Kucinich: GOP push against healthcare law could revive single-payer push

[cal04]

Source: The Hill

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) argued that Republican efforts to repeal the healthcare law could actually open the door for a single-payer system favored by liberals.

Appearing on Fox News on Friday, Kucinich fired back against charges that caps on how insurance companies spend their premium dollars would put jobs at risk on the brokerage side of the industry.

"The bottom line is: they're going to make whatever pleas they can to try to cut the limitations that are coming in place in this new bill," he said. "But the fact of the matter is, beyond all of this is that we really have to move someday towards a not-for-profit system where the insurance companies aren't dictating the kind of health care we're going to have in America."

(snip)
"If you demolish the new bill and we go back to square one, you still have 50 million who don't have any coverage, then what's the option if you can't have the government, say, by private insurance, which -- believe me, as someone would has fought that system I understand that -- then the only other option is to say what other industrialized democracies say, healthcare is a basic right, we've got to provide for everyone, we'll have a single-payer system," the congressman said.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/135569-kucinich-gop-push-against-healthcare-law-could-revive-single-payer-push

[fascisthunter]

1. Indeed! Thanks Pukes (NT)

[LARED]

2. I want what Kucinich is smoking nt

[Jackpine Radical]

3. That would be nice, but I like to share.

Why not throw in a year's supply for 535? I'll help pick up the tab.

[truedelphi]

51. Obama was smoking the same stuff back in 2004, when

Running for the US Senate.

He quite righteously told a group of assembled supporters that the "only logical solution to the health care crisis is

SINGLE PAYER UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE!"

He went on to add one requirement - that the public would not be able to get this to happen, until we had a Democratic majority in the House and Senate, and a Democrat in the Oval Office.

(I guess he forgot to mention that those would have to be honest, independent and honorable Dems who were elected, and not Dems beholden to the Biggest Insurers and Big Pharmacy!)

[Tx4obama]

71. BUT when Obama ran for president he ALWAYS said the single-payer was NOT

the correct option to pick now.
He said that if we were starting from 'scratch' then it would be the best thing to do.

[No Elephants]

77. BUT when Obama ran for president he ALWAYS said the public option was essential.

He also ALWAYS said he would do his deals only out in the open. (I seem to recall something about CSpan.)

After he got elected, though, he immediately made his deals with Big Health in secret and foughc the ACLUs FOIA request for WH visitor logs, using a transparent story about the Secret Service. (Hey, at least something about the whole unsavory saga was transparent.)

Then, the public option went from essential to merely desirable (in public, anyway) and finally to only a sliver. Never did he fight for something he had said was essential. Rather, he ducked house members who were begging to meet with him about even the weak public option in the House bill, even flat out standing them up once. He met with them only after the Senate passed its bill.

See also, the fate of the drug re-importation bill. Oh, yeah, and the no mandates promise.

Besides, when Obama ran for Pres and said single payer was not the way now, he was dead wrong---and I am pretty sure I saw almost Seretary Daschle moving his lips.

So, if your point is Obama acted in this matter in a way that was consistent with his campaign, I disagree.

(RIP, Dave. I will never forget your plight.)

[truedelphi]

119. Yeah, I know, no elephants.

His opinion changed drastically once he began running for the Presidency.

And his opinion should have been parsed by our news media. This is what he said,

"Now Single Payer Universal would be the best and most logical option if we were starting from scratch. But since we already have a system in place, we need to arrive at a solution that is uniquely American, and that allows us to use the elements that are working from that system."

If you look at that statement, it is nonsensical. First of all, why should anyone put a "patriotic" label on Health Care? What works in Germany ought to work here, or what works in Canada ought to work here. Ditto Norway. My blood flows from my heart to my arteries through my body and then back through my veins to my heart, just as blood flows in the bodies of citizens in Germany, Canada and Norway.

But I guess as an American, my bodily processes need to be filtered through the tremendous For Profit, Rip Off System that we have here, and maybe it is that system that our President was referring to.

Second of all, why would we even have a health care reform effort if so much of the "system" is working? We either need to fix something because it is broken, or if it is really working, then maybe we should leavee it the hell alone.

If the health care system is broken, and does need reform, then allowing the same elements that screwed us over for the last ten or fifteen years to continue to be part of the system and to continue to screw us over is either outrageously naive, or outrageously duplicitous.

And throughout his campaign for the Presidency, Obama did insist that he would see to it that legislation was transparent. No more large one thousand page bills that no one had time to read before the vote was called. He talked about that a lot. Then once elected, he seemingly forgot all about that.

[No Elephants]

122. I recall very well, not that specific statement, but one very like it.

Not being a mind reader, I do not know if Obamas opinions really changed or evolved. I know only what he does.

[haydukelives]

99. we need to start from scratch.

[sendero]

85. Obama should have smoked it two years ago..

.. it makes no difference whether such a system is likely to gain a foot hold here, Americans are still overall too stupid for that. But the THREAT should be used at every opportunity.

Since when did the likelihood of something happening ever stop a Republican?

[global1]

4. Think About It - This Is A Great Strategy To Get The Repugs To Back Off Repeal Of HCR......

threaten single payer if they open up the debate. Go Dennis!!!!!

[nyy1998]

7. Well he made some very good points that every Dem defending this bill should use

*50 million uninsured
*Insurance companies can deny coverage based on pre-existing condition
*Premiums will go down in price

If that's not on every Dem politico's talking points list in related to health care, then some heads should roll!

[eridani]

72. Limiting medical loss ratios have no effect whatsoever on premiums

--which have skyrocketed in the 15 states that have tried MLR regulation as well as every other state.

[customerserviceguy]

12. Some threat

Who's going to pass single payer, a Repuke House of Representatives?

If we take the House back again, and can build up our numbers in the Senate, AND can keep the Presidency, we should go for single-payer whether or not the Pukes kill last year's HCR.

[Skink]

36. The next great President we have will campaign on and establish single payer.

[No Elephants]

79. Dream on.

[avaistheone1]

105. Thanks for reminding us.

Hope is dead.

[No Elephants]

110. Damned death panels!

:)

[Ken Burch]

59. Clearly, what Dennis MEANT

Was that the Republicans, if they really went there and decided to gut or repeal the watered-down healthcare bill(a bill THEIR intransigence was largely responsible for watering down since that intransigence is what empowered the right-wing Dems to make their demands for "compromise")would put single-payer back on the political agenda and build public support for it in the next few years.

You know perfectly well that Dennis wasn't saying a single-payer bill would get through THIS Congress.

[No Elephants]

78. Gee, I thought we already worked and donated for that from 11/04 thru 11/08. (Pls see Reply 77,)

Do you still think voters are running this country? Hell, we are lucky if our votes get registered correctly.

btw, with all the talk of voting irregularities of many kinds and stolen elections whenever a Dem anywhere loses, I wonder why a Congress that has been very Dem since 2006 never even tried to push through new election laws for federal elections, with very tough penalties? Hell, if I believed what they claim to believe, I would have made damn sure I did that before 2008--and how could any Rethug go on record as opposing voting fraud reform?

[RBitt]

83. The Dems killed single payer

What makes you think that this same bunch of bribed and fattened idiots would back it now? Obama and the current Democratic party have on intention of creating anything progressive. They might show us the shinny new bike every few years , but you'll never get to ride it. Even Al Franken voted in favor of George Bush's tax policy. I rest my case and I'll go back to ignoring the whole mess. Nothing going to change, get used to it.

[sendero]

86. Well it is certainly a "fact in evidence".

... that the Democrats in office now, and ESPECIALLY Obama, are about as progressive as Ronald Reagan.

[me b zola]

13. Push back from them left

well there's a hell of a thought!! :thumbsup:

[MadLinguist]

22. Well, exactly!!! that is what should have been tried from the get-go

[Enthusiast]

24. Refreshing ain't it?

:applause: :fistbump:

[me b zola]

125. Yes indeedy!

:toast:

[Larry L. Burks]

17. I'm with you. Go Dennis go.

Dennis is the man. We need to back nhim.

[No Elephants]

80. Between the DLC, er, I mean the DNC, the Citizens United decision and the historic

trouncing the Dems just took, how likely is a Kucinich primary victory, really?

Seems to me, every time Dems lose big, the Party bigwigs tack right, seeming to forget how long after FDR they held Congress.

Of course, we held the Solid South then, but we had lost it before Bubba Big Dawg and few knew about the DLC then. I doubt many still know. So, when they voted for Bubba, they probably thought they were voting for someone from the political heritage of a Roosevelt, Kennedy, Johnson or Carter.

And, in his heart, if not in his personal political ambition, I believe even Bubba was more like them than is the New Democrat in Chief.

[MilesColtrane]

Only problem is we couldn't get single payer with a Democratic majority.

What makes any sane person think that it's a starter with Republicans holding the gavel and committee chairs?

Unfortunately, this is just bluster on Dennis' part.

[Enthusiast]

26. Hardly.

Every day brings the American health care consumer closer to the realization that single payer is the only possible cost effective solution.

For years and years covering up the true nature of European and Canadian single payer has protected the insurance companies and for-profit medical care companies from progress. The propaganda has been overwhelming and effective. But the American people are waking up. And as the greed for profit grows at the expense of the sick so do the number of medical horror stories. We will eventually adopt single payer. The day is coming. And the insurance industry and the pharmaceutical companies deserve their comeuppance.

[nannah]

35. reversing direction on a narrow dirt road with steep drop off

this is short... just sharing a perception. Yesterday I had the experience of twice having to reverse direction on a narrow dirt road with sharp dropoff on one side. The first time I did it, i was focused on the task, but when i had to do it again a few minutes later I was conscious of the process in a different way.

It hit me that I had completely reversed directions without going outside of the boudaries, by just going forward a bit, turning the wheel and reversing a bit. There was never a sweeping correction; it just took repetitive times of going backward and forward in a consistently correcting direction.

i have often believed that observable phenomena is useful because it gives us pictures of how things work. I felt like i saw Obama's task from a different perspective. I am passing it on. I have a strong desire to believe in President Obama; I am almost 67 and am tired of feeling cynical all the time. His daughters are the ages of my grandchildren. Surely their future is as important to him as the future of my beloved grandchildren is the me. and so i want to believe.

Reading this thread, and especially your response to it made me think of this bit i posted a few weeks ago. This is what commercial drivers call a 19 point turn. Obama is a methodical, calculating, thinker. that is a good thing if his plans include us.

As always, Dennis Kucinich is out in front, taking a principled and rational stand.

[Enthusiast]

75. Thank you, nannah.

I appreciate your contribution.

[No Elephants]

84. I am tired of being cynical, too, even though I only started being

even a bit cynical after Obama started appointing people, starting with Rahm and going on and on. Being tired of being cynical, though does not mean I have no good reason to be cynical.

And I had a strong desire to believe in Obama, too--so strong that when I suspected my donations to his campaign were nearing the legal limit, I simply shut off my adding abilities, kept donating and hoped I would not be caught if I over-donated.

Surely their future is as important to him as the future of my beloved grandchildren is the me. and so i want to believe.


As of the primaries, Bubba had over $110 million, post-Presidency being now a profit generator. What with the tendency of large sums of money to grow even larger, Bubba probably has much more now. (Even 2% interest on $110 million overnight is a tidy sum.) And, of course, Bubba is still earning. And Obama is very likely to have an even more lucrative post-Presidency than Bubba has been having.

I have no grandkids (yet). If I did, there is no way I would assume their future was going to bear any resemblance to the future of Sasha and Malia, any more than the present of your grandkids resembles the present of Sasha and Malia. At most, they will live on the same planet, but I am not very happy with efforts and appointments of Obama in the environmental domain, either.

that is a good thing if his plans include us.

I believe his plans will indeed include us, if and to the extent that including us will not, in his mind, cost him, anyone he knows and cares about or his Party anything. And, if he thinks including us will cost him, anyone he knows and cares about or his Party anything, he will nost only stop including us, but will berate us for trying to hold him to his promises. At least, that is what I have seen so far. (Please see Reply 77.)

You have no idea how much I wish I were seeing him the way I saw him from 2004 until after he got elected. If I possibly could, I would now be doubling all those donations I made and really could not afford to begin with. As it is, if he runs, he will get my vote, but no more. Not that it matters. He will have more than enough money without me.

[nannah]

104. your words make just as much sense as do mine

hence my own struggle with cynicism.

Obama came into power riding on people's hopes. In the face of what he has actually done, i have come to see hope and belief as very weak and passive postures. lately i have been considering the deeply contradictory title of his book, "audacity of hope". hope is the last straw before despair, weakened by its dependence of action outside of yourself. where is the audacity? change and action require audacity; hope just reflects that things are not going well. that deeply cynical thought casts much about obama in question to me.

i agree with your use of bubba; what has his offspring brought to the world; more hedge funds. but the world suspended on the cross of perpetual war (to paraphrase Dwight Eisenhower) is a threat to all the children of the world, including sasha and malia.

and i also recognize that you can go forwards and backwards on a narrow dirt road and not change direction at all; the movement you are making giving the illusion of change rather than the reality.

[No Elephants]

117. You seem like a wonderful poster. I look forward to reading more of your posts.

And yes, I am already very tired of being cynical and feeling hopeless.

I am a Dem by birth, but I only started following politics more than superficially in about 2003; and I am in despair already. I was so excited about Obama and so done with Bush that from 2004 to 2008, I rationalized or looked away from everything I saw or heard about Obama that seemed distasteful. My bad.

[nannah]

120. thank you :)

[Beartracks]

70. What's the evidence of this awakening?

This is not a sarcastic or insincere question. I really want to know if there are signs of such a trend, because I'd really like to think it is happening.

------------------------

[Enthusiast]

76. 70% + of the American people polled

favored a public option. This in the face of MASSIVE anti-socialized health care propaganda. The public is, in fact, waking up. On this and other issues. For example we also now know the mainstream media is only an impediment to progress on HCR and every other issue. And there is little doubt that "we the people" understand political representation now goes to the highest bidder. We understand it and want to change it.

[No Elephants]

87. Only until the NRA, Koch brothers/Tea Party, RW media, etc. really ramped up.

Remember the town meetings of 2009?

If Dems had really gone after single payor or the public option with vigor and speed from Nov. 2008, instead of catering to insurers, Big PHRMA and big health care and freakin Susan Collins, we could have had single payer, let alone the pathetic, watered down public option that limped its way into the House bill. But, then, we would have pissed off insurers, Big PHRMA and big health care and big business would have helped Republicons trounce Dems in the mid-terms. So, going Pub Lite was worth it, if you look at the big picture.

Oh, dear. I really messed up the last two sentences of the prior paragraph. Sorry.

[Hydra]

42. We could have had single payer had the WH not wanted Romneycare

Failure from the top in the attempt to get a "bipartisan win"

[dflprincess]

63. They never made a serious run at single payer.

Obama took it "off the table" from day one. Neither he nor Congress would allow it to be discussed, instead they started bargaining from what should have been the compromise position.

I still can't figure out how anyone can call a mandate requiring us to buy the same crappy products from the same crooks "reform".

Must be more of that 12 Dimensional chess we mere mortals can't grasp.

[No Elephants]

88. Single payor was off the table from the primaries.

[Donnachaidh]

68. *couldn't get it*?Single payer was NEVER on the backroom deal made for the legislation

Sorry -- there was NEVER a real push from this admin FOR single payer. To claim we couldn't have got it would entail actually TRYING for it. That was never even considered while the backroom deals were going on.

[No Elephants]

81. And we needed only 50 plus Biden. But I have less than zero problem with at least appearing feisty,

even if most of your Party seems to have gone Pub Lite, as opposed to telegraphing a willingness to roll over. We deserve at least a good show, ffs.

I wish Dems would be half as feisty when they are voting in a Dem held House as they do when they are in a minority and posturing for the folk back home is about ALL they can accomplish and how they vote will no long upset the plutonomists.

[brewens]

5. They actually think people favor keeping the insurance and pharmaceutical

companies in charge? If that was true the HCR we got wouldn't have stood a chance.
One thing for sure. People will eventually end up getting health care for what they can afford to pay. If people in the medical profession plan to keep working at least.

[Drale]

6. Wouldn't that be ironic

I would love to see the look on Boners face if a one pay system passed because the repukes didn't want it?

[freshwest]

9. Think he'll weep for joy? I know I would.

[Drale]

10. O he'll be crying alright but not in joy

[freshwest]

11. Because he'll lose the insurance company checks to hand out on the floor of Congress.

He's known for passing the checks straight to the members!

It'll ruin his reputation as Santa Claus if it passes.

Now if there is just some way to let them spin it as a major victory for corporations, he'll be right on it!

[roody]

8. We'll get it state by state. California is first.

[Flatulo]

14. Be careful - Massachusetts got it first - right in the keister.

We got Romney care and a private insurance mandate, and believe me, it is a bad situation here. The insurance companies are raising rates through the roof. I currently spend about 40% of my after-tax income on a health plan that has refused to pay most of my claims. Thankfully I have no mortgage and can afford it, but jeesus it is a terrible burden.

[Enthusiast]

28. That is why we

want a single payer system and not Romney care.

[No Elephants]

91. Word

[sweetapogee]

18. kindly

refresh my memory. What is the size of CA's budget surplus?

[truedelphi]

52. Well ya know, if we had Senators and Congress people that could think on their feet

We would not have a deficit. Not in California, and not in any of the other states as well.

When Schwartzennegger went and pleaded with Geithner to LOAN the people of California some 20 billion bucks, Geithner refused, on the grounds that it would add to the deficit.

Now a few months later, and we find out that Geithner aided Bernanke in letting some eleven to thirty trillion bucks slip out the back door of the Federal Reserve. So that the good folks at Goldman Sachs can do things like buy themselves a nature preserve in Patagonia - which I betcha isn't giving too many jobs to Americans!

And the recent Tax Bill, allowing millionaires and billionaires off the hook - it also includes a one hundred and twenty billion bucks to help set the IRS up properly so it can catch to catch the scofflaws that are not buying the mandated insurance.

[sweetapogee]

62. so then

are you saying then that the state of California has fallen into an economic shit hole and that it is the fault of congress? And how would such a pimple on it's financial portfolo enact a single payer health insurance program, help or harm?

[No Elephants]

92. Does your second question read as you intended?

[truedelphi]

116. California is supposed to receive a good deal of money from the Feds to

Offset the tremendous financial effects that immigrants from all over the world create when they come here.

Way way back in the eighties, California was owed over 20 billion bucks by the Federal government for this purpose. Despite this legal entitlement, over the past decades, no one in the Governor's Mansion has ever succeeded in getting the Feds to start making these payments.

Our state has gone from some 23 million people in 1981 to over 37 million in 2009.

This is like having the entire population of Virginia moving here twice!

Five out of every ten babies born in the state of California are born to people who are not citizens.

That is one aspect of the state's financial mess. The other equally important factor is that over the past decades, for every one dollar that the people of California contribute to the national government via the income tax, we receive only a paltry 73 cents back.

[freshwest]

114. Ow! That hurts. But true...

[subterranean]

43. Actually, Vermont might be first.

The new governor there is committed to pushing for a single-payer system, or something similar.

I agree that if we're going to get single payer, it will have to be state by state. If it works in Vermont and California, other states will follow. The question is, can it work on an individual state basis?

[roody]

50. I believe that smaller, in general, is more efficient.

[No Elephants]

90. Any evidence on which that belief is based? Town in which I grew up was

so corrupt, even a naive kid (as I was then) smelled it before I hit high school. We had THE highest real estate taxes in the nation--or so my encyclopedia said.

Schools were ancient. Teachers (sorry--apostrophe/quote key not working today) salaries were jaw-droppingly low. Town was all of-- wait for it -- one square mile.

And I am not at all sure a Mom and Pop is more efficient than Walmarts. I do not think Fed Ex is more efficient in overnighting mail than is the Post Office when you pay both their respective overnight rates. \

And getting a card from the mailbox in my buildings mail lobby in Boston to the homes of of my friends in Florida and California in two or three days is pretty danged effiient, albeit surpassed by the world wide web, which is even bigger than the post office and often accessed via corporate behemouths, like Comcast.

I realize you said in general, but I would still like to know if you base your belief on any objective data.

[roody]

109. Here is an example---solar energy production.

I said efficient, not honest.

[No Elephants]

113. ONE example?

And do you mean small cells or small companies? Either way, how does that relate to state by state health care being more efficient than a federal program?

Point about my teeny town was, nothing was administered more efficiently there. As far as dishonesty, one would think folk in a very small town would be more efficient about learning about and voting out corrupt pols, especially while real estate taxes were high enough to make Colliers Encycopedia, but their kids were in lousy schools.


Speaking of honesty, odd which one of seveal examples in my post you chose to address.

[freshwest]

46. Whatever it takes!

[eridani]

74. Vermont is going first, possibly this year if they can get a waiver. The problem with

--CA is that the single payer bills they passed were enabling bills only--no financing. To get the financing bill done separately will require 2/3 of the state legislature because of previous anti-tax initiative.

[Overseas]

15. Yes please!! We still desperately need it.

Healthcare is a human right.

[No Elephants]

93. If you cannot enforce a right in court, you may have semantics or rhetoric about

something that has no pratical meaning in reality, but you do not have a right.

Even being a human (rather than property) is not a human right. At some point in the 1860s, it became a constitutional right -- and therefore a legal right -- in this country.

Good health care is a basic human need. Maybe health care SHOULD be a right of all humans, but, in this nation, the constitution or some law of Congress or of your state or local government has to make it a legally enforceable right, or you have to have some legally enforceable contractual right--a legal right--or you will have no right to it at all.

[Overseas]

123. I hope we will move forward and make that happen. //nt

[earcandle]

16. Lets do! We just lost our healthcare and I need some dental work.

[No Elephants]

89. Even single payor, aka Medicare for all, would not cover dental.

[earcandle]

129. Funny how that works... everything that comes into your mouth can source your disease, but the mouth

is off bounds... hmmmm... no worries.

[BrklynLiberal]

19. I hope he is right..but I still wish that Dems, Libs, etc would not legitimize FAUX NOISE by

appearing on the channel. I cannot understand why they do that...

[demwing]

25. Because the alternative is to give Fox free reign and purity of message

and that would be worse.

BTW, w/ Fox News already leading the ratings battle for some time now, can we retire the argument that Dems appearing there will legitimize the programs?

Like it or not, in great areas of the country, among certain people, Fox News IS News.

[Demit]

27. Sounds like he used it as a forum to say what never gets said there, what Fox listeners never hear.

That's a good thing.

[howmad1]

47. Every time a Dem goes on FAUX news:

He's basically telling them "Fuck You, assholes". Just imagine if some of the cretins watching FAUX news might agree with Kucinich. Now that's a "fuck you, FAUX news" I could really enjoy.

[Doctor_J]

67. Exactly right

Dems on Fox legitimize the "Fair And Balanced" lie. Let them be what they are - a GOP lie factory. Not a single Fox viewer has ever been made sane by seeing a Dem speak the truth on that propaganda outlet.

[BrklynLiberal]

98. I feel the same way you do....

Does seeing a repuke on Keith's show convince us they may be right?????

[penndragon69]

20. Ahmen Dennis!

[Duval]

21. What a guy! :) n/t

[Enthusiast]

23. Bring it, Dennis!

Single payer is the only viable option.

[Kingofalldems]

29. Kick and rec

[hulka38]

30. As long as the DLC controls

the Democratic Party, the public option let alone single payer will not be allowed to happen.

[No Elephants]

82. Really? Have any evidence of that? Oh wait,,,,,never mind.

[texshelters]

31. talk talk talk

We'll see what happens. The Republicans are a combination of Goering and the three strooges yet they get away with their bullshit. Time to stand up. I think it will be good for the Democrats (in the long run) to be in the minority.

Happy New Year!

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[Atypical Liberal]

32. Death panels.

Every time someone spouts the "death panel" crap I want to respond the way Kucinich did:

"But the fact of the matter is, beyond all of this is that we really have to move someday towards a not-for-profit system where the insurance companies aren't dictating the kind of health care we're going to have in America."

No matter who is in charge of the insurance, someone is going to be deciding what is paid for and what is not paid for. Would you rather have that someone be a corporation who will fuck over anyone for a dollar?

[robcon]

33. I think Kucinich is really, really stretching on this.

There isn't a chance in hell of single payer getting through this Congress.

[bhikkhu]

34. Necessity is the mother of invention

I wouldn't rule it out, if all the implications of all the other alternatives are fully explored. 50 million uninsured is truly an absurd amount, and, as it is said, there is no stopping an idea whose time has come - in this case its simply necessity.

[0rganism]

40. not this congress, probably not the next one either, but maybe...

the one after that? If not, then the next one, or the next one. There's going to be another chance someday. There has to be. In the rest of the industrialized world, something like the American insurance oligopoly would never stand, and eventually we'll stop tolerating it here.

DK is right about this, and it's wise of him to take a long-term view rather than cynically seeking money from insurance lobbyists.

[RaleighNCDUer]

49. The first step is recognizing that the 'reform' just passed will NOT

lead to single-payer, and only entrenches the insurance companies as the decision makers on our health care.

The right may hate this 'reform', calling it socialism, but the left, including real socialists, know that it is anything but socialism.

[elocs]

55. Maybe it will happen when we have a Democratic president and majorities in both houses.

Oh.

[0rganism]

124. we also need a public educated on the issue

Obviously a Democratic congress and presidency are not enough, on their own. There has to be a genuine movement, the antithesis of the bussed-in astroturf the GOP used to spearhead its August onslaught.

The opposition is formidable, the change may not happen in our lifetimes, but I have hope for future generations.

[No Elephants]

95. Depends on his reasons for saying it. Since when is every pronouncement by a politician

intended only as a 100% accurate prediction of what will definitely come to pass in the near future, period, end of story?

[primavera]

130. Who cares?

He's doing what a politician should be doing: making the case for good public policy. What sickens me about politics these days is that the vast majority of our "representatives" refuse to even try to advocate on behalf of their constituents' best interests, accepting as a foregone conclusion that the institutionalized corruption of our political system renders such advocacy futile. That may well be so, but by accepting the status quo as opposed to doing what they're supposed to be doing, they legitimize the status quo and make it that much harder to change. Win or lose, at least Kucinich is raising the issues that our sell-out representatives find so inconvenient to their quiet enjoyment of the status quo.

[SoapBox]

37. I luvs ya Dennis! Keep up with the work...

[Cleita]

38. I think making Medicare available to everyone who

wants it could be an option, but Congress should do that any way.

[davidwparker]

39. Let's hope.

Just call it Medicare for all

Keep the message simple.

[tooeyeten]

41. Single payer

works for me.

[Roland99]

44. Me, too! And if Kucinich's seat somehow disappears in Ohio, let's get him into the Senate!

[Cleita]

54. Excellent idea.

I was thinking along those lines myself.

[madmax]

45. YES, yesssss! nt

[saras]

48. Brokerage jobs??

"caps on how insurance companies spend their premium dollars would put jobs at risk on the brokerage side of the industry."

So what? Tell me why I should care any more than I care that cracking down on meth labs takes jobs away from meth dealers. This is EXACTLY the sort of corrupt bureaucracy we NEED to dismantle to get a sensible health care system.

[watstearns]

53. Petition for Federal Election Reform

Here is a petition to reform elections, so that Congress will
obey the people not corporations:
http://www.petitiononline.com/PoliTru3/petition.html
If we act together now, we can still save our country.

[patrice]

61. Thanks! I will share that on Facebook! nt

[Stardust]

97. Thanks, done.

[lib2DaBone]

56. Scrap the big gift to Big Insurance...we can't wait until 2014...Single Payer NOW..

[ProSense]

57. State by state, and

it's likely to happen via the waiver in the health care law.

[SHRED]

58. yeah...sure...

...as if by some miracle the wealthy elite, who by the way own our government, will give up their health insurance corporations' profits.

:rofl:

[patrice]

60. We should take a stand to defend Medicare Reform, so that it can become Medicare for All and thence

a Universal Public Option.

[provis99]

64. single payer is dead. I wish they'd quit wasting time on the past.

how about trying to save social security first?

[bhikkhu]

107. The best way to "save" social security is to leave it alone

...now on to something that really needs done, like healthcare.

[raouldukelives]

65. Seems like easing the suffering of the sick

is something we could all agree is a good thing. If only we could get the "Christians" on the right to go along with it. Sadly where dollar signs are involved they push personal faith to the back burner.

[Doctor_J]

66. It might make pigs fly over my house too

about the same likelihood.

[boppers]

69. Are the unions willing to negotiate away their healthcare now?

Somehow, I doubt those groups on Cadillac plans are willing to make that sacrifice.

Public option for all, which hypothetically leads to single payer + additional supplemental plans, maybe?

[bread_and_roses]

103. "Cadillac plans" is Right-Wing framing - and those plans are not "free" to workers

What's a "Cadillac Plan?" One that actually covers most of your health-care bills? Isn't that what health insurance is "supposed" to do? And for the record, union members have been bargaining away wages for years to keep half-way decent* insurance - so those "Cadillacs" did not come free. As well as most of the union members I know - including myself - pay a portion of the insurance cost. The difference between us and most non-unionized workers is that our unions bargain (often as I said at the cost of wages, but they do what they can) to keep the cost to the worker manageable.

*No private plan is "good." If nothing else, one has to fight through a hell of paper-work just when you're at your lowest capacity to deal with such deliberate, contrived complexity.

[Chipster]

73. Health Care Costs To Bankrupt US in 7-8 Years

Dr. Timothy Johnson recently made a very alarming statement: If the health care system cost curve isn't "fixed," the US could go bankrupt in 7-8 years.

Dr. Johnson, who recently wrote a book titled "The Truth About Getting Sick in America: The Real Problems With Health Care and What We Can Do" discusses the problems with our current health care system as: using high cost, unproven treatments; services guided by the profit motivation; pay for service (providers make more money for doing more treatments); misuse of the term "socialized medicine," politicians scaring people, and high hospital costs.

Although he calls himself apolitical, Dr. Johnson does favor something like the insurance system Medicare, where there are public-private partnerships competing under federal rules.

He recommended four approaches to reducing health care costs: pay for outcomes, electronic records, appropriate treatments selected by using comparative treatment data, and using more primary care/general practitioner doctors rather than specialists.

You can watch the entire video segment here. The segment begins at 8:40, the first notch on the white timing bar.

[mdmc]

94. another chance to fold!

[RickFromMN]

96. I favor Medicare for All, but feel that's only a step toward a single payer national health system.

In my opinion, we pay into Medicare much as we would pay into an insurance program.
Currently, we can't use this program unless we are elderly or disabled.

It would be "nice" to use this program, from cradle to grave, but we have to make other changes to do so.

To have a true single payer national health system, we need to insure an adequate revenue stream to it.
In my mind, having "Medicare withholding" creates a false impression. People think it an insurance program.
People don't see it as a government program.

The "Medicare withholding" only applies to salaries, and does not apply to interest and investments.

I believe the money for a single payer national health system should come out of the general fund.

To have a true single payer national health system, we need to control costs.

I hear doctors and hospitals and pharmacies complain Medicare doesn't pay enough.
To truly control costs, we would need to pay less than we do now.
To pay less than we do now, we have to mandate changes for/to doctors, hospitals, and drug companies.

First, doctors and hospitals and pharmacies mustn't be allowed to opt out of the system.
Hopefully, if the single payer national health system is the only game in town, they can't opt out.

Second, we need to stop every hospital and doctor having every new medical device that comes on the market.
Medical equipment and services need to be managed and "shared". Some call this rationing. I do not.
For those who call what I want rationing, I respond by saying we ration health care by ability to pay now.

To me, it is a matter of triage. If I can wait, and someone else can't, I should wait.
The question becomes, how long of a wait is acceptable. If the wait is short, no problem.
If the wait is too long, we complain to our elected officials (and vote!) and get an increase
in the shared medical equipment and services...I think this is what other national health systems do.

Third, we need to control drug costs. Some argue we are paying high costs for research.
Others claim this argument is a myth. I do not know the truth.
I did a google search: drug discoveries worldwide
http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/28/5/w969.abstract
The above URL is an abstract (I have not read the full article and don't have the background to
understand the full article anyway), arguing Europe is ahead of the United States in drug discoveries.
It is worth reading some of the comments...some are pro the article, some argue the article is wrong.
The author of the article tries to respond to the comments.
My bias is to believe it is a myth we are paying high costs for research, but I don't have proof.

Fourth, we need to deal with the medical costs caused by litigation.
Like it or not, we need litigation reform so doctors don't practice cover-their-bleep medicine.

Fifth, we need to examine what types of doctors and hospitals we need and where they are located.
Do we need more general practitioners or fewer? Do we need more specialists or fewer?
Are the doctors and hospitals located in the correct areas?

Whether we go the route of nationalizing the medical system (which I actually like),
or let the doctors and hospitals remain independent, but regulated utilities, is a matter of preference.

I would appreciate if others would tell me their opinions of the V. A. Health System.
I have never been in the military...I have severe asthma from birth making me a 4F in their opinion.
I can't accurately judge the V. A. Health System, but have heard good anecdotal things about it.
It is my belief the V. A. Health System is a example of a government run health system in the U. S.

What would it be like if the V. A. Health System was available to everyone?
For those who have used the V. A. Health System, can you share general experiences without
providing too many personal details. People have a right to privacy about their health.

[bhikkhu]

106. I suspect we are subsidizing massive ad campaigns

...designed to brainwash people, country by country (or market by market, to use the industry language) into believing we are all sick and suffering all the time, from all sorts of things that never even existed before our generation.

My grandmother never took so much as an aspirin or a vitamin her whole 93 year life, and was one of the happiest and healthiest people I ever knew.

[No Elephants]

121. I do not agree with your entire post, but thanks for a very thoughtful post.

[dotymed]

100. Dennis is an honorable politician.

There are very few left. America really doesn't even deserve someone like him, someone who wants to improve our plight. Thank God we have him for now.....Ohio rethugs are getting ready to gerrymander (redraw political districts in their favor)and everyone knows that Dennis is a big thorn in their side. They will undoubtedly do whatever it takes to get rid of Dennis. I pray that enough Ohioans are smart enough not to let this happen. We lost Alan Grayson. If the same thing happens to Kucinich, it will set us back by decades.
Health care should be a basic human right. In America, no money = you die. America is the only country in the world that allows "for profit" health care. I can not understand how Americans can be satisfied with that.....

[robcon]

108. I strongly disagree with your statement

"There are very few left. America really doesn't even deserve someone like him, someone who wants to improve our plight."

That comes very close to hatred of America and wishing the country the worst. It's an awful statement.

America deserves a lot of Congresspeople like Dennis, who would be awful as a president, but is very useful as a Congressperson. We need more Dennises, and we deserve them.

[Zorra]

112. Heh. Even at his worst, Dennis would do way better than our current president

if he were in the White House.

He would at least try to do things that are good for the majority of people of the US, rather than do what is good for multinational corporations.

[freshwest]

115. Just look around.

We have several good representatives in my state.

The nation can always use some more.

:thumbsup:

[No Elephants]

118. No, that is only another way of saying any electorate deserves the government it has and only

the government it has, nothing less or more.

For better or worse, we deserved Reagan, Poppy, Bubba, Dummya and Obama. For better or worse, we do not deserve anyone from whom we have withheld our votes, regardless of whether he or she would help us or hurt us. And we have definitely withheld our Presidential primary votes from Kuch--in droves. So, for better or worse, we do not deserve him as our President.

[dotymed]

128. I didn't say we didn't need him and more like him.

Unfortunately, with our voting record, putting the elite in control everywhere, I am not sure we deserve a man of his principles. BTW, I think Dennis would make an excellent President.
I do not "hate America." I do hate the direction we have been headed in since Reagan.

[orbitalman]

101. I hope this backfires on those GOP asssholes...for good reason!! n/t

[lonestarnot]

102. Gee, lemons make lemonade?

[ClassWarrior]

111. Yummy! Pour me one!

:hi: lonestarnot...

NGU.

[lonestarnot]

126. !

:hi: classwarrior!

[unkachuck]

127. "...we'll have a single-payer system,"

....sell it Dennis, sell it!

....and pay for it with a sur-tax on the backs of wall street, large corporations and the filthy rich....if the American people can be shown that everyone will be covered, healthcare delivery will improve and they will experience no additional cost or inconvenience, Americans will wholeheartedly support universal healthcare, why wouldn't they?

....polls in the past have shown that 70% of Americans would support a single-payer healthcare system....