Kucinich: Take the Profit out of Health Care

[WilliamPitt]

http://www.kucinich.us/pressreleases/pr_020604a.php

Kucinich: Take the Profit out of Health Care
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 6, 2004

Contact: William Rivers Pitt, [phone], cell [phone], fax [phone], [e-mail]

A high-ranking member of the House of Representatives announced Tuesday that he would step down from his influential chairmanship position. The Representative's decision came after the advocacy group Common Cause castigated him for seeking a $2 million-a-year lobbying job offer from the pharmaceutical industry while still holding his chairmanship, a clear conflict of interest.

According to Common Cause, the job offer from the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) came shortly after the Representative helped negotiate a $540 billion Medicare prescription drug bill. This bill was widely seen as a windfall for pharmaceutical companies, which stand to make billions of dollars in profits while avoiding government price restrictions.

This is what happens when health care in America is allowed to be a for-profit industry. This Representative crafted legislation which gives billions in profits to corporations at the expense of the American people. He then deemed it appropriate to entertain multimillion dollar job offers from the pharmaceutical industry while still standing as an influential chairman.

Congressman Dennis Kucinich intends to change the American health care industry into a non-profit system where such abuses will be a thing of the past.

"Non-profit national health insurance will actually decrease total health care spending while providing more treatment and services," says Kucinich, "through reductions in bureaucracy and cost-cutting measures such as bulk purchasing of prescriptions drugs. A study by researchers at Harvard Medical School and Public Citizen found that health care bureaucracy last year cost the United States $399.4 billion. The study estimates that national health insurance could save at least $286 billion annually on paperwork, enough to cover all of the uninsured and to provide full prescription drug coverage for everyone in the United States."

"Funding for my health plan will come primarily from existing government health care spending (more than $1 trillion) and a phased-in tax on employers of 7.7 percent (almost $1 trillion)," continues Kucinich. "Employers who provide coverage are already paying 8.5 percent on average. That would raise about $920 billion. In addition to that, there's already over a trillion dollars being spent a year in local, state and federal dollars for health care. The American people are already paying for universal health care, they're just not getting it."

"It is time to take the profit out of health care coverage, time to provide for the American people, not for the insurance companies," says Kucinich. "I am not running for insurance salesman in chief."

For more information on Congressman Kucinich's health care plan, go to: http://www.kucinich.us/issues/universalhealth.php.
For more campaign information: http://www.kucinich.us

[genius]

1. This is why I'm voting for him.

He's great on all the issues.

[Paulie]

2. And it saves Business MONEY

I showed Dennis' plan to a friend who is a benefits admin, and she said it would save her company several million dollars a year by changing over to a flat tax for employees, vs. the tiered system today (employee paying and employer paying).

[RichM]

3. Who was the swine that did this?

Just curious...

[WilliamPitt]

6. Tauzin

[Terwilliger]

4. Universal Health Care is socialist

a single-payer means that the government looks after worthless people who don't deserve governmantal benefit

How does Dennis address the concerns of the more pro-capitalist elements in the general electorate?

[revcarol]

8. And you get to decide who is worthless?

A homeless person?(So scruffy looking)
A dying person?(not contributing to society)
A person on unemployment?(taking money out of the public till)
An drug abuser(who needs treatment when we have flop houses and prisons?)

Sounds very Republicrat to me.

I would venture to say that DK sees no one as worthless.

[WilliamPitt]

9. I'm hopefull that Terwilliger's tongue

was firmly in cheek when he posted that.

[Terwilliger]

14. oh man

I was trying at some Repuke backlash

I think Kucinich should be able to address these questions, and have some real answers.

[snoochie]

17. Religion?

:shrug:

He brings up spirituality a lot, so it wouldn't be a stretch for him to hit them back with the moral imperative of ensuring that no one else's family is endangered or harmed because the decisions made about their medical care were made with profit in mind.


http://www.gutlesspacifist.com/archives/00000338.htm

08/24/2003 Archived Entry: "FAQ Economic Justice, Jesus, and the Bible"

(snip)
3. God identifies with the poor so strongly that caring for them is almost like helping God. "He who is kind to the poor lends to the Lord" (Prov. 19:17). On the other hand, one "who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker" (14:31).

Jesus’ parable of the sheep and the goats is the ultimate commentary on these two proverbs. Jesus surprises those on the right with his insistence that they had fed and clothed him when he was cold and hungry. When they protested that they could not remember ever doing that, Jesus replied: "Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me" (Matt. 25:40). If we believe his words, we look on the poor and neglected with entirely new eyes.

4. Finally, God demands that God’s people share a special concern for the poor. God commanded Israel not to treat widows, orphans, and foreigners the way the Egyptians had treated them (Exod. 22:21-24). Instead, they should love the poor just as God cared for them at the exodus (Exod. 22:21-24; Deut. 15:13-15). When Jesus’ disciples throw parties, they should especially invite the poor and the disabled (Luke 14:12-14; Heb. 13:1-3). Paul held up Jesus’ model of becoming poor to show how generously the Corinthians should contribute to the poor in Jerusalem (2 Cor. 8:9).

Why should I care? The Bible, however, goes one shocking step further. God insists that if we do not imitate God’s concern for the poor we are not really God’s people - no matter how frequent we worship or how orthodox are our creeds. Because Israel failed to correct oppression and defend poor widows, Isaiah insisted that Israel was really the pagan people of Gomorrah (1:10-17). God despised their fasting because they tried to worship God and oppress their workers at the same time (Isa. 58:3-7). Through Amos, the Lord shouted in a fury that the very religious festivals God had ordained made God angry and sick. Why? because the rich and powerful were mixing worship and oppression of the poor (5:21-24). Jesus was even more harsh. At the last judgment, some who expect to enter heaven will learn that their failure to feed the hungry condemns them to hell (Matthew 25). If we do not care for the needy brother or sister, God’s love does not abide in us (1 John 3:17).


It's amazing what you can find on the net. :)

[Terwilliger]

19. I appreciate that, snooch

but they tend to classify all that as hippy-dippy crap anyway

[tinanator]

27. those are just the folks on the board here

ignore them, they wont go away, but ignore them.

[tinanator]

26. you bet he can

nobody fields questions like he does. To call that into question you would have to have never seen him in person. Absolute competence, honesty and wisdom. Maybe we dont deserve it?

[Mairead]

11. I think T was being deeply sarcastic, Carol

[corporatewhore]

25. it cuts on gov't spending Docs would save money and red tape hassel

only having to deal w/agency and iam pretty sure there are repukes out there w/enormous medical debts

[Zinfandel]

5. And the PhRMA & AMA will take this lying down?

But I agree 100% with Kucinich.

A true FDR and Elanore democrat, as well as the only liberal running for president.

[Kanary]

10. Hi Zinfandel!

Welcome to DU!

:hi: :hi: :hi:

:toast:

There is already a physicians organization that is pushing for single payer universal care, and has about 10,000 members. Obviously, there will be some drs who will resist, but after many years now of dealing with the consequences of the system we have because they resisted "socialized medicine" before, many have now seen the error of their ways, and are more than ready for a change. It's really unfortunate that they had to learn it the hard way, but now that they are at the beck and call of the corporations, they see things a bit differently.

The pharmaceuticals are a different story, obviously. The greedy rich don't give up their strangle hold easily.

However, there are so many very angry people now who are ready to make a big issue of this, that if we keep applying the pressure, something will have to give.

Kanary, who will have a glass of Zinfandel tonight in your honor... :)

[Carl Spackler]

7. More correctly - take profit out of healthcare COVERAGE

He does not want to remove the profit incentive for doctors, nurses, clinics, hospitals, etc. He wants to organize not-for-profit health care coverage. Or am I missing something?

[snoochie]

13. You're right.

Private practices will remain the same, private insurers will have to change to providing optional and extra-care services only.

Actually private insurers would also still sell 'salon' (?) type insurance coverage that's more expensive because it allows you to choose from an exclusive pool of providers who make house calls and provide other premium services.

[Mairead]

15. That's a good point and one that's often misunderstood!

When healthcare providers make money, that's pay for their work, not profit. They're not 'making a profit' when they work, they're just getting paid.

'Profit' is the appropriate term only when money makes money. If the doc makes 200K from putting people back together and saving their lives, that's 'pay'. If the doc then saves up whatever part of that money is left after tax til he can buy a half-interest in a pharmacy, and makes another 200K from his share of the pharmacy receipts, that's 'profit' because it was his money --his ownership, not his work-- that earned that 200K.

Interestingly, 'profit' is taxed at a much lower rate than 'pay', if certain minor hoops are jumped through. Which shows where working people stand in the scheme of things!


Will, I think it needs to be made pellucidly clear that DK's plan does not mean that docs and other providers will flee the country because they'll no longer be paid after DK takes the 'profit' out; nor that people will be forced to get bad care from should-be-struck-off docs in piss-smelling clinics in the low-rent district. I think those are the major misunderstandings I've heard from people.

[Nederland]

18. That's just silly

The distinction between profit and wages is completely artifical and largely a determined by the tax code. In your example, if the government were to triple the taxes on corporate profits, the doctor would simply alter his accounting to reflect wages of 400k and profits from the pharmacy of zero. The net result is the same--the doctor ends up with 400k a year.

[Mairead]

29. On some level, I agree it's silly and for the reason you illuminate

But I really have had people try to tell me, apparently in all seriousness, that if we were to get an NHS the docs would all run away or stop doing medicine rather than be expected to work for free! And that private practices would all be replaced by shabby clinics.

How would you respond?

[stickdog]

12. Great idea.

How is he going to get it through Congress and then get the President to sign it?

[Mairead]

16. Well, since he's going to be the President, part 2 should be a doddle

unless he suddenly gets multiple-personality disorder.

As for getting it through Congress, 70% of people already support it. He'll mobilise that force.

And of course it'll be easier for him if we elect some decent MCs, too.

[Nederland]

20. Kucinich is Missing the Problem

Sort of.

Indeed, the problem with health care in this country is that it is too expensive and lots of people that add absolutely no value to the system are making lots of money. No one doubts that the system suffers from huge inefficiencies. However, I have never seen anything become more efficient after a government takeover or increased regulation. If anything, increased government involvement increases inefficiencies. The solution to inefficiency has and always will be increased competition. That is the true problem in the American system of health care: lack of real competition.

[revcarol]

21. Medicare (GOV'T PROGRAM) is administered with 3% cost.

Private plans are ALMOST ALWAYS spending 25%-30% in cost of administration:

inflated CEO and exec salaries,

lots of people to determine eligibility (How one can get away with denying care, in some cases),

profit to stockholders and insiders holding stock,

HUGE ADVERTISING AND SELF-PROMOTION COSTS(especially pharma and medical device manufacturers )

I probably won't convince you, but I would rather get the CARE this minimum 22% difference in administration would bring.

[Nederland]

22. Inaccurate

The 3% figure for Medicare administration depends entirely on what you consider "administration". The bottom line on health care spending is this: regardless of public or private, doctors and nurses recieve less than 2 cents of every health care dollar spent. What percentage the remaining 98 cents should be considered "administration" is anyone's guess. What is certain is that the system is rife with inefficiency.

http://www.reducehealthcarecosts.com/modmed/myths/intro.html

[revcarol]

24. I beg to differ:

check out: www.hwcn.org/link/mrg/Woolhandler.cost.compare.pdf

thanks, Tinoire.

[snoochie]

30. Thanks revcarol, and thanks Tinoire

I'll be using that for sure. :)

[Zomby Woof]

23. kick this one

[ThirdWheelLegend]

28. You can't have all the fun yourself.

kick!

TWL