Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - Kucinich: Health reform = health insurance bailout

- Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)

- - Kucinich: Health reform = health insurance bailout (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/151759-kucinich-health-reform-health-insurance-bailout.html)

Kucinich: Health reform = health insurance bailout

I found this article very interesting. Basically he's saying the bill reads that you will be mandated to to carry health insurance and it only allows 11 million or so Americans to utilize a government option. Also the legislation allows insurance companies to increase their rates by up to 25%.

It is also interesting to note that his amendment takes a "state's rights" solution to the problem by allowing them to opt out of this federal program. Not a typical stance from a liberal.

Do you believe what he's saying is true? I haven't read the bill, but from what I've heard him say in the past I would think he's spot on.

Quote:

Kucinich: Health reform legislation ‘a bailout for insurance companies’

By Stephen C. Webster
Saturday, October 31st, 2009 -- 4:01 pm

According to Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), the Democrats' health reform legislation is basically a sham.

Appearing on MSNBC's The Ed Show on Friday night, the House's most unabashed progressive condemned Democratic leadership for removing his amendment that would allow states to create their own single-payer systems. Then he called the entire legislative package "a bailout for insurance companies."

Under a single-payer system, like those in Canada and the United Kingdom, the government pools taxpayer funds to pay for citizens' health care and fees are not collected by health care providers. The Kucinich amendment would allow individual states an opt-in to such a system.

The amendment is missing from health reform legislation unveiled Thursday by Democratic leadership.

"Representative Kucinich was livid when he found out that his provision to allow states to create a single payer system was stripped," News Junkie Post noted. "Kucinich’s amendment passed the House Labor and Education Committee in July. 'No one gave me any rational reason,' Kucinich said. 'I can only assume the insurance company interests brought pressure to take it out. Otherwise I would have heard from someone.'"
Story continues below...

"The [committee] vote was 25 to 19, with support coming from an odd mix of liberal Democrats who support single-payer on its merits and conservative Republicans who want to preserve the rights of states to regulate themselves," The Washington Independent noted at the time.

"The removal of the Kucinich amendment constitutes yet another capitulation to the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries who are already reaping billions of dollars from the bill," reads a statement from the congressman's office on Thursday.

Under the revised public option, "Pelosi and her team have proposed a plan that would not make payments for care based on Medicare rates ..." CBS News's John Nichols noted. "Rather, under the Pelosi plan, the rates be tied to those of the big insurance companies. That's a big, big victory for the insurance industry, as it will undermine the ability of the public option to compete -- and to create pressure for reduced costs."

Speaking to liberal MSNBC anchor Ed Schultz on Friday, Kucinich continued his assault on the legislation.

"I think we need the support of the American people to say, look, you need that state single-payer amendment in the bill to make it credible," the congressman said. "I mean, what are people giving up already? They're being mandated to buy private insurance. If you read the bill, the people are going to end up paying -- the insurance companies can raise rates 25 percent right off the bat, if you read the bill."

Schultz encouraged Kucinich to repeat himself on that point.

"It's on page 22 of the bill," he replied. "Right here, it says that rates shall be set at a level that does not exceed 125 percent of the prevailing standard rate for comparable coverage in the individual market. Now ... It's very easy to understand what that means."

"It's not reform," Schultz insisted.

"It means a 25 percent increase, they'll have the ability to execute and since insurance companies have already raised rates for the last four years by double-digits, we can expect -- based on the bill -- another rate increase by the insurance companies."

Schultz called the bill a "sellout" to insurers because the bill only allows 11 million people into a limited government-run health insurance option, and includes a mandate for Americans to buy private policies.

"Maybe instead of a sellout it's a bailout," Kucinich responded. "Maybe what we're looking at here is another way that Wall Street's speculative engine can be fueled, this time with the help of the premiums of tens of millions of Americans."

On his Web site, Kucinich took his point further, calling the legislation "a bailout for insurance companies" that must be altered.

"The Kucinich [single payer] amendment has been added to H.R. 3200 in the Education and Labor Committee, the amendment would permit states to enact a single-payer health care system," the congressman's Web site claimed.

YouTube - Congressman Kucinich on MSNBC, The Ed Show: "Restore State Single Payer"

I agree with him insofar as the current proposal is 10% of what it actually needs to be.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood (Post 2724130)

I agree with him insofar as the current proposal is 10% of what it actually needs to be.

but you disagree that it's a health insurance company bailout?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth (Post 2724141)

but you disagree that it's a health insurance company bailout?

I'm not sure it's designed to be that, but it certainly looks like that's a possible outcome of it. Mandating insurance coverage without a single payer system is forcing people to buy private insurance (especially if one's state decides to opt out of the public option).

I won't defend the health reform bill as currently conceived.....it's a fucking nightmare.

Kucinich is honest to a fault in my experience. I take this very seriously.

We need single payer.

Wouldn't surprise me if Kucinich is correct. Congress is usually pretty much completely inept when it comes to actually doing anything worthwhile (unless you happen to be a large industry).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel (Post 2724153)

Kucinich is honest to a fault in my experience. I take this very seriously.

We need single payer.

State based universal health care would be an interesting experiment. I would worry about how people from other states would get treated (and charged) however.

I really like Kucinich. I disagree with him on most everything, but he is a liberal with true conviction.

Quote:

Originally Posted by samcol (Post 2724123)

Do you believe what he's saying is true? I haven't read the bill, but from what I've heard him say in the past I would think he's spot on.

Yes. I also believe that there will be many disappointed people if this bill passes in it's present form. When asked, a majority of people seem to be in favor of a public option. However I don't think many realize that most people will not be given that choice and will have to accept whatever plan their employer furnishes.

I agree with him, because the proposal is 10% of what it is. :)

There will be many amendments added to this bill once it gets past this initial phase. The idea is that is when these things will get addressed and fixed. I'm not holding out a lot of hope, though.

The bill has been so watered down, it has become meaningless. It includes no "reform".

If the bill passes in its current form, I am not voting democrat in 2012.

Quote:

Originally Posted by docbungle (Post 2733862)

I dont think we will see many amendments at all.

And I'm still trying to understand how these provisions are no "reform"

end the practice of insurance companies denying coverage to anyone with pre-existing conditions.

prevent insurance companies from raising rates or dropping coverage for those who suddenly face a serious illness.

cap annual out-of-pocket expenses so that no one faces significant unanticipated expenses or goes bankrupt as a result of a medical crisis.

drop all copays for preventive care.

ends any existing lifetime caps on what insurance companies will currently pay.

provide affordable choices to the uninsured through an Exchange offering multiple plans with different levels of coverage at different costs.

place limits on the administration costs as percent of premiums, thus limiting premium increases.

end the market monopoly in many states, where choices are currently severely restricted, thus opening those markets to increased competition....and increased competition breeds lower costs for consumers.

I like Kucinich, his extreme positions like Ron Paul on the other end, are important to have represented in Congress, but rarely represent pragmatic solutions that would generate enough support from colleagues to ever be enacted.

And I think he has it wrong on the the legislation allowing insurance companies to increase their rates by up to 25%.

As I understand it, the bills limit annual cost-sharing (deductibles, co-payments, etc., but not premiums) to the current (2010) limits for Health Savings Accounts as established by IRS.

In regard to premiums, the bills require health plans to report the proportion of premium dollars spent on services (as opposed to administrative costs) and provide rebates to consumers for the amount of the premium spent on non-claims costs that exceeds 25%. (perhaps that is where he is getting the 25%).

These bills are far from perfect and rely heavily on the existing private insurance based system....but they absolutely represent reform by any measure.

A single payer system does not have anywhere near the level of support required to be enacted and the Democrats will never get a larger majority than presently exists....IMO, as much as I would like to see it, a single payer system is a pipe dream.

To insist on single payer or nothing will result in nothing.

I know that works for some on the left....but not for me.

Hi
I agree with him, because the proposal is 10% of what it is. :) :thumbsup: :paranoid: