me.

[slipslidingaway]

24. It really is funny, there are times that whatever Kucinich does or does...

not do are so important in the discussions here at DU, people love to bash his one vote.

Many of the same people defend whatever Obama does, he is at the mercy of the Congress we are told, obviously he gets no media attention and has no sway over Congress.

Kucinich did not make the back room deals with the for profit companies, only Obama had that power as President.

Obama went back on his campaign promises with respect to HC, unfortunately he kept his campaign promises in regards to Afghanistan and not being able to see any crimes from the Bush administration that were worthy of investigation.

[frazzled]

3. At this point, you can't argue that he is trying to exert leverage ...

to get a public option in. He will vote against any health care bill, along with the Republicans. It's SOP for Kucinich, but it's predictably sad. I'm sure Nancy Pelosi wasn't counting on his vote anyway.

[laughingliberal]

10. I think what I read is he said he will vote against any bill without a robust public option

I did not read where he said he would vote against any health care bill.

[frazzled]

18. Yes, and there was never even a robust public option in the House Bill

It was a fairly weak public option. He voted against that bill. So there is virtually no bill that could arise at this point out of House-Senate negotiations that he would ever vote for. It's an empty threat.

I might as well say, "I'll rescind my million-dollar gift to you." I don't have a million dollars, and never will.

[slipslidingaway]

23. Well actually there was an interview in which he stated that even though...

he felt the PO was weak, if it contained language which would make it easier for a state SP, then he probably would vote for the bill.

Then the WH asked Pelosi to exclude his amendment from the final bill and he did not vote for that version.

When do you say enough is enough and withhold support?

As you said the PO has already been weakened more than enough, at some point you have to pull back and say that there are already too many compromises - you have to draw that line somewhere. Otherwise you might as well join the corporations and vote for their wishes, individual mandates with no or a weak PO.

[slipslidingaway]

17. Why do you think the WH asked Pelosi to exclude the state waiver...

in the final bill?

Why have the Democrats not scored HR 676 or allowed any discussion of a national HC system?

What value do the private insurance companies add to our HC system?

And why the hell can we not even discuss this in Congress?

[ecstatic]

4. yada yada...

:eyes:

[RC]

8. The only robust public option than means anything is

Single Payer Universal Health Care! Why is it so right for the rest of the world and Off the Table for Americans?

[PufPuf23]

15. Probably related to why impeachment was off the table

for GWB/Cheney and why war and financial criminals are getting off scott-free while the eoplee their freedoms.

[slipslidingaway]

22. It really is amazing, had a long conversation with a relative in the UK yesterday...

he cannot understand why Americans will not even discuss a national health care system.

One example was prescription drug costs, I think it was in pounds but it really does not matter, are 12 pounds per prescription or if you know your drug costs will be high then you can pay 150 pounds for the entire year for any prescription you may need. And that is only for people who are not receiving any government assistance and under a certain age, the others pay nothing.

He then went on to point out that life expectancy rates were higher in the UK, per capita spending is almost a third of what we pay in the US and many other aspects of their costs vs. our costs including college (3000) and property taxes.

We really are a backwards nation when we cannot even have a meaningful dialogue on various HC systems and are constantly told it is the mandated private insurance company bill or nothing. It would be one thing if we told this by the other party, but this is coming from people who are supposed to be fighting for the little guys, although that is not what I see.

:(

[Lydia Leftcoast]

31. This past summer, the Guardian had an article about the Conservative

who bad-mouthed the NHS on Fox News.

The article generated over 800 responses, and since it was a slow work day, I read all of them.

The people who responded were about 80% positive to the NHS, and this included people who had experienced both the British and U.S. systems (Brits who had lived in the U.S. and Americans who had lived in the UK). Of the people who didn't like the NHS, most of them said that they preferred some Continental European system or the Canadian system. One person (ONE) said that he preferred the U.S. system because he could make more money as a doctor there.

By the way, the British system is, I suppose, a single-payer system, but it's more accurate to call it a huge public health system, since most providers are government employees and most hospitals and clinics are government-owned. It also has a private option.

So if anyone tries to criticize Canadian health care by telling you horror stories from a British tabloid or criticize the British system by quoting horror stories from a Canadian tabloid, they clearly don't know what they're talking about.

[slipslidingaway]

33. Thanks for the comments, there may be complaints at times ...

but the majority of people would rather keep their system.

You are right, for the most part the UK system is like our VA system, government owned facilities and staff are employed by the government, and that is not what is being talked about with HR676. If you have the money in the UK then you have the best of both worlds, access to the NHS and access to the private clinics.

My understanding is that private insurance allows quicker access to some of the private doctors, you still may be able to see these doctors as a NHS patient, but the wait time could be longer.


http://www.privatehealth.co.uk/privatespecialists/harley-street-london/

"...Many of the doctors and surgeons working in the private clinics of Harley Street are consultants and specialists who also work in the NHS and are attached to the London teaching hospitals..."

[Lydia Leftcoast]

37. A few months ago, I posted a question about British health care in the UK Forum

Here's the link--

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=191x27448

[slipslidingaway]

39. This comment is how I understand the system to work ...

thanks for the link. If there is an emergency then many people say using the NHS system is superior, best of both worlds if you have the money to pay private insurance. Me relative said that the private insurance costs them about 2000. per year for a couple.

:)


"As far as I'm aware, bearing in mind I'm UK ,
private consultations cost about $100 here in your terms. In our case any prescriptions are still covered by the NHS anyway assuming them to be for approved drugs by approved by the NHS which is most of them. Private prescriptions don't cost bundles anyway. I used to need augmentin / amoxicillin clav occasionally for tooth absesses upper jaw and the presciption cost about $20 to be filled at the chemists.

My daughter needed some specific blood tests to done privately and she said the tests were $ 70 for each specific test. These were for vitamin D deficiency etc and were coverd by her private health insurance.

BTW - most in the UK who use private medical insurance do so to get faster rather than better treatment and also to ensure better accomodation for hospital treatment."

[fascisthunter]

14. thank you Kucinich

[slipslidingaway]

26. Thank you! :) n/t

[flvegan]

28. 'Tis a shame he's not president.

Not a strike against Obama, per se, but I do think DK would stand firm on his demands and send any shit bill back to congress.

He might also have ended some wars...

Nevermind, I'll stop.

[slipslidingaway]

29. Yes, it would have been great to discuss a national HC system for ....

everyone, not to mention wars etc.

He would not have made that deal with Pharma.

:)

[amborin]

30. kudos to Kucinich! a great progressive leader! n/t

[Echo In Light]

34. +1

[slipslidingaway]

35. Yes :) n/t

[mzmolly]

40. 10,000 Community Heatlh Care Clinics and the expansion of medicaid are 'robust public options.'

It's not "progressive" to deny progress.

[slipslidingaway]

41. I do not believe that Medicaid and Community Health Centers were the public option Obama...

envisioned during his campaign, maybe I am wrong.

:shrug:


BARACK OBAMA AND JOE BIDEN’S PLAN TO LOWER HEALTH CARE COSTS
AND ENSURE AFFORDABLE, ACCESSIBLE HEALTH COVERAGE FOR ALL

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/HealthCareFullPlan.pdf

"...Through the Exchange, any American will have the opportunity to enroll in the new public plan or an approved private plan, and income-based sliding scale tax credits will be provided for people and families who need it..."

[NorthCarolina]

43. K&R for America's Congressman.

:patriot: