Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
HR 3962: Why I Voted NO
We have been led to believe that we must make our health care choices only within the current structure of a predatory, for-profit insurance system which makes money not providing health care. We cannot fault the insurance companies for being what they are. But we can fault legislation in which the government incentivizes the perpetuation, indeed the strengthening, of the for-profit health insurance industry, the very source of the problem. When health insurance companies deny care or raise premiums, co-pays and deductibles they are simply trying to make a profit. That is our system.
Clearly, the insurance companies are the problem, not the solution. They are driving up the cost of health care. Because their massive bureaucracy avoids paying bills so effectively, they force hospitals and doctors to hire their own bureaucracy to fight the insurance companies to avoid getting stuck with an unfair share of the bills. The result is that since 1970, the number of physicians has increased by less than 200% while the number of administrators has increased by 3000%. It is no wonder that 31 cents of every health care dollar goes to administrative costs, not toward providing care. Even those with insurance are at risk. The single biggest cause of bankruptcies in the U.S. is health insurance policies that do not cover you when you get sick.
But instead of working toward the elimination of for-profit insurance, H.R. 3962 would put the government in the role of accelerating the privatization of health care. In H.R. 3962, the government is requiring at least 21 million Americans to buy private health insurance from the very industry that causes costs to be so high, which will result in at least $70 billion in new annual revenue, much of which is coming from taxpayers. This inevitably will lead to even more costs, more subsidies, and higher profits for insurance companies - a bailout under a blue cross.
By incurring only a new requirement to cover pre-existing conditions, a weakened public option, and a few other important but limited concessions, the health insurance companies are getting quite a deal. The Center for American Progress' blog, Think Progress, states, 'since the President signaled that he is backing away from the public option, health insurance stocks have been on the rise.' Similarly, healthcare stocks rallied when Senator Max Baucus introduced a bill without a public option. Bloomberg reports that Curtis Lane, a prominent health industry investor, predicted a few weeks ago that 'money will start flowing in again' to health insurance stocks after passage of the legislation. Investors.com last month reported that pharmacy benefit managers share prices are hitting all-time highs, with the only industry worry that the Administration would reverse its decision not to negotiate Medicare Part D drug prices, leaving in place a Bush Administration policy.
During the debate, when the interests of insurance companies would have been effectively challenged, that challenge was turned back. The 'robust public option' which would have offered a modicum of competition to a monopolistic industry was whittled down from an initial potential enrollment of 129 million Americans to 6 million. An amendment which would have protected the rights of states to pursue single-payer health care was stripped from the bill at the request of the Administration. Looking ahead, we cringe at the prospect of even greater favors for insurance companies.
Recent rises in unemployment indicate a widening separation between the finance economy and the real economy. The finance economy considers the health of Wall Street, rising corporate profits, and banks' hoarding of cash, much of it from taxpayers, as sign of an economic recovery. However in the real economy - in which most Americans live - the recession is not over. Rising unemployment, business failures, bankruptcies and foreclosures are still hammering Main Street.
This health care bill continues the redistribution of wealth to Wall Street at the expense of America's manufacturing and service economies which suffer from costs other countries do not have to bear, especially the cost of health care. America continues to stand out among all industrialized nations for its privatized health care system. As a result, we are less competitive in steel, automotive, aerospace and shipping while other countries subsidize their exports in these areas through socializing the cost of health care.
Notwithstanding the fate of H.R. 3962, America will someday come to recognize the broad social and economic benefits of a not-for-profit, single-payer health care system, which is good for the American people and good for America's businesses, with of course the notable exceptions being insurance and pharmaceuticals.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...




211 Comments so far
Show AllBut not in the Democratic Party, for reasons already belabored to death.
You think Dennis is a "phoney and a hack", and I think he is one of the best and we need more like him and like Bernie Sanders and about 10 percent of the elected Dems in congress who have courage to vote against the War Lobby.
Dennis is a good congressman, and he would not have gotten elected as a Green or any 3rd party, just like Nader cannot get elected.
The winner take all system that needs big bucks just to get a candidate name known is reality. For president you need 50 million votes just to have a chance. This is power politics of big money.
I don't like it, but it is reality.
You don't address the key point:
Aside from whatever personal advantages you impute to Kucinich, he consistently advocates voting the straight Democratic line. This means electing candidates who are consistently opposed--in practce--to nearly every progressive proposal he claims to champion.
In what sane universe is this conisered effective or pragmatic? It's like trying to promote atheism by voting for a faith-based party, or trying to promote equality for African Americans by voting for an avowed racist.
We will NEVER achieve single payer, public financing of elections, reduced military spending, nonimperialist foreign policy, etc., by voting for candidates WHO ARE AVOWEDLY OPPOSED TO ALL THE FOREGOING.
This is why Kucinich is a hack--he prized party loyalty above pushing--in reality, in practice--for the progressive planks he blathers on about. If he were serious about that program, he would not call for people to vote for candidates who are certain to crush it.
I already did address your key point.
We have a difference of opinion on that.
I don't see him like you do at all and I see him as one of our best as this article shows.
REALITY was my point that you don't address and I am not in charge of finding a universe that is sane for you, so good luck.
As is usual with a progressive who professes to be full of high morals and ideals, when your shoddy logic is shot down, you turn surly and nasty as a snake.
First of all, you say that Kucinich is a "good" Congressman. What has all his fawning before the mainstream Democrats won in the way of progressive legislation? Name one piece of progressive legislation that has been passed as a result of all his unprincipled support for mainstream Democrats. One. Now. No evasions. See? You can't name one. So what good is Kucinich--other than to the Democrats, keeping progressives corralled within the prison of the Democratic Party?
Your "reality" is that in order to get elected in the current system, you have to play the game of big-money politics. But the big money comes from big corporations which then dictate your agenda--or you don't get the money. That's why Kucinich's primary runs are always doomed.
So your "reality" is to knuckle under to these interests just to attain office, at which point you become a pawn of these interests.
If that universe is sane for you, then you are morally insane and should get treatment as soon as possible--because the very definition of insanity is to think that you're going to achieve your goals by campaigning for and endorsing people who relentlessly oppose them.
It is certainly not a practical way to achieve progressive change. You need to break with that whole paradigm. But you're too lazy, morally and intellectually, to conjure with those realities and how to overcome them. You'd rather just preach the same old tired rationalizations for marching in lockstep to the status quo--another drone among drones.
http://www.indypendent.org/2009/11/12/you-must-go-to-jail/
I know what it is. Vanmungo's jealous of Kucinich because he has a hot wife.
Sorry. :P