Reply #7: No, Obama very upfront about mandate for children

[cloudythescribbler]

Obama's argument (and my point here is that the issue is ARGUABLE, not that I support or oppose mandates) is about freedom of choice, and in fact apparently is willing to consider mandates for adults if the problems of not having them turn out to be true. I support single payer -- so although I am an Obama supporter, this particular issue is not one I have passion invested in the substance. My point was that Krugman treated the issue as if no honest progressive could support Obama's position, and subsequent press debate about the issue has belied that assumption.

The idea is that children have no choice in whether they can have health coverage, so parents are required to see that their children have coverage. Adults might choose to not be covered themselves, remembering that forcing individual adults to BUY coverage that might be difficult to afford EVEN WITH subsidies means that these individuals will form another 'resistant constituency' to the health reform.

You might check out ESKOW'S piece on Huffpo -- he notes, again, that Obama wants to FIRST make health care as affordable to all as possible, and THEN consider any mandate. (Mandates for adults prove especially problematic once you consider the waiver system). Note that Obama does NOT make a categorical claim that mandates are wrong period in principle.