Dennis Kucinich is FLAT WRONG on Insurance.

[denem]

Whatever you think of Rep. Kucinich vote, and I admire Idealism, Dennis either doesn't understand the basic principles of insurance, or is party to privileged information, or he misspoke.

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.

This statement defies logic. The logic of insurance. The bigger the pool, the individual lower risk premium. (Whether that's passed on is another mattter.)

BUT No argument can be made for DK's statement without solid evidence that the uninsured are significantly less healthy than the insured. In fact there is strong evidence to the contrary: The young have least incentive to gain from insurance, the elderly the most; and add to that perfectly healthy people denied insurance for a preexisting condition.

Health insurers are a pack of sharks. They will rip off whatever they can, and that's a different argument entirely. The insurance companies so liked the regulation and "higher profits" coming their way that they bought off every member of congress who was not already sold to vote no.

The point is a bigger pool means "even more costs, more subsidies"

I'm sorry Dennis, that's bullshit.

[aquart]

1. They forgot to buy Cao. And he needs the money.

Fools.

[Go2Peace]

33. Yes, compared to all the "white hats" that represented us so well! Damn Kucinich!

He should have behaved like the other part of the MAJORITY, and watered down reform against the wishes of the public!

[provis99]

2. what are you talking about? Kucinich is completely correct.

He's saying the government will subsidize private insurance for people that can't afford it. That is indeed giving tons of government money away to corporations, who have no self-interest in lowering premiums. They are allowed by law to conspire to fix prices at monopoly heights through the anti-trust exemption (which wasn't removed with this bill). So there is no way that insurance premiums are going down, and insurance companies will be getting much higher profits in the form of tax tranfers.

[denem]

10. I'm say the cost of providing insurance depends on the size of pool insured.

And unless you can show that the uninsured are less healthy than the insured its "game over" on "higher costs". That one of the reasons single payer is less costly. The whole pool is covered.

Does private insurance cost more than single payer? - yes
Does adding 21 million more Americans to the private insurance pools raise costs. No.

I approve the the expansion of Medicaid. Period.
Government subsidies to lower income earners is offset to some extent by the extension of employer subsidies. Under any feasible single payer system, employers would be significantly taxed. No this bill isn't perfect, but Dennis is still wrong.

There's a separate bill for the anti-trust exemption. It's difficult to vote against as a single issue.

I believe the House would have got further without an omnibus bill. Starting with "Die Quickly" stuff that would be a very hard call, however much insurance money you are taking.

[provis99]

19. Kucinich was talking about costs to the taxpayer in the form of tax transfers.

He wasn't talking about increased costs from widening the insurance pool. Though of course the uninsured are less healthy than those that already have insurance; that's why the private insurance companies won't insure them, so you're wrong there, too. The reason why Medicare for all would result in lower costs is that a single payer insurer can set what it is willing to pay for services, with health care companies (not health insurance companies) having less control over what they charge.

[denem]

23. No. Dennis was talking about Health Costs period.

“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.

The CBO has reported that the uninsured are not less healthy on average than the insured. Case closed.

[Hello_Kitty]

35. The uninsured also use less health care, per capita, than the insured.

Discussion And Policy Implications

Using two independent sources of data, we estimated that uninsured people received $35 billion in uncompensated care in 2001, or about 2.8 percent of total personal health care spending. Including the amount of uncompensated care, people who were uninsured all year averaged $1,253 per person in medical care costs. In contrast, people with full-year private insurance coverage received almost twice as much care. Thus, uncompensated care does not fully substitute for the lack of insurance, a result that is highly consistent with recent literature reviews that document sizable differences in health outcomes between the uninsured and the insured.37

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/hltha...

It's a bit dated, but I don't think too much has changed, since there hasn't been any major legislation affecting non-retirees since 2001. So how does forcing uninsured people to purchase policies from for-profit private insurers reduce costs or stop them from increasing?

[Raineyb]

29. What does that have to do with the prices the insurance companies charge?

This is why we need a single payer system. One payer with the size and power to negotiate. Yes it comes out of taxes but the government as the biggest bloody entity would have the negotiating power to significantly reduce costs. IT's called economies of scale and if it's good enough for the wretched WalMart when they're driving the price of their goods down (and eventually forcing the manufacturers to move to China in order to stay profitable but I digress) it should be good enough for our health care! We don't have that. What we have is a stupid mandate to buy insurance (as if people are just not buying it for the hell of it because they like the idea of going broke if they get sick and that's not even going into the number of people who go into bankruptcy who had insurance but the companies decided not to bother paying) with the taxpayer funneling billions of dollars into the pockets of the same leeches (my apologies to leeches) who are jerking people around with the price of plans now.

You really expect the addition of these people to lower the cost for everyone? The insurance companies aren't going to lower anyone's price. They're going to take the extra money and pump up their profit margins.

If you truly believe that forcing people to buy insurance from the rapacious insurance companies is going to lower costs for everyone I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to see you really cheap!

[POAS]

44. I agree with your

description of how and expanded pool of insured lowers rates except for how the current, unregulated, market works.

By insurers being able to throw out the high risk insured they are able to narrow the pool to only those that will require little in the way of payouts. This "outsourcing" of risk results in others suffering and expense to us through our taxes.

[Go2Peace]

34. He is doing his job well!

As I have said before, we need guys like Kucinich. He provides a contrast. Damn, just look at all the questions and discussions that his stand provoked here.

Without the contrast we might start thinking that what we have now, in representation, is actually the best we can do. And no way is it anywhere near a representative party at the moment.

[Cronus Protagonist]

3. I will not be buying a compulsory insurance policy

They can throw me in the gulag, where they will have to provide me with free healthcare anyway. And I will find someone to take the case all the way to the Supreme Court. They might as well try to tax the air I breathe.

[TreasonousBastard]

6. The alternative is that the rest of us pay for your healthcare, so...

go ahead and rot in the gulag where we pay less for the care.

(Do you want free food and housing, too? Even if you ever get a job?)

[girl gone mad]

22. No one but me has ever paid a dime for my healthcare.

My neighbor, on the other hand, has insurance but was denied coverage for a recent hospital stay. I think you've got the wrong target.

[TreasonousBastard]

24. If you don't buy a policy, and you don't have the money...

to pay for whatever care you might need, someone else will pay for it or you will be untreated.

Simple, nu?

[Odin2005]

21. Good riddance to you anti-social freeloaders, then.

[denem]

25. May I suggest a 'Living Will Not'

I the undersigned will under no conditions etc etc etc be admitted to an ER. I further request that any contact with 911 I may be able to make, under circumstances in relation to any matter concerning health etc etc etc terminated, with all vigilance.

[mullard12ax7]

4. Screw idealism, gimme cold hard cash baby!

Screw laws, morals, women's rights, torture, conspiring against the government: screw all of it! Gimme a health insurance so expensive nobody can afford it!

Gawd...

[Wilms]

5. Here's a statement from Kucinich.

http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?Docu...

[Unvanguard]

7. The uninsured encompass both more-healthy and less-healthy pools.

The people who need insurance least, and the people who can't get it because of their health conditions.

Though what will probably end up happening, as the CBO said, is that the first group will get private insurance and the second group will end up relying on the public option, which will be under greater scrutiny and less incentivized to discriminate. So you're still right.

[flvegan]

8. You really think they'll lower premiums based on more subscribers?

That's funny.

[denem]

13. You really think they'll raise premiums on higher costs?

Lower costs, they'll raise premiums, same costs they'll raise premiums, higher costs, they'll raise premiums. Which premiums are likely to go up the most?

[flvegan]

14. No

I think they'll look at the windfall of new insureds and laugh all the way to the bank. Wish I was a health insurance company CEO tonight.

[denem]

17. That's why they opposed it so hard.

Right?

[flvegan]

18. No

they opposed it "so hard" to make sure that their lapdogs knew damn well that if they tried anything even more significant, they'd cut off funding for their next election.

[denem]

20. Link?

[flvegan]

37. Link for fucking what?

So if I provided you with some shit Google link for what I said it would be validated?

Bah. You can't disprove it. Link yourfuckingself.

And take a class in economics while you're at it.

[denem]

40. You made it up without a shred of evidence.

Economics - I got first class honors. You?

[Hello_Kitty]

16. They really do think that, it seems.

It doesn't even occur to them that if forcing a few million more people to buy insurance results in lower health care costs, that the insurance companies aren't necessarily going to feel obliged to pass the savings along to their customers. Why would they and when has any industry done that, especially when they don't have to comply with anti-trust laws and don't have to worry about serious competition from the government?

[denem]

26. Of course Insurance Sharks won't "feel obliged to pass the savings"

They want to raise premiums. But I ask.

a) Lower costs + raise premiums
b) Same costs + raise premiums
C) Higher costs + raise premiums

Which one will they really turn the screws for?
You and I know that they charge like wounded bulls on higher costs.

[Hello_Kitty]

28. Exactly, and because the bill has to be "revenue neutral"

That means that subsidies can be reduced and premiums can be raised on consumers if costs go up.

[Jamastiene]

30. Yup.

There are plenty of people who also think people with "pre-existing conditions" will magically get health insurance at the same rates as people without "pre-existing conditions." I've got news for them.

[LeftyMom]

36. Well sure, which is why mandatory car insurance is so cheap and pays out so easily.

I laugh so I don't cry sometimes.

[Hello_Kitty]

9. What "pool" are you talking about?

The current system we have is a patchwork of Medicare, Medicaid, VA, military, and a plethora of private plans. There are several "pools" but there is no one "pool".

And yes, Dennis is right about "more subsidies" if the majority of new captive customers to private insurers have to be subsidized.

[denem]

15. The pool - the insurance base of an individual policy.

More people take up insurance, the bigger the pool.

[Jamastiene]

31. The subsidies won't cover very much of it, a small percentage at best.

If I know our corporate led government like I know our corporate led government, the subsidies will be a tiny percentage of what the costs will be of this forced insurance company bailout.

They could have written this bill in one sentence: "People without insurance must now buy insurance by law or face the consequences." End of story.

They call this "Health Care Reform?"

[MajorChode]

11. Of course it's bullshit

One of the biggest problems now is that people who don't think they need health insurance don't buy it and those who need it, but don't get it from a pool can't get it. This problem is only going to get worse. Health insurance is rapidly becoming a luxury item. Those employers who don't have to provide it are going to drop it. Employers who are required are going to force more employees into part time so they can avoid it. So Kucinich is willing to allow health care reform to fail, and millions of people to fall into bankruptcy, lose coverage, or worse just because he is afraid the insurance companies might make more profit? What an asshole.

[elocs]

12. You dare question a DU God!!! Ha, I just canceled somebody's UnRec.

Because you know only trolls use the UnRec here at DU.

[madrchsod]

27. the economics of health care is dictated by the insurance companies

it does`t matter if there are a million or ten million they will not lower their price. they`ll have a new source of money to keep their hold on their pricing and be able to raise it due to medical inflation.

dennis is right about healthcare reform in this country and what is being proposed is a cruel joke...it`s the insurance companies dream...millions of new customers paid for by the federal government.

it took medicare 11 months to send out the first payment. this healthcare reform will take years to take effect. that will give the republicans enough time to kill it by a thousand paper cuts.

[Desertrose]

32. Amen!

The insurance companies are running the show. Have been and even more so now.

[denem]

48. Until legislation is passed to regulate them.

Tell me you'd like to fly without the FAA, whatever it's faults.

[Vidar]

38. And you're flat wrong on Kucinich.

[denem]

41. I am not FLAT WRONG about the man. Rep Kucinich is consistant and principled.

What I object to is a legitmate proposition that strengthening private insurers will make stronger reform more difficult in the future,

For what it's worth INSURANCE is not a fair or appropriate paradigm for health care.

But what Dennis added to his statement denies Insurance 101.

Vidar, you are hard nosed and hard line. I more than respect that, but a fallacious argument is ultimately bullets cumming back at you.

[winyanstaz]

39. Kucinich was right..and YOU are wrong.

[denem]

42. And winyanstaz is DEAD ON and the 220 votes were WRONG.

Fuck Slogans.

[denem]

43. BTW this OP got to +6 before the Cult of Personality kicked in,

Haters are haters

[Selatius]

45. What makes you think they will not simply keep premium rates the same and pocket the extra profit?

There is a distinct lack of competition in the marketplace for health insurance in many states. If there were strong or healthy competition, these entities would be forced to bring down their rates or risk losing market share to other competitors. What if there are only two really big competitors in an area? There will not be very much competition. Both would probably try to avoid competition by keeping rates relatively the same instead of dropping them.

[denem]

46. They will pocket the profits. Ain't no doubt about it.

But if they were faced wtih rising costs, they'd have a black and white erection to screw the American People, with hardly a wiff of climax.

[denem]

47. I luv how serious discussion sinks. Next stop what Anthony Weiner said.

You wont like it. Last post on this thread.