portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary portland metro

health | human & civil rights | social services

Kucinich Health Care is CHEAPER than current health care

Before you talk about the truth, why don't you read what Kucinich is saying. According to Kucinich we won't be paying more for Health Care. He does address the issue, and he does do it honestly. Listen to him. Help him. Please you are confusing people to the fact that Dennis Kucinich's Health Care system is cheaper than the current system.
read the website

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.

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.

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."

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

homepage: homepage: http://www.kucinich.us

I don't think anybody really knows.. 26.Oct.2003 12:36

wb

It maybe cheaper, I don't think anyone really knows. I wouldn't believe any politician's numbers just because they are trying to get me to vote for them.

There are a lot of variables to consider.

How many uninsured will now be getting healthcare that weren't before?

How many were getting it, but weren't paying for it and defaulting on their debts?

How much money will businesses give back to their employees In the form of salaries, once they are no longer spending the money on insurance for their employees?

Will illegal immigrants be allowed on the system, and if so how much more will it cost?

Where will the current insurance bureaucrats find work once they are no longer needed, and how to make up for the income tax that these bureaucrats put back into the public coffers?

Will US businesses be able to compete better in a global market where some competitors have full national health care, and others have nothing?

When the dust settles from such a radical change on our system, can anybody really predict if it will be cheaper, cost the same, for the same level of care, or be more expensive?

I would venture to bet it would be more expensive, because it seems to be for other industrialized countries that have a similar system, based on their tax rates and structure.

I hope it would be cheaper than what we have now. Even if it is not, I would be willing to spend a little more to get a more universal and consistent system.

it has to be cheaper 26.Oct.2003 19:17

single-payer

It's silly to think that the system would be more expensive. The email that follows this message concerns the sinlge-payer bill in Minnesota. There is so much waste in the current system: Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts needs more administrators for 2.5 million people than Canada needs for 27 million people; it's easier to detect fraud (below) because there is only one billing system; the 30% overhead of health insurance companies is removed. you can read more reasons at:

 http://www.pnhp.org/facts/why_the_us_needs_a_single_payer_health_system.php

The last item is the most important: it is known that single-payer would save between $100 to $200 billion in administration costs. Merill Lynch did a study and found out that while drugs will be cheaper, the drug companies won't lose profits because of "economies of scale" (volume would go up to keep profits).

The system that Howard Dean is pushing was already called a failure while he was in office:

 http://www.state.vt.us/health/commission/docs/report/finalreport.htm#sec2

The state of California is also having problems with health insurance costs too.

I agree that the final cost is unknown, but the health insurance model always costs more because health insurance companies cost money to run and provide absolutely no care.

==========| email about benefits of single payer

From: Susan or Michael < mf4@usfamily.net>

Subject: Pawlenty health 10.27 12noon

Health care task force meeting (Pawlenty's task force), Monday 10.27 from 12noon to 4:30pm at Metro State campus in St Paul.

I especially encourage single payer supporters to come, as that is really the only viable, fair, and cost saving strategy to get us out of this health care crisis. [And likely to be ignored by insurance company-friendly Pawlenty - ed] --Susan Hasti M.D.\member PNHP (Physicians for a National Health Program)

---

To: Governor Pawlenty's Panel on Health on Health Care Costs

We Minnesota Consumers, Patients, and Businesses submit the following recommendations on the state's health care spending crisis:

#1. Don't blame increased spending on patient overuse. Health care is under-used as much as it is over-used.

#2. Don't shift rising health costs to higher deductibles and co-pays for workers and families. This will (1) continue employee-employer tension,

(2) increase under-use, (3) abet the state's failed managed care/HMO system.

#3. End rationing, limited provider choice, unaffordable premiums, high fees, and declining quality of care by replacing the state's managed care/HMO system.

#4. Replace the managed care and rationing with a system, like MEDICARE, which will . . .

(1) cut administrative waste by using one payer to pay hospital and doctor bills instead of many payers;

(2) cut excess capacity by coordinating expensive equipment and services among hospitals in a region;

(3) cut high provider fees and drug prices by negotiating fee and price schedules;

(4) cut fraud by making it easier to monitor and audit medically unnecessary services.

Sincerely, the People of Minnesota

See Universal Health Care Coalition (OTHER SIDE) and go to www.UHCAN-MN.org for more information.

One more time.... 26.Oct.2003 22:58

Lynn Porter

"I would venture to bet it would be more expensive, because it seems to be for other industrialized countries that have a similar system, based on their tax rates and structure. "

Other industrialized democracies have government run, single-payer, universal health care systems. They provide better health care than the U.S. at much lower costs per capita. Read up on it.

I've seen various figures for medical insurance company overhead -- administrative costs -- all very high. Medicare has administrative costs of less than 3%.

Employee health care costs of U.S. businesses make it more difficult to compete with businesses in other countries that don't have that problem.