Tommorow is the day! We need to show our support for the only candidate supporting our Democracy: Dennis Kucinich.
From the Kucinich Campaign:
On December 15th, 1791, our founders made history when this fledgling nation adopted the Bill of Rights – that sacred, powerful, and visionary statement that establishes our freedoms and guarantees our protections. Now, we have a chance to make history again and turn this Saturday, December 15th, into another turning point for this nation. (Click here for a special message) Our grassroots supporters – the heart, soul, and lifeblood of this campaign – have launched an inspiring effort to raise millions of dollars on one day, December 15th, to show the nation and the world that we can’t be bullied, we won’t be bossed, and our voices will be heard throughout this campaign!. A special message and a powerful video (click here) from video blogger and Kucinich supporter Davis Fleetwood:
With the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary fast approaching, December 15th is shaping up as a turning point for the Kucinich campaign. William Scott Hunter, a Kucinich supporter, started the ball rolling for a December 15th Dennis Kucinich “money bomb” with the potential to electrify the entire Presidential campaign. "Our goal is ambitious," says Hunter, the organizer of www.December152007.com, "but it has to be in order to have the impact Kucinich deserves. In America, candidates are considered ‘electable’ or ‘unelectable’ based on their bank accounts. It’s pretty hard to argue that a guy who can raise $10,000,000 in one day is unelectable."
And let us not forget what Kucinich's leadership has been:
The only Democratic Candidate to oppose the War and the subsequent Occupation
The only Democratic Candidate to show the judgement and Constitutional integrity to vote against the Patriot Act
The only Democratic Candidate who is taking the threats to our Democracy seriously and actually holding this Administration accountable through Impeachment
The only Presidential Candidate offering a truly universal, not-for-profithealth care system
The only Democratic Candidate who will cancel U.S. involvement in job killing, deficit building, human expoliting, environmental raping trade agreements, NAFTA/WTO
Really it goes on. We have seen this leadership. Kucinich has been the heart and soul of this party; the only Democrat willing to stand up for the party's principles, rather than play party politics; the only one willing to put the Constitution and all Americans ahead of politics.
We need to support Dennis because he is speaking for us. And we need to support him now before it is too late. Please follow this link and make your $100 contribution tommorow, December 15th! Support Dennis Kucinich!
“When taken in concert with the statements and actions of the Administration over the past year regarding Iran, the National Intelligence Estimate reveals a pattern of willful deceit directed at the U.S. Congress, the American people, and the rest of the world on the critical matters of war and peace."
He also pointed out that this most recent revelation, of an Administration's deaf ear to facts, shouldn't surprise us:
“More than three months ago, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said Iran was cooperating with inspection procedures and demanded that the Bush Administration disclose any alleged evidence regarding such a program. None was provided. More than a month ago, Russian President Putin revealed findings by his own nation’s intelligence services and announced that there was no credible evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program.
“Yet, in the face of both sets of findings, this Administration continued its drumbeat for war. Just this past week, Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, with the NIE in his hands, was trying to arm-twist our NATO allies and the Republic of China into pressuring the U.N. Security Council to impose additional sanctions on Iran because of its alleged weapons program.
As many of you know, Kucinich's push for Impeachment has been concerned specifically with this Administration's actions regarding intelligence for War; Iraq, as well as Iran. In fact, Article Three of the impeachment resolution reads:
In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of Vice President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has openly threatened aggression against the Republic of Iran absent any real threat to the United States, and done so with the United States proven capability to carry out such threats, thus undermining the national security of the United States, to wit:
(1) Despite no evidence that Iran has the intention or the capability of attacking the United States and despite the turmoil created by United States invasion of Iraq, the Vice President has openly threatened aggression against Iran as evidenced by the following:
(A) `For our part, the United States is keeping all options on the table in addressing the irresponsible conduct of the regime. And we join other nations in sending that regime a clear message: We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.' March 7, 2006, Speech of Vice President Cheney to American Israel Public Affairs Committee 2006 Policy Conference.
(B) `But we've also made it clear that all options are on the table.' January 24, 2007, CNN Situation Room interview with Vice President Cheney.
(C) `When we--as the President did, for example, recently--deploy another aircraft carrier task force to the Gulf, that sends a very strong signal to everybody in the region that the United States is here to stay, that we clearly have significant capabilities, and that we are working with friends and allies as well as the international organizations to deal with the Iranian threat.' January 29, 2007, Newsweek interview with Vice President Cheney.
(D) `But I've also made the point and the President has made the point that all options are still on the table.' February 24, 2007, Vice President Cheney at Press Briefing with Australian Prime Minister in Sydney, Australia.
(2) The Vice President, who repeatedly and falsely claimed to have had specific, detailed knowledge of Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction capabilities, is no doubt fully aware of evidence that demonstrates Iran poses no real threat to the United States as evidenced by the following:
(A) `I know that what we see in Iran right now is not the industrial capacity you can [use to develop a] bomb.' Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of International Atomic Energy Agency, February 19, 2007.
(B) Iran indicated its `full readiness and willingness to negotiate on the modality for the resolution of the outstanding issues with the IAEA, subject to the assurances for dealing with the issues in the framework of the Agency, without the interference of the United Nations Security Council'. IAEA Board Report, February 22, 2007.
(C) `. . . so whatever they have, what we have seen today, is not the kind of capacity that would enable them to make bombs.' Mohamed El Baradei, Director General of International Atomic Energy Agency, February 19, 2007.
(3) The Vice President is fully aware of the actions taken by the United States towards Iran that are further destabilizing the world as evidenced by the following:
(A) The United States has refused to engage in meaningful diplomatic relations with Iran since 2002, rebuffing both bilateral and multilateral offers to dialogue.
(B) The United States is currently engaged in a military buildup in the Middle East that includes the increased presence of the United States Navy in the waters near Iran, significant United States Armed Forces in two nations neighboring to Iran, and the installation of anti-missile technology in the region.
(C) News accounts have indicated that military planners have considered the B61-11, a tactical nuclear weapon, as one of the options to strike underground bunkers in Iran.
(D) The United States has been linked to anti-Iranian organizations that are attempting to destabilize the Iranian government, in particular the Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK), even though the state department has branded it a terrorist organization.
(E) News accounts indicate that United States troops have been ordered into Iran to collect data and establish contact with anti-government groups.
(4) In the last three years the Vice President has repeatedly threatened Iran. However, the Vice President is legally bound by the U.S. Constitution's adherence to international law that prohibits threats of use of force.
(A) Article VI of the United States Constitution states, `This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.' Any provision of an international treaty ratified by the United States becomes the law of the United States.
(B) The United States is a signatory to the United Nations Charter, a treaty among the nations of the world. Article II, Section 4 of the United Nations Charter states, `All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.' The threat of force is illegal.
(C) Article 51 lays out the only exception, `Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.' Iran has not attacked the United States; therefore any threat against Iran by the United States is illegal.
The Vice President's deception upon the citizens and Congress of the United States that enabled the failed United States invasion of Iraq forcibly altered the rules of diplomacy such that the Vice President's recent belligerent actions towards Iran are destabilizing and counterproductive to the national security of the United States.
In all of this, Vice President Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Vice President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.
Kucinich pointed out that since it now seems publicly evident that the Administration willfully falsified the facts regarding their weapons program, it is now time for Congress to investigate the mater:
“I call on the Congress to launch an immediate investigation into what our intelligence agencies knew and when they knew it. I believe such an investigation will further build the case for the impeachment of both the President and the Vice President. The fact that the President recently raised the specter of a possible World War III in public comments regarding Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program -- when he knew full well that Iran had no such program – should seriously be considered as a high crime. And, the fact that he and his Vice President have pursued plans for our military to drop 30,000-pound bunker buster bombs on Iranian nuclear research facilities constitutes a war crime.”
And really how couldn't you? Because I want to lay it down here: anyone who hopes to hold our highest office must support accountability for that office. It is time for our other candidates to join Kucinich in pushing for an investigation. Biden has seems to have started to firt with the idea, but we need the pressure from all of our Candidates. The more public and popular, the more pressure their statements will create. Where are they?
“Whatever those candidates say today, remember what they said before: Iran must be stopped at all cost. The fact that Iran stopped pursuing nuclear weaponry four years ago is more than an inconvenient revelation for those candidates. It’s an indictment of their judgment and their qualifications to lead this nation.”
You know, the more you hear the facts it just starts to sink in: Dennis Kucinich has been right! And consistently right, where our leading Democrats have been wrong.
After writing many Kucinich comments and diaries, trying to convince people of his positions, the most basic facts are still the most powerful. Kucinich has been right. The other candidates have been largely wrong.
Kucinich has, quite simply, evidenced clearer assesment and better judgement on our most critical issues, in the most critical times. He not only voted against the Iraq war/occupation, but compiled detailed analysis of the intelligence concerning Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction" which discredited the argument; an analysis that later proved spot on.
He not only voted against the PATRIOT Act, but he also read it. He voted against funding the war/occupation (the only one who would use the power of the purse!), against Iraqi Oil Privatization tied into supplementals, against China Trade, against Fast-Track, against Yucca Mountain...
Kucinich has been right on these issues, just as he has on Iran. Not only has Kucinich been the only one to have consistently spoken out against the push for war with Iran, actually integrating it into his presidential platform, he has been talking about it for over a year. This comes down again to clarity and judgement. And Kucinich is again the only one tested and proven. Where have the other candidates been? As Kucinich says:
“Iran is a war crime in motion, and the Congress and the Presidential candidates either can’t or won’t recognize that.”
Their judgement?
Today’s report by U.S. intelligence agencies that Iran – contrary to previous claims – ended its nuclear weapons program in 2003 “is proof positive that this pro-war administration has been manipulating intelligence and that the Presidential candidates’ all-options-are-on-the-table posture with respect to Iran reflects their inability to recognize when they’re being duped -- again..."
And, “whatever feeble fall-back statements that the top-polling Democratic Presidential candidates – Clinton, Obama, and Edwards – make today, all three have repeatedly said that all options are on the table with respect to Iran,” Kucinich pointed out.
“All options,” Kucinich said, “include everything from tactical nukes to air strikes to incursions and invasion by U.S. ground troops who are already over-stretched in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Kucinich has been right! It's that simple. Why would anyone vote for the candidates that have been consistently wrong and used poor judgement to lead our nation? That is absurd when there is a Candidate running who has been right. His name is Dennis Kucinich. Please support him!
Well, after so many grossly unfair debate formats that virtually tell each audience which candidates they are supposed to be interested in, Dennis Kucinich finally figured out a way to highlight this fundamental absurdity to his own advantage: Socratic Irony!
After again not receiving a fair amount of time to the other candidates, when it was his turn to participate in a segment that called for each candidate to actually ask a question to any candidate they choose to, Kucinich managed to display that sense of sarcastic wit and pragmatic questioning that Socrates turned into philosophical method; a dialectic which both entertains an audience preoccupied with what will be shown to be absurdity, as well as instructs to something more rational.
What's more, Kucinich asked a question no moderator ever would:
Are you the only candidate that is offering a single-payer, not-for-profit healthcare system..."
That's a question that we will not be hearing in any of the future debates, never mind the question of why the other candidates won't take on the insurance/pharmaceutical companies and offer a single-payer, not-for-profit system like Kucinich or virtually every other major industrialized nation.
The media, just as our other Democratic Candidates, usually like to ignore the option. Whenever the issue does arise they mindlessly "argue" that it "cannot pass through Congress", or more aggresively propogate the many false criticisms regarding the system.
For them I've put together this short Q&A that debunks the most common of these myths and further begs this issue: Why will no one besides Kucinich actually offer what is the most rational and comprehensive solution to our healthcare crisis?
Here's some responses to the false, but commonly made, criticisms of single-payer health care plans. H. R. 676 is a Congressional bill co-authored by Dennis Kucinich, has now gained over 75 cosponsors and the endorsements of powerful unions and organizations, such as the AFL-CIO, California Nurses, PNHP and One Care California, as well as Michael Moore. It would set up a national, not-for-profit, health care system in the United States and provide fully comprehensive health care to ALL Americans, including all primary, emergency and long term care, office visits, medication costs, dental, vision and mental health, as well as drug and alchohol counseling. Further it, eliminates all co-pays, deductibles and medication costs. It is the simplest, most reasonable and dependable solution for the U.S. health care crisis.
1.) We already spend so much on healthcare, so we can’t afford a universal healthcare system that covers everyone: This is false. In fact, H.R. 676 spends $56 billion less each year, while covering all Americans with fully comprehensive medical benefits. The reason is because, as a for-profit industry, the current private system wastes 31% of the $2.2 trillion spent each year on non-healthcare related costs such as, marketing/advertising, billing and paperwork, and corporate profit. H.R. 676 eliminates profit and is thus able to operate at a much more efficient 3% administration cost, saving over $4oo billion a year. Utilizing this money is what makes true universal healthcare for all Americans possible.
2.) I’ve read about other countries with healthcare systems similar to H.R. 676 that have experienced rationing. Wouldn’t H.R. 676 lead to rationing: No. There are quite a few things to be said about rationing, but first and foremost, H.R. 676 is designed to eliminate rationing. Though other countries operating with a single payer healthcare system have sometimes experienced rationing, they devote only half as much money towards the system. And that is the critical point involved here. Under H.R. 676, the U.S. will spend almost twice as much as other countries and get the best care because of it. Under the current private system, the U.S. also spends twice as much as any other country, yet ranks consistently lower on vital indicators of health, such as infant mortality, average lifespan, and rates of terminal illness like heart disease and diabetes. As stated above, this is because the current system wastes more than 1/3 of all healthcare spending on non-healthcare related costs. To paraphrase Marcia Angell, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, for other countries the problem is money, for the U.S. it is the system. Furthermore, it must be pointed out that the current private system is already effectively rationing access to healthcare. Same-day access to primary-care physicians in the U.S. is 33%, significantly lower than other single payers like the U.K. at 41%, Australia at 54%, and New Zealand at 60%. Poll after poll reports many Americans admitting to going without needed care because of out-of-pocket expenses like co-pays and deductibles. Moreover, 46 million Americans are uninsured and another 50 million are considered underinsured.
3.) H.R. 676 is socialized medicine: This is false. H.R. 676 is not socialized medicine. It is a publicly financed, privately delivered healthcare system. This means that the government is the sole provider of insurance, paying the healthcare providers (physicians, nurses etc.) who remain private. So, under H.R. 676 you have free choice of healthcare provider. There is no out-of-network.
4.) I wouldn’t want my benefits to drop and also, I wouldn’t want to change physicians: Under H.R. 676 the large majority of Americans’ benefits would dramatically increase. This is fully comprehensive coverage including office visits, hospitalization, long term care, all prescription medications, and even dental, vision, and mental health services. You will not have to change physicians unless you choose to. You have free choice of provider. Further, when changing jobs or place of employment, under the current private system people often must change physicians or even go without coverage temporarily. However, under H.R. 676 coverage is not affected and patients can continue to see the same physician.
5.) Isn’t government control of our healthcare system going to lead to a much less efficient and more bureaucratic operation: No. In fact, the current private system is much more bureaucratic and much less efficient. Not only does the current system waste 1/3 of all spending, but it interferes in the patient-physician relationship, making doctors justify every test and procedure-while attempting to influence these decisions through financial penalties and incentives. Physicians have to hire administrators just to keep up with the excess of claims and administration. Insurance companies also invest in drug companies, so when covering medications they have corporate duty to cover these medications even if others are cheaper and/or more effective. When further considering the confusing mass of bills, E.O.B.’s, deductibles, co-pays and the up, down and in the middle communication of physicians to insurance companies, insurance companies back to physicians and then the patient’s to both, the current private system is one impressively bureaucratic system, indeed. H.R. 676 eliminates the administrative waste, patient billing, co-pays and deductibles, by funding the system directly through tax dollars. Further, H.R. 676 leaves the medical decisions to the physicians themselves, reviewing their performance regularly instead of directly interfering with the patient-physician relationship.
6.) Isn’t the market based competition of the current private based system the best way to control costs: Obviously not, since the costs of premiums rose 86% between 2000 and 2006; three times faster than inflation. The rise of income in the same period rose only 15%. Medical bankruptcies are up 2200% since 1981 and profits for the largest pharmaceutical companies hit $62 billion back in 2004. H.R. 676 addresses cost control immediately by cutting out the profit and wasteful administration of the private system. Further, by being the sole insurer, the government will have the necessary influence to negotiate fair drug prices. Finally, the promotion of preventative medicine, which is virtually non-existent in the private based system, will control costs in the long term by reducing chronic diseases that require expensive treatment, such as cancer, heart disease and diabetes.
7.) Isn’t the reason that healthcare costs keep rising is that we are unhealthy as a country: Yes and no. First, through there are many factors to rising costs in healthcare, one important reason is poor health; with the consequent cost of treating chronic diseases. But, it is here again that the private system fails us. As a for-profit industry, there is no incentive to promote preventative medicine, the cost of such programs being immediate and the long-term financial dividends uncertain; uncertain because clients often switch coverage and companies. The fact is, not only do the private insurance companies rarely promote preventative medicine, they actually invest in industries that cause chronic illnesses. For instance, an insurer may invest in the tobacco industry. However, the “no” is that there are other important factors in the rapid rise of healthcare costs, not the least of which are corporate profit, poor administration, and the outrageous cost of medication.
8.) I’ve read that trial lawyers and malpractice suits are driving up healthcare costs: Yes and no. These do drive up costs, but only fractionally compared to the factors mentioned above, accounting for only 0.46% of our total healthcare spending. This is not the real problem.
9.) There seems to be a lot of factors involved in the high costs of healthcare. Can’t we just make reforms to the current system instead of changing over to another system: This is the critical point: no matter what reforms take place, keeping the for-profit, private insurance healthcare system requires wasting billions of dollars on non-healthcare costs. This system exists first and foremost to make money, not provide care. In fact, as a business it is in their best interest not to pay on claims, to deny claims whenever possible. As for-profit companies, they must use money to market themselves to prospective clients, they must hire administrators and marketers to do the job, and this is factored in to every premium dollar. As for-profit companies they must profile clients and underwrite them, they must promote medications based upon money instead of efficacy. And they must generate billions in profit; billons which don’t go towards healthcare. Consider further that as for-profit companies they have a vested interest in not insuring the elderly or the sick because they are too “expensive”, that they pass off the chronically ill to government programs in the long run anyway. And consider their inability to control pharmaceutical prices. With these considerations, as well as those of above, it becomes evident that reform is not really an option. For, it is the for-profit system that is the problem.
Well, after so many grossly unfair debate formats that virtually tell each audience which candidates they are supposed to be interested in, Dennis Kucinich finally figured out a way to highlight this fundamental absurdity to his own advantage: Socratic Irony!
After again not receiving a fair amount of time to the other candidates, when it was his turn to participate in a segment that called for each candidate to actually ask a question to any candidate they choose to, Kucinich managed to display that sense of sarcastic wit and pragmatic questioning that Socrates turned into philosophical method; a dialectic which both entertains an audience preoccupied with what will be shown to be absurdity, as well as instructs to something more rational.
What's more, Kucinich asked a question no moderator ever would:
Are you the only candidate that is offering a single-payer, not-for-profit healthcare system..."
That's a question that we will not be hearing in any of the future debates, never mind the question of why the other candidates won't take on the insurance/pharmaceutical companies and offer a single-payer, not-for-profit system like Kucinich or virtually every other major industrialized nation.
The media, just as our other Democratic Candidates, usually like to ignore the option. Whenever the issue does arise they mindlessly "argue" that it "cannot pass through Congress", or more aggresively propogate the many false criticisms regarding the system.
For them I've put together this short Q&A that debunks the most common of these myths and further begs this issue: Why will no one besides Kucinich actually offer what is the most rational and comprehensive solution to our healthcare crisis?
Here's some responses to the false, but commonly made, criticisms of single-payer health care plans. H. R. 676 is a Congressional bill co-authored by Dennis Kucinich, has now gained over 75 cosponsors and the endorsements of powerful unions and organizations, such as the AFL-CIO, California Nurses, PNHP and One Care California, as well as Michael Moore. It would set up a national, not-for-profit, health care system in the United States and provide fully comprehensive health care to ALL Americans, including all primary, emergency and long term care, office visits, medication costs, dental, vision and mental health, as well as drug and alchohol counseling. Further it, eliminates all co-pays, deductibles and medication costs. It is the simplest, most reasonable and dependable solution for the U.S. health care crisis.
1.) We already spend so much on healthcare, so we can’t afford a universal healthcare system that covers everyone: This is false. In fact, H.R. 676 spends $56 billion less each year, while covering all Americans with fully comprehensive medical benefits. The reason is because, as a for-profit industry, the current private system wastes 31% of the $2.2 trillion spent each year on non-healthcare related costs such as, marketing/advertising, billing and paperwork, and corporate profit. H.R. 676 eliminates profit and is thus able to operate at a much more efficient 3% administration cost, saving over $4oo billion a year. Utilizing this money is what makes true universal healthcare for all Americans possible.
2.) I’ve read about other countries with healthcare systems similar to H.R. 676 that have experienced rationing. Wouldn’t H.R. 676 lead to rationing: No. There are quite a few things to be said about rationing, but first and foremost, H.R. 676 is designed to eliminate rationing. Though other countries operating with a single payer healthcare system have sometimes experienced rationing, they devote only half as much money towards the system. And that is the critical point involved here. Under H.R. 676, the U.S. will spend almost twice as much as other countries and get the best care because of it. Under the current private system, the U.S. also spends twice as much as any other country, yet ranks consistently lower on vital indicators of health, such as infant mortality, average lifespan, and rates of terminal illness like heart disease and diabetes. As stated above, this is because the current system wastes more than 1/3 of all healthcare spending on non-healthcare related costs. To paraphrase Marcia Angell, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, for other countries the problem is money, for the U.S. it is the system. Furthermore, it must be pointed out that the current private system is already effectively rationing access to healthcare. Same-day access to primary-care physicians in the U.S. is 33%, significantly lower than other single payers like the U.K. at 41%, Australia at 54%, and New Zealand at 60%. Poll after poll reports many Americans admitting to going without needed care because of out-of-pocket expenses like co-pays and deductibles. Moreover, 46 million Americans are uninsured and another 50 million are considered underinsured.
3.) H.R. 676 is socialized medicine: This is false. H.R. 676 is not socialized medicine. It is a publicly financed, privately delivered healthcare system. This means that the government is the sole provider of insurance, paying the healthcare providers (physicians, nurses etc.) who remain private. So, under H.R. 676 you have free choice of healthcare provider. There is no out-of-network.
4.) I wouldn’t want my benefits to drop and also, I wouldn’t want to change physicians: Under H.R. 676 the large majority of Americans’ benefits would dramatically increase. This is fully comprehensive coverage including office visits, hospitalization, long term care, all prescription medications, and even dental, vision, and mental health services. You will not have to change physicians unless you choose to. You have free choice of provider. Further, when changing jobs or place of employment, under the current private system people often must change physicians or even go without coverage temporarily. However, under H.R. 676 coverage is not affected and patients can continue to see the same physician.
5.) Isn’t government control of our healthcare system going to lead to a much less efficient and more bureaucratic operation: No. In fact, the current private system is much more bureaucratic and much less efficient. Not only does the current system waste 1/3 of all spending, but it interferes in the patient-physician relationship, making doctors justify every test and procedure-while attempting to influence these decisions through financial penalties and incentives. Physicians have to hire administrators just to keep up with the excess of claims and administration. Insurance companies also invest in drug companies, so when covering medications they have corporate duty to cover these medications even if others are cheaper and/or more effective. When further considering the confusing mass of bills, E.O.B.’s, deductibles, co-pays and the up, down and in the middle communication of physicians to insurance companies, insurance companies back to physicians and then the patient’s to both, the current private system is one impressively bureaucratic system, indeed. H.R. 676 eliminates the administrative waste, patient billing, co-pays and deductibles, by funding the system directly through tax dollars. Further, H.R. 676 leaves the medical decisions to the physicians themselves, reviewing their performance regularly instead of directly interfering with the patient-physician relationship.
6.) Isn’t the market based competition of the current private based system the best way to control costs: Obviously not, since the costs of premiums rose 86% between 2000 and 2006; three times faster than inflation. The rise of income in the same period rose only 15%. Medical bankruptcies are up 2200% since 1981 and profits for the largest pharmaceutical companies hit $62 billion back in 2004. H.R. 676 addresses cost control immediately by cutting out the profit and wasteful administration of the private system. Further, by being the sole insurer, the government will have the necessary influence to negotiate fair drug prices. Finally, the promotion of preventative medicine, which is virtually non-existent in the private based system, will control costs in the long term by reducing chronic diseases that require expensive treatment, such as cancer, heart disease and diabetes.
7.) Isn’t the reason that healthcare costs keep rising is that we are unhealthy as a country: Yes and no. First, through there are many factors to rising costs in healthcare, one important reason is poor health; with the consequent cost of treating chronic diseases. But, it is here again that the private system fails us. As a for-profit industry, there is no incentive to promote preventative medicine, the cost of such programs being immediate and the long-term financial dividends uncertain; uncertain because clients often switch coverage and companies. The fact is, not only do the private insurance companies rarely promote preventative medicine, they actually invest in industries that cause chronic illnesses. For instance, an insurer may invest in the tobacco industry. However, the “no” is that there are other important factors in the rapid rise of healthcare costs, not the least of which are corporate profit, poor administration, and the outrageous cost of medication.
8.) I’ve read that trial lawyers and malpractice suits are driving up healthcare costs: Yes and no. These do drive up costs, but only fractionally compared to the factors mentioned above, accounting for only 0.46% of our total healthcare spending. This is not the real problem.
9.) There seems to be a lot of factors involved in the high costs of healthcare. Can’t we just make reforms to the current system instead of changing over to another system: This is the critical point: no matter what reforms take place, keeping the for-profit, private insurance healthcare system requires wasting billions of dollars on non-healthcare costs. This system exists first and foremost to make money, not provide care. In fact, as a business it is in their best interest not to pay on claims, to deny claims whenever possible. As for-profit companies, they must use money to market themselves to prospective clients, they must hire administrators and marketers to do the job, and this is factored in to every premium dollar. As for-profit companies they must profile clients and underwrite them, they must promote medications based upon money instead of efficacy. And they must generate billions in profit; billons which don’t go towards healthcare. Consider further that as for-profit companies they have a vested interest in not insuring the elderly or the sick because they are too “expensive”, that they pass off the chronically ill to government programs in the long run anyway. And consider their inability to control pharmaceutical prices. With these considerations, as well as those of above, it becomes evident that reform is not really an option. For, it is the for-profit system that is the problem.
Kucinich addressed a crowd of over 5,000 citizens today in Iowa, at the Heartland Presidential Forum. He was in good company, as the gathering of community and political leaders and Democratic Party activists involved in the forum announced as their priorities, including: “health care for everybody,” the “right to a living wage,” workers’ rights, an end to corporate control of government, and the adoption of progressive immigration reforms that “don’t use immigrants as scapegoats” for failed federal policies-all bread and butter stump issues for Kucinich and, further, the issues that along with the war/occupation and civil liberties best distignuish him as the leading Democrat:
One especially poignant moment dramatically reflected the affinity between the coalition’s populist agenda and Kucinich’s deep involvement in those same issues. A community leader from Iowa recounted the events of Dec. 12 , 2006, when federal immigration authorities raided a plant in search of undocumented immigrants. Among those detained and exiled to Mexico was the mother of five small children who lived in a modest home with her husband. It happened, the speaker said, her voice choked with emotion, on the hallowed feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe.
Kucinich walked across the stage and asked her to look at his watch. “What does it say?” he asked her. “It’s Our Lady of Guadalupe,” she responded. Kucinich said the watch was a gift from friends in El Paso, Texas four years ago “when I was standing up for the rights of immigrants.” The crowd’s reaction swelled from sighs and gasps to sustained applause and cheering.
Kucinich has been leading on Immigration issues, from his rousing speech at the Latino Congresso to his vote against the S-CHIP that left out over 600,000 children of LEGAL IMMIGRANTS.
Accountability and special interest reform was also highlighted by Kucinich when he drew cheers and applause regarding impeachment and talked about his career-long battle with the corrupt influence of special interests on our political process:
“As Mayor of Cleveland, I put my career on the line to save a municipal electric system” from a corporate take-over, Kucinich said.
That same public-interest philosophy, he elaborated, has given him the strength to challenge the for-profit health insurance and pharmaceutical companies and call for a national, not-for-profit program that covers all Americans. His opposition to corporate-backed trade agreements that have off-shored millions of U.S. jobs is part of that same philosophy, he said. And, the war in Iraq was motivated by a political and corporate thirst for oil, the same motivations that allow oil and gas companies to exploit federally owned lands in the U.S., he said.
The surest route to ending the monied-control of politics and government is public financing of elections; and, he said, he would push for a Constitutional amendment to ensure that federal campaigns were publicly, rather than privately financed.
“It’s your government,” he said, “Take it back,” he concluded to thunderous applause and a standing ovation.
