Kucinich: ‘Heads They Win, Tails We Lose’ (Update: Transcript)

[Echo In Light]

Rep. Dennis Kucinich tells us why he isn’t buckling under pressure to vote for the president’s health care reform bill: “Every plan that’s put forth by our government ends up benefiting the health insurance industry.”

Transcript:

Peter Scheer: This is the Truthdig podcast. I’m Peter Scheer. Earlier today my brother Josh and I spoke with Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich, who explained why he opposes the president’s health care reform bill. He also told us about his own bill calling for a full withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan. Here now is our interview.

P.S.: So Congressman, you had on Monday an interview with “Countdown” that got lots of headlines where you said that you would not vote for the health care reform bill. You didn’t vote for the first health care reform bill. Is that a firm “no,” is there something that they could put in the bill that would get you to vote “yes” for it?

Dennis Kucinich: I have had several meetings with the president on this bill. And I have indicated my concerns. No effort was made to address the concerns that I raised. I offered to come to the health care summit. The White House wasn’t interested. Even at this late date I have suggested that they resurrect a robust public option, and protect the legal right of states to set up their own single-payer system. They’re not interested. You know, I’m still open to the White House’s efforts to continue to make the bill one that can be supported. But I just don’t know if any further efforts on their part can be expected. And you have to keep in mind I’ve led the way on health care in two presidential campaigns advocating Medicare for all. With the help of a California delegation in 2000, and again in 2004 and 2008, I brought the issue of Medicare for all to the Democratic platform and ask them to take a position on it. When I supported in committee a public option that was a compromise. But that public option was stripped. When I attached an amendment in committee to protect the rights of states to set up their own single-payer, for a Medicare-for-all program, and to protect a legal attack on the insurance companies, that amendment was stripped. I’m still waiting to see if the White House has any interest in changing any of the provisions of the bill to make it worth supporting.

P.S.: It must be awfully frustrating that they are stonewalling you and yet they seem to be making gestures to the pro-life congressmen who are threatening not to support the bill.

D.K.: I can tell you that I think that our country has not properly dealt with the abortion issue. We can move very strongly to make abortions less necessary by having prenatal care, postnatal care, childcare, universal health care, and a living wage. That would help create a culture of life, and I think that would do more than anything else that could be done to create conditions that would help heal the divisions in this society over the abortion issue. But efforts to try to deal with it in just the ordinary give and take of the legislative process are always going to be difficult.

Josh Scheer: I am going to jump in real quick. The bill that they are bringing up, is that the insurance companies are going to get what they want and we, we as the government, are going to spend trillions of dollars, right?

D.K.: Well, 70 billion dollars a year, in terms of subsidies. And the problem is there’s no control of premiums. We’ve had five consecutive double-digit increases in premiums by the insurance industry in the last five years. And there’s no end in sight to the increase in premiums. And why would they limit their rapaciousness in premiums when the government is going to be subsidizing health care?

P.S.: Well, isn’t the president or his aides, what have they said to you in these discussions?

D.K.: Well, they want my vote, I understand that. But they’re not really going to change the bill. When you force people to buy private insurance and you’ve got a situation where the government on one hand isn’t going to negotiate with the pharmaceutical companies, which means that pharmaceutical costs are going to be driven up, and we’re subsidizing the insurance companies, on the other hand, to the tune of 70 billion a year. This can only drive up the overall costs of health care and put Medicare in jeopardy. I think that the suggestion that “we don’t have the votes for what you’re advocating, Dennis,” which is what I’ve been told over and over, I haven’t’ seen any example where they really tried. I haven’t seen the fight, I haven’t seen the stand. I haven’t seen anyone really stake something on trying to cover everyone and to minimize the role of the insurance companies. At this point right now what we have is insurance care, more than health care. And just because someone’s insured doesn’t mean they’re going to get health care. Half the bankruptcies of the United States are connected to people who are insured. Why is that? Because just having insurance doesn’t solve all your problems. If we keep this thing locked in the framework of private for-profit health care, I don’t think we can ever get out. We intensify the hold that private insurers have on the country.

Continued:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/kucinich_heads_they_win_tails_we_lose_report_20100309/

(good 'comments' section, too!)

[berni_mccoy]

1. 3 for 98 now and counting.

There is a real problem if you can't get the votes to support your agenda.

[girl gone mad]

2. Even bigger problem when your agenda is "pass anything", no matter how horrible.

just so you can do a victory dance.

[berni_mccoy]

3. 31 million more Americans will gain access to healthcare by passing the HCR Bill.

How many will gain access to a bill that doesn't pass?

[Sebastian Doyle]

4. 31 million more Americans will be forced to pay premiums to a criminal corporation

there's nothing in the clusterfuck bill that guarantees them health care.

[Echo In Light]

5. Criminal corporations that are largely to blame for the abuse, bloat & dysfunction

[berni_mccoy]

6. Corporations that will now be in a reformed and regulated industry.

Funny how that part is always forgotten by the single-payer-or-die crowd.

[Sebastian Doyle]

8. Regulated industry?? Who the fuck are you kidding?

Switzerland has a regulated insurance industry. Nothing in this 2000 page pile of shit comes close to that.

Where are the price controls? What good does it do to be forced to pay a premium, and then have no money left for the co-pays that you would need to cough up to actually see a doctor?

[berni_mccoy]

9. If that's what you think, then there is nothing that can be said. You obviously haven't made the

effort to read the bill. There is indeed regulation. Health plans must be approved (both regarding benefits and pricing) before they are allowed to be in an exchange. The Department of Health and Human Services will dictate minimum benefit requirements for exchange qualified plans.The plans will be overseen by the OPM, who will not only enforce affordability requirements and minimum benefits, but also will ensure the MLR is met. Recision, exclusion and discrimination practices are now outlawed and will be enforced by Exchange administrators with the backing of the OPM. Furthermore, each Exchange will require a state-based, member-run non-profit plan to provide competition against the for-profit plans.

If you'd read the bill, you'd know that of course. And if you did read the bill, well then, you aren't being very honest.

[laughingliberal]

12. I've read the bill. The regulations being so highly touted are loopholed and weasled out.

On edit: here's a link to the entire text:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:1:./temp/~c111Es2ovC:e55960:

[berni_mccoy]

13. Because you said so? Gonna have to do better than that.

[laughingliberal]

14. Just added the text of the bill on edit. Find me the regs and show me one they didn't loophole.

There is no explicit loophole for the banning of denials for preexisting conditions but the loophole allowing rescission to continue will take care of that, nicely.

[berni_mccoy]

15. Um, if you are claiming there are loopholes, you need to prove it. Asking someone to prove

your claim by showing something that isn't there is just idiotic.

[laughingliberal]

23. Okay. No rescissions we have been told, section 2712

A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall not rescind such plan or coverage with respect to an enrollee once the enrollee is covered under such plan or coverage involved, except that this section shall not apply to a covered individual who has performed an act or practice that constitutes fraud or makes an intentional misrepresentation of material fact as prohibited by the terms of the plan or coverage. Such plan or coverage may not be cancelled except with prior notice to the enrollee, and only as permitted under section 2702(c) or 2742(b).

edited headline to add section #

[berni_mccoy]

28. That would appear that way if you only looked at the changes the Senate bill is making

to the House bill. The Senate bill does not remove the following from the House bill:

Sec 2746 which says that in the case of a fraud, the recision is subject to 3rd party review. An insurance company won't simply be able drop coverage immediately, which is the current unregulated practice. Yes, this is regulation and reform.

Next.

[laughingliberal]

35. The loophole is there. Rescissions are already, today, subject to third party review

In the House bill the exchanges are national which might afford a little more protection but the Senate bill leaves enforcement in the hands of the states where it has always been. I don't see how that will change what is going on, now. The third party, under the Senate bill, is still the insurance commissions of the individual states.

The compromise Obama was working on with the House and Senate before the MA election would have, likely, restored the House version of the exchanges but it is, now, still in the hands of the states.

Oh, and would you be so kind as to post the section of the bill you are citing.

edited typo-'state' to 'states'

[berni_mccoy]

36. I already cited the section of the bill. There is no existing federal law that prohibits rescission

and requires 3rd party review. This is new reform and regulation. Yes, the states, under the supervision of the HHS and the OPM will enforce it under each local exchange, but it is nothing like any current state anti-rescission protection.

[laughingliberal]

38. I saw you typed the section of the bill that requires 3rd party review

I did ask that you post the language of the bill but no matter, this is my response:

I hope you are correct but I do not think you are. There is no funding I know of to help the states enforce this more vigorously than it is now and it is left to the states, who aren't keeping up now with enforcement as it is, to enforce it.

Yes, it is a new federal regulation to outlaw rescissions except in cases of fraud but those same laws are already, and always have been, in effect in every state. There is no state, now, which allows rescissions except in the case of fraud. The insurance companies will continue to claim fraud and throw people out. Perhaps there is, and I don't think this is true, more oversight, but that would still just mean you might get a hearing and hope it comes up before your cancer has spread. Remember, that one woman who was canceled before her breast cancer treatments could commence because she failed to report her case of acne did, eventually, get her coverage reinstated. But it was 4 months later and her cancer was much further advanced and she will, likely, not survive. Nothing I see here stops that same scenario.

Putting that loophole in there allows this to continue. If they truly wanted to stop rescissions, they would have banned the practice and addressed concerns about fraud by imposing penalties on those found to have engaged in fraud. This would have allowed treatment to commence while the insurance company proved their case.

[Echo In Light]

17. Apparently the idea is to accuse any critic of "not reading the bill"

... how many of our jerk off Reps read the fucking PA before signing that?

Anyhow, the idea being, defenders of the bill *think* they might be able to influence those still up on the fence (forum lurkers, infrequent posters, etc) w/this tactic of trying to create the impression that, gosh darn it, if you'd just 'read the bill' (which of course you're too lazy/ignorant/RW operative, etc to bother with) than you'd agree with their side ... and they do so knowing that what the bill lays out doesn't necessarily amount to jack-shit re assurances of futures "fixes" and controls, as we already know what 'oversight' and accountability amount to in this Profit Over People empire.

[berni_mccoy]

19. Inconvenient truth: making up falsehoods about the bill is cause for asking someone to cite the bill

and back up their assertion. If they can't, then they are just making shit up or they haven't read the bill. The idea on your side is to label anyone who brings facts to the discussion as a corporate whore shill for the insurance company.

[Echo In Light]

20. Shill, or shrill?

[berni_mccoy]

21. And here come the personal attacks.

[Echo In Light]

22. Oh please. Whose mind are you soooo concerned about changing?

???

[laughingliberal]

26. Kind of amusing. I've been asking that of the supporters for weeks

Those who dispute what I've said about the bill I have challenge to find me the language in the bill to show I'm wrong. The usual response has been :crickets: or "you're just spreading bullshit," (riveting debate style they have). I don't know if they really haven't accessed the language contained in the bill of if, after attempting it, they found the very loopholes I object to. But I do know not one has ever provide the language from the bill to prove their claims. I have, rarely, gotten a response with part of a summary or analysis of the bill but never the actual language from the bill. Now we find a rash, just today, of the bill's defenders demanding everyone read the bill. The new MDT talking points must have come out this morning.

[OnyxCollie]

41. That's what happens when one enters a battle of wits with no ammo. nt

[Raineyb]

25. And 20 million are still out in the cold. I guess they're expendable. n/t

[laughingliberal]

31. Not only are those 20 million expendable but many of the 30 million they say will have access

to have access to health care will have an insurance policy but will still find access to care prohibitively expensive.

[berni_mccoy]

33. 20 million composed of those who refuse to buy insurance and take the tax penalty

and illegal immigrants. Oh, and Illegal immigrants wouldn't qualify for Medicare in Grayson's bill either.

[Mike K]

29. Do you know anything at all -

- about the specific conditions of the "health care" they will have access to?

Have you been listening to the horror stories told by people who have been paying for "health insurance" for years and can't get approval for major surgery? And those who are dealing with $3,000 deductibles and 50% co-payments?

These criminal insurance companies should be put out of business by a single payer system, which is what Kucinich is holding out and fighting for. Instead, 31 million more Americans will have access to something they can't afford or something they can afford but will be next to worthless.

Have you or anyone else who is eager to have this bill approved been apprised of the specific benefits of the "health care" they will have access to? Or are these 31 million being led like sheep into the den of salivating "insurance company" wolves.

Health care is single payer. It's Medicare for all. Anything else is highly questionable until we've seen the contract details.

[pberq]

40. Excellent summary!

"These criminal insurance companies should be put out of business by a single payer system . . ."

Our health care should not be subject to a for-profit system, which encourages the cutting of health care in order to increase profits.

[Mike K]

24. And therein lies the tale.

[flvegan]

11. And the broken record skips on. n/t

[berni_mccoy]

16. Al Franken: "Facts Are Stubborn Things"

[flvegan]

18. ...and on, and on, and on.

[Raineyb]

27. Too bad you don't have any. n/t

[berni_mccoy]

34. I'd call 3 for 98 a pretty compelling fact that represents Kucinich's record.

[slipslidingaway]

7. Thanks knr n/t

[laughingliberal]

10. No arguing at all with what he's saying, here. nt

edited punctuation in headline

[upi402]

30. Crappy bill, but good for folks with pre-existing conditions

I hope he votes for it in the end -but pushes for public option to the checkered flag. Then we have to vote Obama and corporate Dems out in the primaries. One-by-one. Needs to happen to get our party back.

[Raineyb]

32. People with pre-existing conditions need that clause junked NOW.

How exactly does it benefit them to make them wait 4 years?

[upi402]

37. True

We are left to fight for table scraps from the banquet table huh? It's telling that we have to fight tooth&nail for tepid adjustments to viscous exploitation by these murderers.

[slipslidingaway]

39. kick nt

[Echo In Light]

42. Bump