Did Kucinich just argue that profit should be taken out...

[DealsGapRider]

...of America's health care system? If so, that may be the most asinine thing I've heard all night.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DealsGapRider]

2. Seriously.

Did I hear him right? Did he really advocate for removing profit from our health care system?

[mkregel]

5. Yes I agree

DealsGapRider, removing profit would be assinine. Even UK and Canadian Health care programs have a profit motive. The only one that does not is Cubas...which would not work here.

I agree, profits should be regulated, but not removed.

[Pepperbelly]

3. it's the only rational thing to do and ...

the cornerstone of a single-payer system. As it stands now, more than half of every dollar goes to profit someone in the chain before it even GETS to providing direct care. IOW, without so much money being eaten by profits for insurance companies, HMOs and the ka-zillions of sub-contractors who provide various services aiding the insurance industry in cutting costs, there would be TWICE as much care available for the same money.

[ignatius]

33. Hell yes, and while we're at it, let's put the utility

companies under the federal goverment and remove the profit motive. Maybe people won't get continually gouged then.

[LalahLand]

42. whose gonna pay thousands for medical school

only to come out broke and living from check to check?

I think some of the profit can be taken away, but not all. Incentives are needed to attract the best of the best to certain fields.

[Pepperbelly]

46. you misunderstand the concept ...

the money paid to professionals is not the issue. The issue is that as each health care buck traverses the system, by the time it gets to the ACTUAL providers of the services, less than half of it is left because everyone the money passed through took a bite of it. IOW, the insurance industry, the HMOs, the sub-contractors who tell you that you don't need the surgery, medication, etc, get paid first. Then, the health care is paid for.

That is the profit that must be taken out of the system.

[Clete]

4. That's exactly what should be done.

Also, he is talking about health care companies traded on the stock exchange, where health care is compromised because of numbers. Health care givers also suffer because they are stiffed in the fees for their services. The best way is for the government to act as a single payer, not for profit, and the doctors and hospitals run as businesses as they always have but not traded on the stock exchange.

[camero]

17. The insurance industry

has no Hippocratic Oath. Only the profit motive reigns. Which is exactly what is wrong wit our health care system.

There is no "Do no harm" to a health insurance executive.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Karmadillo]

7. Here's a link to his health care proposal. Sounds pretty good compared

current one.

http://www.kucinich.us/issues/issue_universalhealth.htm

The Kucinich plan is enhanced 'Medicare for All' -- a universal, single-payer system of national health insurance, carefully phased in over 10 years. It addresses everyone's needs, including the 40 million Americans without coverage and those paying exorbitant rates for health insurance. This approach to healthcare emphasizes patient choice, and puts doctors and patients in control of the system, not insurance companies. Coverage will be more complete than private insurance plans, encourage prevention and include prescription drugs.

Health care is currently dominated by insurance firms and HMOS, institutions that are more bureaucratic and costly than Medicare. People are waiting longer for appointments. Fewer people are getting a doctor of their choice. Physicians are given monetary incentives to deny care. Pre-existing illnesses are being used to deny coverage.

Over time, the Kucinich plan will remove private insurance companies from the system -- along with their waste, paperwork, profits, excessive executive salaries, advertising, sales commissions, etc -- and redirect resources to actual treatment. Insurance companies do not heal or treat anyone, physicians and health practitioners do ...and thousands of physicians support a single-payer system because it reduces bureaucracy and shelters the doctor-patient relationship from HMO and insurance company encroachment.

Non-profit national health insurance will decrease total healthcare spending while providing more treatment and services -- through reductions in bureaucracy and cost-cutting measures such as bulk purchasing of prescriptions drugs. Funding will come primarily from existing government healthcare spending (more than $1 trillion) and a phased-in tax on employers of 7.7% (almost $1 trillion). The employers' tax is less than the 8.5% of payroll now paid on average by companies that provide private insurance. For budgetary details, click here.

This type of system -- privately-delivered health care, publicly financed -- has worked well in other countries, none of whom spend as much per capita on healthcare as the United States. 'We're already paying for national healthcare; we're just not getting it, says Kucinich. The cost-effectiveness of a single-payer system has been affirmed in many studies, including those conducted by the Congressional Budget Office and the General Accounting Office. The GAO has written:
"If the US were to shift to a system of universal coverage and a single payer, as in Canada, the savings in administrative costs (10% to private insurers) would be more than enough to offset the expense of universal coverage."

Over the years, groups and individuals as diverse as Consumers Union, labor unions, the CEO of General Motors, the editorial boards of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and St. Louis Post Dispatch, and Physicians for a National Health Program have endorsed a single-payer approach. It is sound economics -- what actuaries call 'Spreading the Risk' -- to extend Medicare to younger and healthier sectors of our population, thereby putting everyone in one insurance pool. It permanently saves and improves Medicare, while eliminating duplicative private and government bureaucracies.

While enhanced Medicare for All makes economic sense, it has not made political sense to some, due to the power of the private insurance lobby. The streamlined Kucinich plan is very different than the 1993 Clinton HMO-based plan, a complex proposal that left big insurance firms in a central role. After Clinton's 'Managed Competition' plan failed without coming up for a vote, talk-radio host Jim Hightower asked President Clinton why he hadn't put forward a "simple, straightforward" single-payer plan "instead of all this bureaucracy." Clinton replied, "I thought it would be easier to pass" a bill that left the insurance industry in place. "I guess I was wrong about that."

more...

[xray s]

13. Question

Would Kucinich's plan also role the current Medicaid and VA systems into Medicare? That would seem to make a lot of sense to me.

[Abe Linkman]

15. Stop making sense.

This proposal sounds reasonable, fair, and do-able. But, you know it will take years before the public is educated enough to focus on the benefits of a better healthcare system. Look at how many people here on DU have reacted as though Kucinich had called for SOCIALIZED MEDICINE!

[Dancing_Dave]

39. Way to Go!

Talk about the program, not prejudices. Anyone can try to say that something is asinine without even understanding it...in which case nothing is really said or accomplished at all! What about Kucinich's proposal is likely to work well? What is similar to programs that have worked well in the rest of the world? What particular parts of the program seem unlikely to work as intended? Now we're talking!
:toast:

[Blue_Chill]

8. Take away whos profits?

explain?

How about we just make malpractice insurance illegal since it defeats the purpose of justice, which is to punish the doctor. By having insurance the whole proffesion is harmed and the doctor gets off easier then he should.

[Clete]

14. Actually, I would like the health plan to include mal-practice

insurance for the doctors. Let the doctors be doctors and the lawyers handle this. If a doctor turns out to be a liability then his license should be revoked. But good doctors shouldn't be punished because someone is trying to make money on a lawsuit.

[camero]

20. A single-payer system

could eliminate malpractice because you don't sue the doctor. You sue the government.

If the government gets anough suits from a single doctor, he does not have his license to practice for long.

[AnAmerican]

9. Damn straight he did.......

The candidate with the best plan...by far.


"The Kucinich plan is enhanced 'Medicare for All' -- a universal, single-payer system of national health insurance, carefully phased in over 10 years. It addresses everyone's needs, including the 40 million Americans without coverage and those paying exorbitant rates for health insurance. This approach to healthcare emphasizes patient choice, and puts doctors and patients in control of the system, not insurance companies. Coverage will be more complete than private insurance plans, encourage prevention and include prescription drugs.

Health care is currently dominated by insurance firms and HMOS, institutions that are more bureaucratic and costly than Medicare. People are waiting longer for appointments. Fewer people are getting a doctor of their choice. Physicians are given monetary incentives to deny care. Pre-existing illnesses are being used to deny coverage.

Over time, the Kucinich plan will remove private insurance companies from the system -- along with their waste, paperwork, profits, excessive executive salaries, advertising, sales commissions, etc -- and redirect resources to actual treatment. Insurance companies do not heal or treat anyone, physicians and health practitioners do ...and thousands of physicians support a single-payer system because it reduces bureaucracy and shelters the doctor-patient relationship from HMO and insurance company encroachment."



More at http://kucinich.us/issues/issue_universalhealth.htm

[xray s]

10. Did he say "Health care system" or "health insurance system"

As far as I remember, he has been referring to the insurance system, not the entire health care system (doctors, hospitals, drug companies, medical equipment manufactures etc).

I think we do have to take the profit out of the insurance system for health care. The usual free market, for profit model doesn't work when it comes to health care.

[David Zephyr]

11. I'm For Dean, But Kucinich & Mosely-Braun Have Best Healthcare Plans

n/t

[blm]

12. I think he's right to an extent.

There could be a ceiling for the profits. The same with defense companies who profit from our taxes.

[ulysses]

16. I hope so.

He's absolutely right if he did.

[Deja Q]

18. He's right

We've seen how the unchecked quest for personal profit ruins lives and societies.

And with increasing health care costs with the quality of health care plummeting?

It's time for a change.

[DuctapeFatwa]

19. That is the same as saying lives are more important than money!

This Kucinich is clearly an Enemy of the State.

[DealsGapRider]

21. A couple of thoughts...

First, we live in a capitalist society. The chief reason pharmaceutical companies invest in galactically expensive research projects to create new wonder drugs that save lives and enhance the quality of our lives is that they can make huge amounts of money off these drugs. Remove the profit and you are removing the incentive for many companies to find cures for diseases and whatnot. We are already seeing this in the decline in AIDS research because acitivists have so demonized the companies that make AIDS drugs that it's not worth the trouble to create new ones.

Also, one of the incentives for people going into medicine is that they can make a lot of money. This attracts smart, ambitious people. And medicine is not for dummies. So, removing the ability of doctors to make substantial incomes could affect the quality of medicine.

[ulysses]

22. so we do.

We also regulate some things and set others entirely apart from the capitalist drive for both their own, and society's, good.

First, we live in a capitalist society. The chief reason pharmaceutical companies invest in galactically expensive research projects to create new wonder drugs that save lives and enhance the quality of our lives is that they can make huge amounts of money off these drugs.

It also denies those wonder drugs to the poor, or requires that they go without other necessities in order to afford them.

[DealsGapRider]

23. So it's better that we don't create them at all?

Or accept the fact that some people will always have better access to health care than other people?

It often seems like really ideologically inflexible liberals would rather everyone go without than have some people have and others have not.

I'm all for expanding access to health care among the poor, but the notion that we should wholly remove profit from the health care system is FUCKING RIDICULOUS. And people who advocate for this system are simply delusional.

[ulysses]

26. no and no.

How about we socialize health care research while we socialize health care itself?

[camero]

30. First off

A good portion of the research of the pharmaceuticals comes from government grants to universities, which the drug companies use to make thier profits. More corporate welfare.

Second, anyone who watches TV these days knows that there is a huge amount of advertising for drugs.

Third, they keep generics off the market through patents and some drug chains have huge mark-ups for generics that do make it to the market.

This is insane.

[dweller]

24. "one of the incentives for people going into medicine

is that they can make a lot of money"

oh, yeah that part of the Hippocratic oath. And all along I thought it was about healing.

The health care industry needs healing. The wealth of the insurance companies should not be made on the backs of the ill.
Kudos to Kucinich.

dp

[DealsGapRider]

27. Oh right.

I forgot, all those brain surgeons who make millions of dollars a year and own yachts are just in it to help people.

And there aren't any teachers who sign up for the gig because they like having summers off. Really, every single one of them without exception is in it for the kids.

Get real. People are people. They are not always motivated by purely altruistic motives.

[ulysses]

28. show me a teacher

who doesn't love teaching, but who's in it for the great bennies (including the temp job to cover expenses during that "summer vacation"), and I'll show you a piss-poor teacher.

Show me a brain surgeon who's in it for the yacht and I'll show you someone who most certainly won't get my business should I ever need brain surgery, assuming I'm lucky enough to find out the wallet-motive.

[DealsGapRider]

35. Fine.

But both of these people exist whether it offends your sensibilities or not.

[ulysses]

37. I'm aware that they do

Neither offends my "sensibilities" - I'm pretty thick-skinned - but does the hypocrisy of your position not just whack you right over the head?

[DealsGapRider]

38. What's hypocritical about it?

It's simply realism. It doesn't matter what my ideals long for. It's about the real world.

[ulysses]

50. and the status quo

that says that teachers make maybe $35k (but hey! they get summers off so they can take a part-time job!) while drug company CEOs make millions is ok with you simply because it is what is?

Reality does change.

[dweller]

36. You've spoken well for yourself.

"Get real. People are people. They are not always motivated by purely altruistic motives."

but most humans are, once the crap like greed and envy and well, several other rather undersirable qualities are forgotten.

"accept the fact that some people will always have better access to health care than other people"

which side of the recieving end do you sit on, and how would you like it on the other? Who made that decision that 'some people' (care to give up your criteria? is it skin color, age, gender?) have better access?
So, Dr.X can cure cancer. But only if you are one of the 'some of the people'...and can afford the Rx.

speaking as an 'ideologically inflexible liberal' here, i'd rather see you taken care of, then taken. Pity you can't extend the same to any other.


dp

[Lydia Leftcoast]

25. You know what?

In Soviet Russia, medicine was not a particularly high-paying profession, and yet they still had intelligent people going into medicine. (It was a Russian doctor who pioneered laser surgery for nearsightedness.)

(And no, I am not a big fan of the Soviet Union, but it's an example of a system in which doctors were not rich.)

You know, I'd rather have a doctor who went into medicine because he or she wanted to help people than one who went into with a future country club memebership in mind.

I'd like to add that as a middle-aged, self-employed person, I can tell you a lot of things that are wrong with the current system. Basically, you pay high premiums (up to $300 per month at one company I looked at), have a high deductible ($1000-1500), and then, after you've used up your deductible, the company STILL pays only 80%, if they condescend to pay anything at all and don't find some lame excuse to deny coverage. So let's say I have a $5000 hospitalization. I've paid $3600 in premiums. I have a $1000 deductible, leaving $4000 for the insurance company to pay, only they actually pay only $3200. So, including the premiums, my $5000 hospital stay costs me $5400 out of pocket. If I'm totally healthy and only go in for checkups (which is what happens most years) I pay $3600 plus about $90 for each office visit plus varying amounts for the tests. In other words, I get nothing at all for my premiums.

To get 100% coverage, you have to have a $5000 deductible.

And there's no prescription coverage anyway.

Yeah, tell me about how wonderful the profit motive is in improving health care.

[Pepperbelly]

31. why should insurance companies and their reletives suck half ...

of the money out of the system?

That makes ZERO sense.

[sandnsea]

49. Oh yes, they'll just stop

They spend more on advertising then they do on research so even with some caps or other rules, they'll find a way to continue making money. They do everywhere else in the world. Literally ever other country puts controls on prescription drug costs except the US. And alot of research is done at universities anyway, funded by the government. Research wouldn't stop. The money would just actually go to research instead of in the pockets CEOs and non-working stockholders.

[drewb]

29. Let's limit the amount Doctors can make....

and let pro-athletes make unlimited salaries...

COO COO!!! :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

34. If the fans had any sense and weren't blinded by

the unquestioned Religion of Professional Sports, they'd boycott the teams that overpay their players.

[aquart]

32. Sounds good to me.

[leftofthedial]

40. I think it's the single best policy proposal

of any candidate on any issue

[DealsGapRider]

41. And Kucinich candidates INSIST he's electable.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA.

:7

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dweller]

48. and you've made your point

this thread should have been locked as flame bait, as your point was not to discuss his policy, but to rely on a tired adage tossed around by the 'right' which you've now returned to as your point.
Circular logic. You are stuck on a loop.
It's tiresome, and as asinine as your pov.

dp

[tinanator]

54. Do You Smell That?

It's fear.

[leftofthedial]

52. pleasant.

I don't rate his chances of being nominated very highly.

that is a criticism of the Democratic Party, not of Kucinich.

His ideas are the closest of any of the nine to the great traditions of the Democratic Party to ensure social justice in America.

The health care system in America is corrupt, inadequate, leaves 42 million people behind, inefficient, funnels obscene amounts of money into insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies, and wastes billions on bureaucratic bullshit.

Single payer, universal coverage is the way to go. And the only way for that to work is to get the beancounters out of the medical business and the doctors out of the beancounting business, the way it is now.

"Look around
There's doctors down on Wall Street
Sharpenin' their scalpels and tryin' to cut a deal
Meanwhile, back at the hospital
We got accountants playin' God and countin' out the pills
Yeah, I know, that sucks – that your HMO
Ain't doin' what you thought it would do
But everybody's gotta die sometime and we can't save everybody
It's the best that we can do " --Steve Earle

[bread_and_roses]

43. DK's is not only the only proposal that makes sense

...it is the only one that has a chance of working. Any patchwork that tries to placate the insurance industry by saving some of its' profits will be so complex and arcane that no one will understand it, which will make it easy to attack. Everyone will be afraid they will be the one screwed. And there is no reason that universal health care need mean that Doctor's have to be poor. They can make as much as they do now, or more for the general practitioner "family" Doctors who tend to be on the low end of the pay scale while providing vital care. As for the drug companies, I am less familiar with the issue of new drug development than with medical services, but I see no reason to presume that development of new drugs would be profitless. They might not be as profitable as they are now, but that still leaves a lot of room for making money. I don't notice companies refusing to sell their drugs to Canada because they don't make as much there as here. I just notice people are going to Canada from US to buy drugs they can't afford here.

[Jack_Sparrow]

44. and our profit-driven system is a roaring success???

I myself favor Moseley-Braun's call for a single-payer system.

[Desertrose]

47. Ho Jack...

are you still all by your onsies my friend?? (Didn't have that tornado near you today did ya?)
:hi:

Yes...Mosely-Braun is great, isn't she???

:loveya:
DR

[Jack_Sparrow]

51. Hi DR!

Have you watched the tape of last week's debate yet? Kucinich invoked a bill he sponsored with Jim McDermott, which broadened the scope of the Patients' Bill of Rights, I think.

The naysayers cry "it can't be paid for!", but their real opposition lies in their ideological "free-market fundamentalism", and not the lack of funds - a knee-jerk antipathy to any kind of spending outside the realm of the Pentagon, Halliburton, and Lockheed. But hey, we have billions to spend on running other countries, right? *sigh*

Meanwhile our debt skyrockets as our collective physical and spiritual health takes repeated hits, and soon the cry of "no money!" becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[leftofthedial]

53. Why?

what are you, the CEO of an HMO?
otherwise, you make no sense.

[hedgetrimmer]

55. kucinich argued that profit should be taken out of the U.S. health care

system... that is the one of the most profound thoughts ever expressed, kucinich is a genuis!

[Cheswick2.0]

56. He is absolutely correct

Why should something as basic to human dignity and rights, health care be subject to the profit motive?

[FlaGranny]

57. At one time, less than 40 years ago

there WAS no profit in the health care system, except perhaps for the pharmaceutical industry. Hospitals were, for the most part nonprofit institutions and health insurance was mostly BC & BS and also nonprofit. It is only in recent times they turned health care into a corporate profit making machine, and, I may add, to the detriment of us all. Back then, most people also could afford to pay out of pocket for most medical services. Tell me why you think profit in health care is good. Every dollar in profit is a dollar that does not do anything to provide health care.

[IndianaGreen]

58. What part of not-for-profit do you not understand?

Three decades ago, Blue Cross-Blue Shield was a not-for-profit health care plan, as were many hospitals. Their fees were low and their coverage more extensive than what they are today. What justifies the rise in costs?

[TahitiNut]

59. Well that explains it.

You've obviously got 'asinine' and 'ethical' reversed. Next, let's talk about elbows and ... :eyes:

[roughsatori]

60. I agree with him 100%

I am not one of those who believe that love of money is the only thing that promotes creativity and healthy growth in a system. I think it is bizarre that people still promote greed as a principle that will produce Good.