samcol

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.

__________________
It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize.

Derwood

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

dksuddeth

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

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Derwood

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.

Willravel

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

We need single payer.

filtherton

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).

ASU2003

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.

aceventura3

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

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

flstf

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.

AudreeArrington

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

docbungle

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.

__________________
Bad Luck City

dc_dux

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.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

AudreeArrington

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