[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 15]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 21171-21172]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        CBC ANNUAL LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE 2005, HEALTHCARE FORUM

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. DENNIS J. KUCINICH

                                of ohio

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, September 22, 2005

  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, the following is a copy of a speech given 
by me for insertion into the Congressional Record.

       Thank you for inviting me to the CBC Annual Meeting. I am 
     honored to be here.
       I want to impress on you today that addressing our national 
     health crisis is well within our reach. In fact, there is 
     only one truly sustainable solution and that's universal, 
     single payer, not for profit health care.
       We have all heard the statistics. Almost 46 million are 
     uninsured. Only 5 percent of them are unemployed. 8.4 million 
     children were uninsured in 2003. Over a third of the poor and 
     more than a quarter of the near-poor lack coverage.
       What does that mean for them? They are less healthy. They 
     don't get adequate preventative care. For example, uninsured 
     children are 70 percent more likely than insured children not 
     to receive medical care for common conditions like ear 
     infections. And an uninsured person has a 25 percent higher 
     risk of dying than an insured person. This translates to 
     18,000 deaths per year in the U.S. that are attributable to 
     lack of insurance coverage.
       Being uninsured or even underinsured also takes a huge 
     financial toll. Medical bills are the number one cause of 
     personal bankruptcies. That will affect the ability to buy a 
     home or make other large purchases that help define the 
     American dream.
       It's not hard to see why the U.S., when compared to other 
     developed countries, has the lowest indicators of health. We 
     have the lowest life expectancy and the worst continuity of 
     care. We have the highest infant mortality rate and maternal 
     mortality rate.
       And yet our per capita health care spending is almost twice 
     the average of developed countries that have universal 
     coverage. That is largely because of gross inefficiency. 
     Private health insurance overhead ranges from 12-30 percent 
     while Medicare's is consistently about 2-3 percent.
       In a nutshell, we're already paying for high quality, 
     universal health care--we're just not getting it.
       Now we already have a system that is a model for where we 
     need to go. It's called Medicare. H.R. 676, which I am proud 
     to have developed with my friend and colleague, Mr. Conyers, 
     would simply expand and improve Medicare. Under this plan, 
     Medicare for All, every person in the country will receive 
     comprehensive health care and every person will pay less. It 
     doesn't cost any more than our nation currently spends on 
     health care. It simply reallocates the money to better uses.
       Here's how it works. It would give everyone living in 
     America, including immigrants, a health care card. That card 
     would guarantee coverage at any hospital, any clinic, and any 
     doctor that a patient wants to use. Coverage would also be 
     guaranteed for the entire range of patient's medical needs, 
     from preventative care screening to prescription drugs to 
     dental care to long-term care.
       The wasted and excessive funds in our current health care 
     system are so great that under Medicare for All, no patient 
     would ever pay a premium, a deductible, a co-payment, or even 
     see a bill for needed medical care. Cost would no longer be a 
     worry for families or a reason for bankruptcy.
       Medicare for All would also address the quality of health 
     care. There are often no standards, or there are different 
     standards for different people. If you're black, or if you're 
     Hispanic, you know that the health care you receive is, too 
     often, not the same as other people receive.
       There should be a single standard of care, determined by a 
     group of qualified medical professionals. Under Medicare for 
     All, a new National Board of Universal Quality and Access 
     would be established. The Board would include health care 
     professionals, nurses, representatives of institutional 
     providers of health care, health care advocacy groups, labor 
     unions and citizen patient advocates. This Board is critical 
     because it puts control of health care in the hands of 
     providers and health experts instead of insurance companies 
     and software writers.
       The first priority of the Board would be to create a 
     universal, best quality standard of care. This standard would 
     determine appropriate staffing levels and appropriate medical 
     technology. This standard would also cover design and scope 
     of work in the health workplace. So, no matter what a patient 
     looks like or where in the country the patient is treated, 
     the health care standards are the same. Even if you already 
     have health insurance now, the medical care you would receive 
     under Medicare for All would be better.
       Finally, Medicare for All would hold health care facilities 
     accountable to the universal,

[[Page 21172]]

     best quality standard of care. Hospitals, clinics and other 
     facilities would no longer be able to keep internal data 
     secret, such as staffing ratios, medication errors, 
     misdiagnoses or infection rates. As it stands, patients 
     cannot compare health care quality data from hospital to 
     hospital. Making that data public would ensure 
     accountability. It would help facilities learn what problems 
     need to be addressed. It would encourage them to do even 
     better to deliver the best patient care possible.
       Who supports such a health care system? About two thirds of 
     Americans agree that the federal government should guarantee 
     medical care for Americans. 58 percent of medical students 
     and faculty favor a Medicare for All type of system. Multiple 
     Deans of Medical Schools, the former Editor of the New 
     England Journal of Medicine, about 40 percent of small 
     business owners have all expressed support. The three major 
     auto manufacturers (Ford, GM, and Daimler-Chrysler) in Canada 
     have all publicly endorsed Canada's health system 
     specifically because it lowers their costs so much that it 
     gives them a significant competitive advantage over their 
     U.S. counterparts in Detroit. This is an important point that 
     resonates with lawmakers.
       I am excited to report that H.R. 676 now has over 50 
     cosponsors and the list is growing. It includes rank and file 
     as well as several ranking members with seniority; 15 members 
     of the CBC as well as the Hispanic Caucus, the Progressive 
     Caucus, the New Democrats; members that have cosponsored the 
     bill since it was first introduced in 2003 and members who 
     have heard about the growing movements in their states and 
     have signed on for the first time.
       I want to close by saying that I think you'll find that 
     when you talk to people who follow health care policy closely 
     and ask them what they think about H.R. 676 you're highly 
     likely to get the same answer I usually get--Yes, it's the 
     best system out there and would solve many of our health care 
     problems, but it's just not politically feasible. That is not 
     a good enough reason to avoid one of the biggest issues of 
     our time. I usually just smile and tell them this: with 
     health care costs rising faster than inflation with no end in 
     sight and with the abject failure of managed care to contain 
     those costs; and with the number of uninsured growing 
     steadily; and with American companies losing their 
     competitive edge because they are paying so much more for 
     health care than other developed countries, the opposition 
     cannot prevail much longer. Universal, not for profit single 
     payer health care is not only feasible--it's inevitable.

                          ____________________