Obama on mandates

[ProSense]

June 2008:

Obama's plan would only require all children to be covered. Obama would consider an individual mandate for adults once affordable health insurance is available to everyone. To get there, he proposes a national health insurance exchange to help individuals who want to buy private coverage. His plan would also provide federal income-related subsidies to help people buy coverage.

link

June 2009:

I understand the Committees are moving towards a principle of shared responsibility -- making every American responsible for having health insurance coverage, and asking that employers share in the cost. I share the goal of ending lapses and gaps in coverage that make us less healthy and drive up everyone's costs, and I am open to your ideas on shared responsibility. But I believe if we are going to make people responsible for owning health insurance, we must make health care affordable. If we do end up with a system where people are responsible for their own insurance, we need to provide a hardship waiver to exempt Americans who cannot afford it. In addition, while I believe that employers have a responsibility to support health insurance for their employees, small businesses face a number of special challenges in affording health benefits and should be exempted.

link

July 2009:

I feel pretty good that I've been pretty consistent on this. The individual mandate is probably the one area where I basically changed my mind. The more deeply I got into the issue, the more I felt that the dangers of adverse selection justified us creating a system that shares responsibility, as long as we were actually making health insurance affordable and there was a hardship waiver for those who, even with generous subsidies, couldn't afford it. And that remains my position.

I think other than that we've been pretty consistent about how I think we need to approach the problem. And by the way, I in no way want to suggest that cost is more important than coverage. My point has been that those two things go hand in hand. If we can't control costs, then we simply can't afford to expand coverage the way we need to. In turn, if we can expand coverage, that actually gives us some leverage with insurers or pharmaceutical industry or others to do more to help make the health care system more cost-effective.

link

[bluestateguy]

1. That's all fine and good

regrettably, the pinheads in Congress are not bound by the campaign promises that he makes. They don't care, and they will forge ahead anyway. This is not a parliamentary system.

[sandnsea]

2. Affordability has been his focus

Which is why the amount of the subsidy is really what we should be arguing about. Anything over the HELP plan amounts is going to strangle families.

[Oregone]

8. Subsidies wont make a damn bit of difference....

for those not eligible for the exchange. Mandates will, even if they have employer plans, being that it guarantees a constant level of demand outside of the exchange irregardless of the price.

[JNelson6563]

3. Seems pretty consistent to me.

[Oregone]

4. What is your damn point?

Obama is ok with mandates? So fucking what? That doesn't make them permissible in my opinion for reasons I have explained.

You have failed to explain any positive aspect to mandates. You fail to do anything besides cut and paste quotes. Google is already doing your job. Better actually

[ProSense]

5. What's yours? n/t

[Oregone]

6. Mandates are detrimental in the proposed system, even if Obama divorces Michelle to marry them

This isn't about who likes what or who said what. It should be about debating policy, not whose smile is more genuine when they endorse certain aspects of the bill.

[ProSense]

7. Mandates are a part of all universal health plans. Mandates for children and then adults

Second, single payer, which so many folks love, is a mandate by a different name. That name is taxes. Some people will feel they can't, or shouldn't, pay that level of taxes, and they will be angry, just as some will feel they can't afford insurance, or shouldn't have to buy it, and they will be angry. Now, maybe single payer is a better way to structure the mandate. But it's a mandate nevertheless.

link

It's a mandate. You are taxed whether you like it or not.

[ipaint]

9. Good then there is no reason that we can't get a mandated amount similar to the netherlands

Approx $125, no deductibles no copays.

It's a deal.

[Oregone]

10. This isn't a Universal Health plan

There will be 3% to 5% uninsured according to the CBO. Beyond that, early committee bills do not allow universal access to the a guaranteed affordable and comprehensive plan (public, mind you). In fact, very few will individually have access to the exchange.

This is most certainly not universal health care. For the majority, it is mandates with the private market to turn to, only.

Secondly, nice new linky Mr. Google, but you've already pasted that piece of shit article before that basically says taxes are a mandate.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=8712602#8712704

No fuckin shit? Taxes aren't optionally? Wow...totally amazing. You do understand the difference, right? In single payer, everyone is forced to fund the government, which uses those funds for a responsible and efficient program. With private mandates, you are forced to purchase something and pay the golden parachutes of private execs. Does that sound the same to anyone else?

FAIL

[ProSense]

11. Do all countries with universal health plans have 100% coverage?

It certainly is universal health care.

[Oregone]

12. To be honest, I cant find a single count of uninsured legal residents in my province

Since 100% of people legal residents here are qualified, and if they cannot afford the premiums ($54 single person/$96 a couple/$108 a family, no deductible, no copay), they are waived.

Any discrepancy in population count to enrollment probably comes down to new residents with pending coverage (all such costs are reimbursed retroactively when they become covered), illegal aliens, and perhaps the homeless that are simply unaccounted for (and probably have no income/taxes). And to send teams out to track down every last homeless person creates some incredible logistical problems, that aren't even worth citing in an argument comparing those problems to a system with 3-5% uninsured.

With that said, 100% of legal residents in my province are eligible for affordable, subsidized, comprehensive public insurance.

With this "universal health plan", there won't be so much as 10% eligible for the affordable, subsidized, comprehensive public insurance (on edit, Im just talking about the exchange, and realize Medicare/Medicaid/VA will remain). Sounds real universal.

You sure you don't need more turd polish?

[Oregone]

13. The bottom line is that you are mandating insurance without ensuring a universal public option

Mandates alone do not equal universal health coverage (check Mass out). But mandates can most certainly create a burden without such an affordable and comprehensive option.

Why do you think it is acceptable to force everyone to get insurance, but not allow everyone to get public insurance?

If the private market alone could provide a suitable solution to a large segment of the population, a public option would never be needed in the first place. It is inadequate in providing affordable and comprehensive care, and yet that will be all people have to turn to. Saying the private market is good enough for most of the people stuck there, it undermines the necessity of a public option completely. Recognizing the ills of the private market, while denying access to the public option, only strips all justifications for a mandate to exist.

[Oregone]

14. And remember: ''Most people wouldn't give a damn if a mandate got dropped from the bill"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8654932&mesg_id=8654932

Seems like you give a damn now that people are questioning your precious mandates. Yes, thats the one part of the plan I haven't seen Democrats water down. Its gotta make you wonder.

[annabanana]

16. Well then, we'll all just have to move up to Canada with you.

.. or maybe some other Province.

[AllentownJake]

15. That is certainly different than the literature I gave to people

Way back in Februray, March, and April of 2008. Mandates were a boogeyman to be wrapped around Senator Clinton's neck like a millstone.

I fondly remember sitting with my best friend being excited by all the promise and than him going into a stern lecture on how mandates were bad for us and that they were part of Senator Clinton's plan.

I wonder what changed his mind that they are good all of a sudden. :shrug:

Most have been that Rahm Emmanuel...everything is always HIS fault.

[ProSense]

18. March 2008

link:

Mr. Obama says the differential would be far smaller; that he would consider an individual mandate if the numbers left uninsured turned out to be too large; and that imposing a mandate at the outset is unwise because enough people will purchase insurance voluntarily if costs can be brought down.

[AllentownJake]

19. So why are we talking about a trigger for the public option

and the mandates to go into effect right away.

It appears that is the opposite of that statement.

:rofl:

[optimator]

17. mandates are pure fascism

there is no excuse for this authoritarian capitalism and my grandfather fought against this in WW2 in Italy

[Gravel Democrat]

20. February 2008