Thank you Dennis. I agree with every last word.

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.


“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.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33748707/ns/po... /

The vote added to the Democratic bill an amendment sponsored by Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., and others, that prohibits individuals who receive insurance subsidies from purchasing any plan that pays for elective abortions.

House Democratic leaders agreed Friday night to allow a floor vote on the Stupak amendment to the bill in order to win the support of about three dozen Democrats who feared that the original bill would have subsidized abortions.

..................

So, people who receive federal subsidies to buy insurance will be restricted in the plan they can choose. This is a horrible amendment. Not only does it dictate what type of coverage people can buy if people receive subsidies...it will encourage plans to drop abortion coverage so that they can pick up more subsidized customers.

I am so SICK of women's bodies and choice being used as a bargaining chip for political cover. It is DISGUSTING.

In regard to your first comment, it is a good thing that people with preexisting conditions can't be denied insurance because they are sick. However, this bill doesn't prohibit the zillion other tactics the insurance companies use to deny care. For example, my mother just spent over a year fighting to get thousands of dollars of medical tests for my father paid for from her insurance company. The reason for denial - the tests couldn't be given on the same day. It was pure bs. It would actually be MORE expensive to have these test performed on seperate days for the insurance companies because it would mean paying for an additional office visit. The denial had no basis in anything other then being a made up rule to deny paying the claim. My aunt just spent two months fighting her insurance company to receive a second dose of chemotherapy for thyroid cancer. The reason for denial; not medically necessary, according to THEM. The bill does nothing to stop these abuses.

Even if they can't deny a person the right to buy a policy due to one set reason, it does not mean that actual health care can't be denied. It is utter insanity to mandate people to buy a insurance policy that can deny coverage when it is needed.

In regard to your question, the insurance companies WROTE this legislation. As did big pharm. And, other large corporate interests in the health care industry. They were the ones who were invited to the Senate Finance Hearing committee while the doctors and nurses who showed up protesting for ONE representative for single payer were arrested. The President met behind closed doors with big pharm and struck deals that basically allow them to charge mafia type prices for prescription drugs and extend patents to keep generics off the market. Here is a post link and comment from July regarding this issue:


http://journals.democraticunderground.com/... ... (lots more at actual link)

(note the original link from yahoo is expired but I cut and pasted the story into the post)....

Here is the specific comment relevant to your claim from a health industry insider....

"There is a way out of it — a bipartisan compromise_ but so far the liberals have found that to be anathema," said Robert Laszewski, a health care industry consultant.

Laszewski is pessimistic about the prospects for overhaul legislation this year. But he thinks insurers in particular look like they're in a win-win situation.

"The health insurance industry is in a fantastic position," he said. Democratic liberals overreached and can't move a bill over the objections of their moderate and conservative colleagues.

"Democrats can't blame the industry if this goes down," Laszewski added. "So the health insurance industry is happy to let this thing take its course."

......The health insurance companies are fighting because they don't want even the paltry and toothless legislation that is in this bill to dictate how they rape the consumers of money. That is why you see ads against the bill. However, that does not change the fact that this legislation was crafted by them, for them, and largely benefits THEM. They only got 95% of their terms met, not the 100% they wanted, so they are protesting. That doesn't make it a good bill for the people.

Where's the Kucinich amendment?

Fuck Pelosi. And, FUCK the dems for this wetdream corporate health care bill. No public option (and don't anyone dare try to tell me that their pathetic 2% 'p.o.' that will likely be administred by private insurance companies & cost more then regular private insurance is a po). Subsidies for the private insurance companies that wrecked the system to continue and expand their power, big pharm allowed to treat the prescription drug market as a mafia scam and now this....I am outraged. FURIOUS.

http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-...

Reporting from Washington - With a historic floor vote looming on their healthcare bill, House Democratic leaders secured an 11th-hour compromise late Friday night to settle a long-simmering debate over how to restrict federal funding for abortion.

The deal appeared to clear the way for a vote on the sweeping healthcare legislation this evening.

And senior Democrats maintained that they would have the 218 votes needed for passage when the House votes.

"You don't go to the floor unless you're there -- and we're there," said Rep. John B. Larson of Connecticut, the No. 4 Democrat in the House.

President Obama, who has made healthcare legislation the centerpiece of his domestic agenda, planned to go to the Capitol this morning to rally House Democrats.

The abortion compromise will allow socially conservative Democrats to offer a strong antiabortion amendment today when the bill comes to the floor. The amendment, which is expected to pass with the support of Republicans, would prohibit the new government insurance plan -- or so-called "public option" -- from covering elective abortions.

The amendment would extend a similar prohibition on private insurers that offer plans in new government-regulated insurance exchanges that are the foundation of the Democratic plan to expand coverage.

The Democratic healthcare bill envisions that millions of people who do not get coverage through work would shop for insurance in these new exchanges.

Under the compromise, federal funds would still be allowed to cover abortions in cases of rape or incest and in cases in which a woman's life is in danger.

Lawmakers who support abortion rights have bitterly opposed this proposal, and emerged visibly disappointed Friday night from a marathon meeting in the office of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco).

They have been pushing an alternative that would have allowed commercial insurers to offer coverage of elective abortions.

Under their proposal, many insurance companies will probably offer plans to millions of low- and middle-income women who will get federal subsidies to help them buy coverage.

If they cover elective abortions, these insurers would have to maintain separate accounts for these women, so that only private money is used to pay for abortion services.

The new government insurance plan would have to make similar arrangements.

But this arrangement never satisfied conservative Democrats, who threatened to derail the healthcare legislation unless their demands were met for stricter prohibitions on the use of federal funding for abortions.

And in the end, Pelosi had to convince the liberal wing of her party to hold their noses and back a bill that would restrict access to abortions more than many wanted.

With 258 seats -- counting newly elected New York Rep. Bill Owens, who was sworn in Friday -- Democrats can afford to lose 40 members and still pass the bill.

But as Pelosi (D-San Francisco) and other senior Democrats met into the night with undecided members, their safety margin appeared to be narrowing. A succession of Democrats went public with their plans to oppose the bill, including first-term Reps. John Adler of New Jersey, Suzanne Kosmas of Florida, Walt Minnick of Idaho and Frank Kratovil Jr. of Maryland.

Many other centrist Democrats said they still hadn't made up their minds Friday, including Rep. Tom Perriello (D-Va.). "I've been really trying to get to yes," he said.

No Republicans are expected to vote for the more than $1-trillion measure, which would expand health coverage to 96% of Americans over the next decade

I am so angry now I could spit. My hands are shaking as I write this....

I called Speaker Pelosi's office in California about 15 minutes ago. I politely started to state my concerns about the removal of single payer debate on the House floor (the Weiner amendment) & the removal of the Kucinich amendment (allowing states to implement single payer). With just one word: hold, I was put through by the office staff to the answering machine. I left a message on the machine and then called the Washington office.

I got right through and the second I told them what the call was about, I was directed to an answering machine. I wasn't even told to hold.

So, I called right back and I said, I am calling to ask a question. Has Nancy Pelosi directed her staff to not speak directly with those who call about the Weiner Amendment or the Kucinich Amendment?

He told me the office has been INUNDATED with calls about these amendments for the past two weeks and do to the volume of these calls, they just put them through to voicemail.

So, I said that people who were calling to express their very concerns about these issues were being relegated to an answering machine?

Pelosi's official staff policy is for her staff not to speak with those who call about Single Payer. I wonder if they even listen to the messages or they just go to automatic delete!

Anyway, at this point, I told him that Pelosi is ignoring these callers and the issue of Single Payer and real health care reform at her own peril. I told him the democratic/liberal base that the party has taken for granted for so long is on the verge of breaking and that the health care reform will be the final straw. I told him that the democratic leadership so poorly represents the views & beliefs of their liberal base (the majority of people) that they are giving us no reason to support the democrats. I told him that the smartest, most creative part of the democratic party (the progressive base) is seriously on the verge of third party and if this is the way we are treated when we call about a life or death issue, they have made the decision for us. I then told him that I will be making a video and letting the blogosphere know that the Speaker is LITERALLLy ignoring mass numbers of calls about these two amendments.

I will not let this type of disdain to the people go unanswered.

This is where we are at people. They don't give a rat's ass what policies we want - they don't even want to hear our voices. Even though the MAJORITY of Americans want a REAL public option (one where the actaul public can enroll), we will not get it; just a ironic joke piece of legislation that creates a phony public option that is more expensive then private insurance and only 2% would be eligible for anyway. They get FLOODED...INUNDATED with calls for the Weiner amendment and the Kucinich amendment...

They won't take your call. Even when the lines aren't busy and their staff is free to taalk. I got through to both offices on the very first ring, all three times I called.

So, KNOW that the people are speaking. Know that the calls are being made and that the lines are ringing off the hook for real health care reform.

They just won't pick up the phone.

http://healthcare.kucinich.us/petition /

Sign, email to everyone you know

Kick & recommend

Thanks!

Reid is saying no bill before next year.

I am sorry, but that isn't much of a heartbreak. The legislation is horrible. In a nutshell, it mandates citizens to buy overpriced and non-comprehensive insurance from the private corporations that broke the health care system. TENS of millions will be without ANY insurance. Tens of millions more will be unable to afford anything but catastrophic coverage which hardly covers anything, even in the case of a catastrophe. Millions will pay a penalty from opting not to buy a product they can't afford and not choosing the cheap suck ass castrophic coverage.

The public option, in the best case scenario would cover 2%. CBC estimates those covered will pay MORE under the public option then under a private plan.

It does nothing to control costs, and it would quickly become financially insolvent (as is the case in MA, where I live - they are slashing the budget everywhere to keep it alive, but that will only work for so long - soon they will start cutting the health care benefits and making people pay higher co-pays - and soon that won't even be enough).

It allows the insurance companies to raise premiums up to 25% right off the bat.

It does mandate the insurance companies will not be allowed to deny coverage for those with preexisting conditions. It doesn't stop them from denying coverage utilizing the hundreds of other scumbag tactics they have developed to not pay out for claims.

In sum, this legislation sucks. And, the fact that it is being delayed, it gives us time to FIGHT for real reform. Single payer or a public option open to everyone. We need to organize. We need to lay out our terms and STICK TO THEM. We need to make ourselves MATTER. We failed to unite over the summer, we were all waiting with fingers crosses for Obama to outline his magic plan and Congress to fight for us. It didn't happen.

We have been given the gift of more time. And, it should not be wasted whimpering and whining to Congress making demands for a non-existent public option. We need to demand real health care reform.

If we can convince them that implementing real health care reform is the magic key for decades of democratic power, they might go along...

Peace

(Here are a couple of relevant articles from my journal. I have tons of related links on health care reform that pretty much document the evolution of the legislation over the past year)...

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/...

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/...

http://www.michaelmoore.com /


Haven't Forgotten
"I talked to Speaker Pelosi about it, and she has pledged to me that she
will allow to come to the House floor for a vote."
– Rep. Henry Waxman to Rep. Anthony Weiner, July 31, 2009

Haven't Forgotten This Either
Rep. Dennis Kucinich fights to get Pelosi to put amendment allowing states to set up single payer back in House health care bill

DO SOMETHING:
Tell Pelosi to Keep Her Pledge to Allow a Vote on the
Weiner National-Level Single Payer Amendment and to Put the
Kucinich State-Level Single Payer Amendment Back in H.R. 3962
Call Speaker Pelosi: (202) 225-4965 | Bill Manager Rep. George Miller:
(202) 225-2095 | Bill Manager Rep. Henry Waxman: (202) 225-3976

2% of the population. And, it will be MORE expensive then PRIVATE insurance because the pool is so small and the risk pool of enrollees so HIGH.

This plan SUCKS. It should be nicknamed 'The Private Insurance Corporation Government Mandate Wetdream Bill'.

This is a sell out. The corporations invested their 1/2 billion wisely, as they will profit a thousand fold for their investment.

WASHINGTON – What's all the fuss about? After all the noise over Democrats' push for a government insurance plan to compete with private carriers, coverage numbers are finally in: Two percent.

That's the estimated share of Americans younger than 65 who'd sign up for the public option plan under the health care bill that Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., is steering toward House approval.

The underwhelming statistic is raising questions about whether the government plan will be the iron-fisted competitor that private insurers warn will shut them down or a niche operator that becomes a haven for patients with health insurance horror stories.

Some experts are wondering if lawmakers have wasted too much time arguing about the public plan, giving short shrift to basics such as ensuring that new coverage will be affordable.

"The public option is a significant issue, but its place in the debate is completely out of proportion to its actual importance to consumers," said Drew Altman, president of the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation. "It has sucked all the oxygen out of the room and diverted attention from bread-and-butter consumer issues, such as affordable coverage and comprehensive benefits."

The Democratic health care bills would extend coverage to the uninsured by providing government help with premiums and prohibiting insurers from excluding people in poor health or charging them more. But to keep from piling more on the federal deficit, most of the uninsured will have to wait until 2013 for help. Even then, many will have to pay a significant share of their own health care costs.

The latest look at the public option comes from the Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan economic analysts for lawmakers.

It found that the scaled back government plan in the House bill wouldn't overtake private health insurance. To the contrary, it might help the insurers a little.

The budget office estimated that about 6 million people would sign up for the public option in 2019, when the House bill is fully phased in. That represents about 2 percent of a total of 282 million Americans under age 65. (Older people are covered through Medicare.)

The overwhelming majority of the population would remain in private health insurance plans sponsored by employers. Others, mainly low-income people, would be covered through an expanded Medicaid program.

To be fair, most people would not have access to the new public plan. Under the House bill, it would be offered through new insurance exchanges open only to those who buy coverage on their own or work for small companies. Yet even within that pool of 30 million people, only 1-in-5 would take the public option.

Who's likely to sign up?

The budget office said "a less healthy pool of enrollees" would probably be attracted to the public option, drawn by the prospect of looser rules on access to specialists and medical services.

As a result, premiums in the public plan would be higher than the average for private plans. That could nudge healthy middle-class workers and their families to sign up for private plans.

"The concern was that the public option would destabilize the bulk of private insurance, but in fact what Congress has fashioned is very targeted," said economist Karen Davis, president of the Commonwealth Fund. "It's not going to be taking away the insurance industry's core business."

It's unclear whether there are enough votes in the Senate for a public plan. The version that Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has offered would let states opt out, probably leaving a smaller plan than the House would want.

Insurers aren't buying the budget office analysis. Asked if it might soften that opposition, industry spokesman Robert Zirkelbach of America's Health Insurance Plans responded with a curt "No."

More here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091031/ap_on_...

"The records reflect only those names that members of the public specifically requested information about from the White House Counsel's office and so is skewed in the direction of famous individuals who are a matter of public interest or controversy. The White House's comprehensive voluntary disclosure policy covers the period from Sept. 15, 2009 onwards, but not the earlier months of the administration"

......

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/1...

Given that the negotiations with big pharm and big insurance executives and lobbyists were held PRIOR to these dates, this is pretty sorry.

Actually, pathetic would be a better word.

 

The public option was always a compromise for serious supporters of health-care reform, who -- like Barack Obama when he was running for the Senate in 2003 -- knew that a single-payer "Medicare for All" system was what America needed to provide health care to everyone while controlling costs.

But, in the reform legislation debuted Thursday by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the compromise was even more compromised than had been expected.

Pelosi says the legislation is "historic," and celebrates the fact that is does still include a public option -- a component many pundits had said was destined for abandonment.

But, while there is a public option, it is anything but robust.

Progressives believe Pelosi has bent to far to the right.

And The New York Times suggests as much in its analysis, which declares that:


Under pressure from moderate-to-conservative members of the House Democratic caucus, Speaker Nancy Pelosi has decided to propose a government-run insurance plan that would negotiate rates with doctors and hospitals, rather than using prices set by the government...

Ms. Pelosi said the public plan, which she prefers to call a "consumer option," would compete with private insurers. But the speaker was apparently unable to muster the votes needed for the 'robust' liberal version of a public plan, which she has repeatedly said would save more money for consumers and the government.


Translation: The "public option" Pelosi and her team have proposed a plan that would not make payments for care based on Medicare rates, as the Congressional Progressive Caucus and key Senate Democrats have proposed.

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.

Pelosi's plan also drops a number of provisions that had been advanced at the committee level to promote consideration of "Medicare for All" models and to allow states to experiment with single-payer plans.

That's an especially bitter pill for House progressives, who has won support for state-based experimentation in committee votes.

Groups such as Progressive Democrats of America were quick to raised alarm bells because some of the most innovative responses to the health-care crisis are being forged at the state level. While single-payer proposals are being blocked at the federal level, PDA national director Tim Carpenter says the single-payer fight is ramping up in the states

MORE AT THIS LINK (read the whole thing, worth the time)....http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat/489...

Where the hell do we go from here?

As evidence mounts that the public option faces an uphill battle in the Senate, its supporters are drawing a line in the sand and saying the Senate should not pass a watered-down health reform bill for the sake of drawing 60 votes.

"The mere fact that there's a bill on the floor is not enough for me to vote for it," Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) told MSNBC's Willie Geist on Wednesday morning. "It certainly wouldn't match the historical moment to do something that's just health care reform in name only. We need to do something real. We need to do something to stop the insurance companies' dominance over the checkbooks and health care of Americans. And that means doing something significant."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced on Monday that the health reform bill he will bring to the Senate floor will include a public option to compete with private health insurers. But no sooner had the Nevada Democrat made his announcement than reports began to spread that the public option doesn't have enough support in the Senate to overcome a Republican filibuster. All 60 members of the Democratic caucus would have to vote together to break a filibuster.

The likelihood of that happening was reduced on Tuesday when Sen. Joe Lieberman, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats, announced he would support an expected Republican filibuster of Reid's bill.

On Wednesday, supporters of the public option raised the stakes, pressuring the Democratic congressional leadership to stand by plans for an alternative to private health insurers. House Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) issued a challenge to Democrats to stand up to the health insurance companies working to block reform.

"This is a moment of truth for the Democratic Party," Kucinich said in a statement. "Will we stand for the people or the insurance companies?"

Said Kucinich: “We compromised on single payer by backing a public option, and now we are being asked to compromise the public option with negotiated rates. In conference, we will likely be asked to compromise negotiated rates with a trigger. In each and every step of the health care debate, the insurance companies have won. If they get hundreds of billions of dollars in new taxpayer subsidies, they get to raise their premiums, and increase their co-pays and deductibles, while the public is forced to pay for private insurance, then the insurance companies win big.

“If this is the best we can do, then it is time to ask ourselves whether the two-party system is truly capable of representing the American people or whether the system has been so compromised by special interests that we can’t even protect the health of our own people," Kucinich stated.

Progressive activists joined the chorus of political pressure as well. Jane Hamsher, founder of the FireDogLake blog, said Reid will "pay a price" with his home-state voters in Nevada if he allows Lieberman to side with the Republicans and block the health care bill.

"It's never happened before that one party had -- technically, in the caucus -- a filibuster-proof majority and one of the members went to join over with the opposition party," Hamsher told MSNBC's Rachel Maddow. "You have to ask yourself, 'What were they thinking when they let Joe into the caucus and didn't get him to agree to join with them on procedural votes?'"

But in his MSNBC interview on Wednesday, Feingold praised Reid for even managing to keep the public option alive in the Senate for as long as it has been.

"A lot of people thought we wouldn't even have a public option being discussed at this point," Feingold said. "It's only because of the courage of our majority leader, who I believe is doing this on principle."


http://rawstory.com/2009/10/feingold-healt...

 
More important then the talk about Joe 'the slimeball lower then a parasite on a worm's belly' Lieberman is Joe Wydon talking about his efforts to put forth a REAL public option into the Senate Health Bill.

This is worth watching for Senator Joe Wyden and his proposal for the public option. Give it a look.

 
A must watch video to understand where we really stand with the 'public option' - funny & effective use of props...

Rachel states the progressives next goal....Pubic Option for EVERYONE!

Worth the five minutes and thirty seven seconds!

(And, K & R to keep this simple yet profound explanation of the public option in the radar screen - THANKS)