Kucinich // Current

Democrat-Led healthcare reform could make things WORSE

WHOO! The Democrats in Congress passed a bill! Healthcare for all! Awesome! Right?... more

asherp
added this
10 days ago
|
4 comments

Congressman Dennis Kucinich on His Vote

After voting against H.R. 3962 - Affordable Health Care for America Act, Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) today made the following statement:

“We have been led to believe that we must make our health care choices only within the current structure of a predatory, for-profit insurance system which makes money not providing health care. We cannot fault the insurance companies for being what they are. But we can fault legislation in which the government incentivizes the perpetuation, indeed the strengthening, of the for-profit health insurance industry, the very source of the problem. When health insurance companies deny care or raise premiums, co-pays and deductibles they are simply trying to make a profit. That is our system.

“Clearly, the insurance companies are the problem, not the solution. They are driving up the cost of health care. Because their massive bureaucracy avoids paying bills so effectively, they force hospitals and doctors to hire their own bureaucracy to fight the insurance companies to avoid getting stuck with an unfair share of the bills. The result is that since 1970, the number of physicians has increased by less than 200% while the number of administrators has increased by 3000%. It is no wonder that 31 cents of every health care dollar goes to administrative costs, not toward providing care. Even those with insurance are at risk. The single biggest cause of bankruptcies in the U.S. is health insurance policies that do not cover you when you get sick.

“But instead of working toward the elimination of for-profit insurance, H.R. 3962 would put the government in the role of accelerating the privatization of health care. In H.R. 3962, the government is requiring at least 21 million Americans to buy private health insurance from the very industry that causes costs to be so high, which will result in at least $70 billion in new annual revenue, much of which is coming from taxpayers. This inevitably will lead to even more costs, more subsidies, and higher profits for insurance companies — a bailout under a blue cross.

http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=153995After voting against H.R. 3962 - Affordable Health Care for America Act, Congressman... more

remanns
added this
14 days ago
|
0 comments

Corporations Win Again - Healthcare

We shouldn't have been surprised. I'm right now working on a book that exposes anew our corporate-owned government, which didn't change in any way when hope was reported to have prevailed a year ago. The new day in Washington when lobbyists would supposedly take backseats to citizen needs became instead The Washington Post calling last summer the Summer Of The Lobbyist. We're seeing now that insurance industry lobbyists did their work well.

Thus, I wouldn't get too excited about health care reform just yet. The word "historic" has been liberally tossed around everywhere since the House bill passed by five votes on Saturday night, but commentators in other countries noticed before the bill even made it to vote that it's ludicrously light fare compared to citizen health coverage in other countries.

The House bill -- which is more ambitious than the Senate bill -- does almost nothing to contain runaway health care costs. Those are what threaten to consume one-fifth of the US gross domestic product in coming years. Health insurance companies are surely laughing themselves silly as the bill would force people to buy insurance from them. The remnant of the public insurance option is pretty barebones, so those unable to pay for insurance won't be well covered.

Nothing is law yet and it remains to be seen if reform will get through, but even if it does, it's almost guaranteed to turn into another bonanza for health corporations, more national debt, and little improvement in access to health care. That's the worst of all combinations, but seems to so often be the one we get. More spending with real benefits would be good, less spending and thus less collected in taxes so we have more left over to get our own coverage would be good, but more spending and little new coverage is not good.

I'm afraid this will end the way so many issues end, with corporations winning while citizens get screwed.

In my opinion, the best summary of what's wrong with the ramshackle attempt to reform American health care was presented by Ohio Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich in his article, Why I Voted No. I recommend that you read it. At just 770 words long, it's worth your time.We shouldn't have been surprised. I'm right now working on a book that exposes anew... more

asherp
added this
15 days ago
|
0 comments

Common Dreams.org-- Kucinich's Brave health Vote Vs Obama's Broken Promises

There were plenty of cowardly votes in the House last night but there was only one... more

asherp
added this
15 days ago
|
0 comments

Is the House Healthcare Bill Better or Worse Than Nothing?

Well, the House health reform bill -- known to Republicans as the Government Takeover... more

asherp
added this
15 days ago
|
2 comments

Six Smart Progressive Complaints about HR 3962

The Affordable Health Care for America Act was approved by the U.S. House Saturday night with overwhelming support from progressive Democrats who serve in the chamber and from a president who was nominated and elected with the enthusiastic support of progressive voters.

But that does not mean that informed and engaged progressives are entirely enthusiastic about the measure.

In fact, some are openly and explicitly opposed to it -- among them former Congressional Progressive Caucus chair Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, and CPC member Eric Massa, D-New York, both of whom broke with the majority of their fellow Democrats to vote "no" when the House approved the measure by a narrow 220-215 vote Saturday.

How can this be?

Isn't this a fight between Democrats and Republicans? Between reforming liberals and tea-party conservatives?

How can there possible be any subtlety or nuance to this debate?

Well, of course, the debate over this 1,900-page behemoth of a bill is more complicated than the easy spin of political insiders -- and media cheering sections -- would have Americans believe.

Key interest groups, such as the National Organization for Women, and key congressmen who have been long-term supporters of reform, such as single-payer backers Massa and Kucinich, argue that the bill is not the cure for what ails the U.S. health care system.

Indeed, they suggest, the bill as it is currently constructed could make a bad situation worse.

Many sincere progressives in the House, and outside of it, chose to back the bill as the best that could be gotten. Others supported it on the theory that flaws could be fixed in the Senate and in the reconciliation of the House and Senate bills.

But those repairs will only be made if activists are conscious of what ails this bill.

For that reason, even supporters of the House legislation would be wise to consider the criticisms of it by groups that advocate for the rights of women, patient advocates, unions and some of the most progressive members of the House.

Here are six smart progressive complaints about the House bill: [con't at link]The Affordable Health Care for America Act was approved by the U.S. House Saturday... more

asherp
added this
15 days ago
|
0 comments

Kucinich Opposes Pelosi's HR 3962 Private Insurance Mandate

Take heed republicrats, wealthcare reform is not a liberal or conservative issue. Both... more

bowfinger
added this
15 days ago
|
4 comments

Kucinich's No Vote on Healthcare Explained: HR3962 is Pro-Insurance Industry

Congressman Dennis Kucinich after voting against H.R. 3962 addresses why he voted NO, stating (http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=153995):

"We have been led to believe that we must make our health care choices only within the current structure of a predatory, for-profit insurance system which makes money not providing health care. We cannot fault the insurance companies for being what they are. But we can fault legislation in which the government incentivizes the perpetuation, indeed the strengthening, of the for-profit health insurance industry, the very source of the problem. When health insurance companies deny care or raise premiums, co-pays and deductibles they are simply trying to make a profit. That is our system."

"Clearly, the insurance companies are the problem, not the solution. They are driving up the cost of health care. Because their massive bureaucracy avoids paying bills so effectively, they force hospitals and doctors to hire their own bureaucracy to fight the insurance companies to avoid getting stuck with an unfair share of the bills. The result is that since 1970, the number of physicians has increased by less than 200% while the number of administrators has increased by 3000%. It is no wonder that 31 cents of every health care dollar goes to administrative costs, not toward providing care. Even those with insurance are at risk. The single biggest cause of bankruptcies in the U.S. is health insurance policies that do not cover you when you get sick."

"But instead of working toward the elimination of for-profit insurance, H.R. 3962 would put the government in the role of accelerating the privatization of health care. In H.R. 3962, the government is requiring at least 21 million Americans to buy private health insurance from the very industry that causes costs to be so high, which will result in at least $70 billion in new annual revenue, much of which is coming from taxpayers. This inevitably will lead to even more costs, more subsidies, and higher profits for insurance companies - a bailout under a blue cross."

"By incurring only a new requirement to cover pre-existing conditions, a weakened public option, and a few other important but limited concessions, the health insurance companies are getting quite a deal. The Center for American Progress' blog, Think Progress, states, 'since the President signaled that he is backing away from the public option, health insurance stocks have been on the rise.' Similarly, healthcare stocks rallied when Senator Max Baucus introduced a bill without a public option. Bloomberg reports that Curtis Lane, a prominent health industry investor, predicted a few weeks ago that 'money will start flowing in again' to health insurance stocks after passage of the legislation. Investors.com last month reported that pharmacy benefit managers share prices are hitting all-time highs, with the only industry worry that the Administration would reverse its decision not to negotiate Medicare Part D drug prices, leaving in place a Bush Administration policy."

"During the debate, when the interests of insurance companies would have been effectively challenged, that challenge was turned back. The 'robust public option' which would have offered a modicum of competition to a monopolistic industry was whittled down from an initial potential enrollment of 129 million Americans to 6 million. An amendment which would have protected the rights of states to pursue single-payer health care was stripped from the bill at the request of the Administration. Looking ahead, we cringe at the prospect of even greater favors for insurance companies."

"Recent rises in unemployment indicate a widening separation between the finance economy and the real economy. The finance economy considers the health of Wall Street, rising corporate profits, and banks' hoarding of cash, much of it from taxpayers, as sign of an economic recovery. However in the real economy - in which most Americans live - the recession is not over. Rising unemployment, business failures, bankruptcies and foreclosures are still hammering Main Street."

"This health care bill continues the redistribution of wealth to Wall Street at the expense of America's manufacturing and service economies which suffer from costs other countries do not have to bear, especially the cost of health care. America continues to stand out among all industrialized nations for its privatized health care system. As a result, we are less competitive in steel, automotive, aerospace and shipping while other countries subsidize their exports in these areas through socializing the cost of health care."

"Notwithstanding the fate of H.R. 3962, America will someday come to recognize the broad social and economic benefits of a not-for-profit, single-payer health care system, which is good for the American people and good for America's businesses, with of course the notable exceptions being insurance and pharmaceuticals."

Please know the struggle for real health care reform will continue. Contribute, we can make a difference.

Thank you.
The Re-Elect Congressman Kucinich Committee
http://kucinich.us/hcpetitionCongressman Dennis Kucinich after voting against H.R. 3962 addresses why he voted NO,... more

JonRaymond
added this
16 days ago
|
0 comments

Kucinich's Brave Health Vote Vs. Obama's Failed Promise

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lee-stranahan/kucinichs-brave-health-vo_b_349857.html... more

SleepDirt
added this
16 days ago
|
22 comments

Raw Video: Health Care Bill Passes in the House

Congress passes HR3962 as Pelosi reads the vote count. Progressives and other... more

JonRaymond
added this
17 days ago
|
1 comment

Kucinich & Conyers Kill Medicare for All Vote

Despite mass efforts by "Medicare for All" supporters, and Pelosi's willingness to... more

JonRaymond
added this
18 days ago
|
2 comments

Democracy Now Healthcare Roundtable

ELISABETH BENJAMIN: Well, the problem with the $900 billion number is that it actually means that we don’t have enough to subsidize coverage for folks. If we did a robust public option, we’d grab $80 billion. It now seems like that’s off the table. So we need to find the money to have enough subsidies for working people.

Why is that? Well, let’s do the math. So you have a family of three at 300 percent of poverty. They earn $55,000 a year. They spend $15,000 in taxes. They spend $14,000 in, you know, rent. They spend $20,000 on childcare. They spend $7,000 on food. And guess what? They’re already in debt. If you add in healthcare costs, which then they’re—even with the subsidies, they’re really in debt. And if they have a medical catastrophe, even with the caps—which is great that they’re adding, in health reform, caps on your maximum out-of-pocket exposure—you’re going to be in debt at the end of the year. And that’s the problem. They don’t have enough money to actually subsidize people, unless they really drive down insurance costs. The only way you really drive down insurance costs is through a public plan, or the other alternative is not even try to do this complicated thing, building on the current employer-driven structure.

DR. OLIVER FEIN: Right. And what we propose is essentially a Medicare-for-all program, right? Obama had a choice, really. He could have decided to build on what we have, correct. That’s what he said he was doing. But he went down the pathway of subsidizing what I think is a defective product at this point: private health insurance. He could have gone down the pathway of taking Medicare, probably the most popular health insurance program in the United States, and saying we should spread that to all people in the United States.

And if he had done that, we feel that studies show that you wouldn’t have to increase the cost to the middle class. The overall cost to the system actually would be a savings of close to $400 billion per year, mind you. And we’ve got that money, for instance, because we’re spending $1 trillion in Iraq and Afghanistan, OK, per year. So we have the possibility, it seems to me, if we went in the direction of a Medicare-for-all program, to really make this affordable to all people in the United States.

Now, Anthony Weiner from New York—

[more at link]ELISABETH BENJAMIN: Well, the problem with the $900 billion number is that it actually... more

asherp
added this
26 days ago
|
0 comments

Monty Python's War : A Killing Joke ?

Powell warned of ‘terror-industrial complex’ in 2007 interview When MSNBC's... more

WhiteNoise
added this
1 month ago
|
4 comments

Help the Weiner and Kucinich Amendments Now

Do something! Weiner and Kucinich need grassroots support for their amendments now.... more

JonRaymond
added this
1 month ago
|
0 comments

The Fifty Top U.S. War Criminals Who Need To Be Prosecuted

NOTE : I KNOW THIS IS EMBARASSING TO THE HILT FOR A NATION THAT PRIDES ITSELF ON BEING HOME OF THE BRAVE & FREE BUT REALITY REARS ITS UGLY HEAD; WHAT CAN I SAY BUT PLEASE RATIONALIZE THE DIGNITY NEEDED TO ACCOMPLISH THIS MISSION BY REMEMBERING THAT GOLDEN RULE WE ARE ALL SUPOSE TO APPLY AS A BASIC UNDERSTANDING OF OUR HUMAN NATURE ? YOU KNOW THAT PESKY…”DO UNTO OTHER” STUFF !

Compiled below, in hopes that it may be of some assistance to Eric Holder, John Conyers, Patrick Leahy, active citizens, foreign courts, the International Criminal Court, law firms preparing civil suits, and local or state prosecutors with decency and nerve is a list of 50 top living U.S. war criminals.

These are men and women who helped to launch wars of aggression or who have been complicit in lesser war crimes. These are not the lowest-ranking employees or troops who managed to stray from official criminal policies. These are the makers of those policies.

The occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan have seen the United States target civilians, journalists, hospitals, and ambulances, use antipersonnel weapons including cluster bombs in densely settled urban areas, use white phosphorous as a weapon, use depleted uranium weapons, employ a new version of napalm found in Mark 77 firebombs, engage in collective punishment of Iraqi civilian populations - including by blocking roads, cutting electricity and water, destroying fuel stations, planting bombs in farm fields, demolishing houses, and plowing down orchards - detain people without charge or legal process without the rights of prisoners of war, imprison children, torture, and murder.

Because each of the people on this list should be nonviolently protested everywhere they go (more on that below), I have organized them by location. Please post updates on where they are as comments ;)

CALIFORNIA

1. John Yoo: Professor of Law at Boalt Hall School of Law in Berkeley, California, with house at 1241 Grizzly Peak Blvd., Berkeley, (but a lawyer with the Pennsylvania bar from which he should be disbarred and would be if enough people demanded it) counseled the White House on how to get away with war crimes, wrote this memo promoting presidential power to launch aggressive war, and claimed the power to decree that the federal statutes against torture, assault, maiming, and stalking do not apply to the military in the conduct of the war, and to announce a new definition of torture limiting it to acts causing intense pain or suffering equivalent to pain associated with serious physical injury so severe that death, organ failure or permanent damage resulting in loss of significant body functions will likely result. Yoo claimed in 2005 that a president has the right to enhance an interrogation by crushing the testicles of someone's child. Yoo has been confronted in his classroom: video, and defended by the Washington Post, and again confronted in the classroom.

Additional collaborators:

2. Robert J. Delahunty, Yoo colleague, should be disbarred in NY

3. Patrick F. Philbin, Yoo colleague, Deputy, should be disbarred in D.C. and MA

4. Jay Bybee: federal judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, headquartered in San Francisco, California (but Bybee based in Las Vegas), counseled the White House on how to get away with war crimes, including by helping Yoo draft the memo linked above. He signed not only torture memos but also a memo purporting to legalize illegal and unconstitutional wars. BYBEE SHOULD BE IMPEACHED. He works, among other places, at the James R. Browning Courthouse, 95 7th Street, San Francisco, CA 94103, - This is a giant marble building in the center of the city represented in Congress by the Speaker of the House.NOTE : I KNOW THIS IS EMBARASSING TO THE HILT FOR A NATION THAT PRIDES ITSELF ON BEING... more