Honest question: what happened to Obama's mandates *only* for *children*?

[FormerDittoHead]

I'm thinking this is old news, but reading about the universal mandates, I suddenly remembered that Obama ONLY wanted to mandate health insurance for CHILDREN (and help for those who couldn't afford to pay for their children).

Who / when / how did that get changed to a universal mandate?

[lyonn]

1. I think you remembered wrong. nt

[jenmito]

3. No, he didn't. Hillary and Edwards were for mandates for all. He disagreed. But now that

Congress is involved, he can't get it exactly how he wants.

[ProSense]

11. They were both the same mandates with the threat to garnish wages

The Edwards Mandate

THE EDWARDS MANDATE....Both John Edwards and Hillary Clinton include "individual mandates" in their healthcare plans that require everyone in the country to sign up for coverage. But what if you don't? Today, John Edwards explained how his plan would deal with that:

Under the Edwards plan, when Americans file their income taxes, they would be required to submit a letter from an insurance provider confirming coverage for themselves and their dependents.

Edwards Explains His Mandate

Later today, John Edwards will announce the specifics of how his mandate works. And they're quite good. Whenever you come into contact with the health care system, or whenever you pay your taxes, you will be asked to provide proof of insurance, presumably a policy number or some similar identifier. If you cannot, you will automatically be enrolled in either a public plan that you qualify for (like Medicaid or S-CHIP) or the cheapest plan offered by his Health Insurance Market. Bills will then get sent out, and if they're not paid, will be collected just like the government collects on student loan debts, or taxes, or anything else, using tools up to and including collection agencies and wage garnishment. (It's notable, here, that Edwards doesn't shy away from saying what his stick will be.)

So at the end of the day, if you don't have health care, your wages will be garnished or your credit will be damaged because a collection agency will see to it that you buy your insurance. You might even go bankrupt! And since it's called a mandate, we'll need a new IRS-like bureaucracy to handle all of this, but it won't be the IRS since a mandate is not a tax, it's just a required fee you pay to a private company.

[quakerboy]

2. I am curious about that as well

I keep seeing people throw around "Obama said", but I don't recall him promising anything more than what you said.

[sandnsea]

4. That's correct. Ask Hillary Democrats

They're the ones that demanded the mandate for all.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

10. i see. so even though obama is the one supporting it, its hillary's doing?

that is some strange logic

[sandnsea]

34. No. It's that part of the Dem Party n/t

[La Lioness Priyanka]

35. and as president, he embraces this because he is very powerless?

[sandnsea]

39. Because he doesn't write the legislation. Congress does. doh. n/t

[La Lioness Priyanka]

41. i see. so poor little widdle president obama championed this idea in his speech

because he is completely powerless to do anything about it. even though he is deeply opposed to it?

i think he did it because it makes sense and his original idea didnt. even though as a campaign promise it sounded good.

[sandnsea]

42. lol. If the subsidies aren't generous enough

and people are mandated to pay money they don't have - this is what will destroy universal health care.

But you just keep acting like an ass.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

43. you keep blaming the clintons for what is this administration doing.

[sandnsea]

46. This Congress is doing this and I blame those responsible

From the far left and the Clinton Democrats. They're the ones who want this stupid mandate. I blame Clinton for the failures in welfare reform, and remember that Dick Gephardt stood strong behind the people one that one. And remember that most people don't even remember that welfare was reformed.

Obama will be blamed for whatever this health care package ends up being - that doesn't mean I'll join the pack.

[MH1]

44. It's Congressional Democrats who support Hillary's approach

no it's not her fault but it's not Obama's either.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

45. if he is championing it, he is ultimately responsible for it

and i heard his speech, in which he both defended and championed it. i am not necessarily against it. i just hate this assinine way of blaming clintons for anything, one doesnt like about the democratic party policies. this is a new admin. they are responsible.

[joeycola]

54. Obama owns it now.

[bluestateguy]

5. Campaigning and governing are different

In a campaign you say what you want to do, and what the voters want to hear.

Then you win, and it's time to govern. You can make all kinds of promises when you are running for president, but the the other branches of government really don't much care what you promised in the campaign. They are not bound by your promises at all.

I remember Lawrence O'Donnell saying once during the heat of the campaign that it was kind of pointless for us to be arguing over the candidates' health care plans, as neither the McCain or Obama drafts would come even close to resembling the actual policy that emerged from Congress.

[dflprincess]

33. True, when you campaign you tell the voters what they want to hear

but when you govern you do what the people who financed your campaign expect you do to.

[Orangepeel]

6. it got changed when the House and HELP committees started writing bills n/t

[DrToast]

7. It changed...

...when Obama realized that there isn't a good way to keep people from cheating the system by not buying health insurance until they get sick.

If you want to allow treatment of people with pre-existing conditions, you need a mandate.

[Laelth]

8. Obama "changed his mind."

Many of us supported Obama in the primary over Hillary because he promised us he would not force us all to buy insurance. This is the ad. he ran against her:



Many of us felt quite betrayed when we learned Obama was pushing a plan with the individual mandate. What caused him to change his mind is unclear, but the line I hear repeated is "the system won't work unless everybody pays in," and that means that the uninsured must buy insurance.

Why? Perhaps because the IGMFU crowd doesn't want to pay more in taxes to give health care to all Americans, and for some reason, Obama wants to act like a good Republican and keep this proposal "deficit neutral."

Ted Kennedy was right. "The last thing this country needs is two Republican Parties."

:dem:

-Laelth

[geek tragedy]

12. "even if you can't afford it"

The Obama plan would make sure that it would be affordable.

[Laelth]

16. "Affordable" is in the eye of the beholder.

I simply can not afford to buy insurance right now, yet Congress may order me to buy it or else become a criminal.

Hillary's proposal included subsidies too, yet that didn't stop Obama from running the ad. above.

:dem:

-Laelth

[geek tragedy]

17. That ad was a low blow.

That sort of thing happens in elections.

[FormerDittoHead]

14. Thanks for that picture. PEOPLE: I'M NOT KNOCKING OBAMA!

People, this was an honest question. Just before I posted the OP I realized this (my mind is like a sieve that's full of useless information).

I know Obama isn't writing the bill, however, he DOES seem to have a list of "requirements" that such a bill would have, and as this ad does say, it certainly seems that this was "something that he ran on".

I understand the need for a universal mandate, but IMO, it should be tied to an OPEN public option and higher taxes for the upper 2/3 of 1%.

I don't want a mandate without those other two...

[ProSense]

22. He was right: forcing people to buy insurance even when they cant afford it is wwrong

Obama stressed affordability

[Bluenorthwest]

25. Stressing it is one thing, defining it seems to be another

Thus far, they refuse to agree that no American should pay more than the percentage of income Congress pays. Even that much. And not one has come to ask the people what we might think 'affordable' means. They repeat the word until it is just a sound devoid of meaning.
Hillary never said she'd force those who can not afford it to buy it, she had the exact same 'subsidies' line Obama now takes. Which he knew, and know, and you knew and know.
Such cheap tactics make a serious subject seem like a matter of sport to you, a game or competition. This makes me wonder what prize in in mind. And from where. Sincere people do not play semantic games with life and death subjects, a subject where money is the comic relief. We all lived through the campaign, we all have memories.

[ProSense]

26. "Hillary never said she'd force those who can not afford it to buy it"

Hillary wanted to garnish wages. Sounds to me like you're trying to defend Hillary's mandate.

[Bluenorthwest]

30. I voted for Obama because he opposed that mandate

He now supports it. The current plans also involve fines and collections, and you know that. I'm against the forced purchase of private products and you also know that. Why pull that childish crap?

[ProSense]

38. Congress is writing the bill and

Obama has to compromise on certain things when most Dems who supported Hillary and Edwards believe a mandate is the way to go. He was never fully against a mandate so he can work to ensure that it's done right.

[Laelth]

28. Hillary's plan called for subsidies too.

She also stressed "affordability." That ad. can not be excused so easily--not by me, in any event.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Lord Helmet]

31. her plan also called for garnishment of wages

you're starting to sound like a bitter puma

[Laelth]

40. Smile. We may get garnishment of wages out of Obama's plan before all is said and done.

Personally, I don't like either plan, but I do resent Obama's betrayal of his supporters on this particular issue.

:dem:

-Laelth

[La Lioness Priyanka]

9. yeah, good point. i do remember that.

i am guessing its because people will not buy health insurance till they need it.

[Bluenorthwest]

13. He ran explicitly opposed to the mandates he now supports

it is that simple. I'd have voted for the other candidate had I known he was simply lying and so would most of those I know. Forced purchase of private products is as wrong as it gets.

[ProSense]

15. No he didn't. His plan mandates coverage for children and he always said affordability first.

From 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

[Bluenorthwest]

23. He most certainly did

He also criticized his rival for supporting mandates, in no uncertain terms. He ran TV commercials on the very subject.
On what date did affordable health insurance become available to everyone? It has not. And yet, he already backs those mandated purchases, forced purchase of products we all want gone, from companies we as a nation tend to hold as the problem we face, not the solution to that problem.
Words have specific meanings. You need to learn that. 'only require all children' and 'would consider...once...' are the phrases in question. Said he'd consider mandates after the market was safe to do so, not in advance of that, as he is now doing.

[ProSense]

24. "On what date did affordable health insurance become available to everyone? It has not."

Has a health care bill passed?

[Bluenorthwest]

27. In your own quoted text, Obama says he might consider mandates

after affordable health insurance became available to everyone. That is, he is now doing it in advance of that availability, when he previously said he might consider it once reforms were in place and there was a stable market. If one says 'after X, I might do Y' and then they do Y way before X, they are not doing what they said, rather they are doing the opposite.
Are you reading what you post?

[ProSense]

32. Affordability can be achieved with credits and subsidies. You are asking if has been achieved yet.

The bill hasn't passed, and no mandate has kicked in.

[Bluenorthwest]

36. Did he wait until the reforms are in place to consider mandates?

No. He is pushing them in advance of the reforms. Same as Hillary did, same as he claimed to oppose.
Is Obama's mandate proposed to only kick in once the market is stable and competitive or will the mandate hit the same day as the first reforms? He said he would consider such a mandate ONLY after other conditions had been met. That just is not what he did. He's now supportive of a mandate, long before any reform is set at all. He claimed he'd 'consider' it after the fact, not in advance of the fact. Very different things.

[sandnsea]

37. He didn't want to do mandates at the beginning

He wanted to implement the plan first, get as many people in as possible, make sure it was affordable to everyone - and then do mandates.

It was a variety of Democrats who insisted on the mandates at the beginning. I think it's a mistake, but we'll have to hope the affordability part works.

[Laelth]

18. It's almost certainly unconstitutional, too. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[pnwmom]

19. Realism. Economics. The only way to make health insurance affordable for all

is to make the pool consist of all Americans -- including those healthy enough to think they could get by with no insurance.

[Laelth]

29. Lots of countries manage to make health care available to all without a mandate to buy insurance.

I can not accept your premise.

:dem:

-Laelth

[pnwmom]

49. That's because they make them pay taxes that cover it! What, did you think their health

care really came for free?

Taxes or direct payments, it's got to be one or the other -- but it's not truly free, in any country.

[Laelth]

50. Taxes, yes. And I have no problem with a payroll tax to cover health care.

Just not an individual mandate that forces us to buy insurance or become criminals. A payroll tax would be the fair and equitable way to fund this project, but that's not what Obama is proposing.

And don't be an ass. I know that a doctor's services are not free.

:dem:

-Laelth

[pnwmom]

51. You clearly implied that it was possible to have universal health care without

requiring the entire population to pay for it.

A tax, even a progressive tax, is a mandate.

[Laelth]

52. You're right, in a sense. Not everyone pays payroll taxes.

Only those who are working do. Not everyone pays income taxes. Only those who can afford to pa into the system are compelled to do so. The individual mandate, as written, makes no such distinction. It places the burden on the individual to prove that he or she can not "afford" the insurance the government is ordering him or her to buy.

Ultimately, I would prefer a progressive income tax to cover the costs of health care for all Americans. That way, only those who truly can afford to pay will pay, and those of us who can not will not.

Again, the individual mandate places the burden on the individual to prove that he or she can not pay, as opposed to general IRS taxation in which the burden is on the government to collect from those who obviously can pay because they are employed and filing income tax returns.

Neither of us thinks health care is free. We have very different ideas about how to pay for it.

:dem:

-Laelth

[pnwmom]

55. I actually agree with you that I would rather the funding be through

the progressive income tax.

But I wouldn't be willing to sacrifice critical health reforms for the sake of that ideal.

[lumberjack_jeff]

20. It went the way of all stupid ideas. n/t

[Romulox]

21. "Everything looks bad when you remember it!" nt

[Indigent]

47. My guess is that Obama wanted a mandate but pretended not to, because it was good

For a presidential candidate to refuse a mandate. Now that he won, there's no danger.

[gravity]

48. Simple economics requires a mandate

If you don't want to deny people with preexisting conditions.

If you made insurance optional, then someone will only pay for insurance when they are sick and need it. It rewards people who don't buy insurance because they will get the same coverage as people paying all along. Making a mandatory to buy insurance eliminates this problem.

Obama probably was only against a mandate for all because it gave him something to oppose Hillary on in the primaries.

[Laelth]

53. Lots of countries manage to make health care available to all without a mandate to buy insurance.

I do not accept your premise.

:dem:

-Laelth

[PolNewf]

56. What countries would that be?

Single payer is a mandate.

Obama did flip on this but it was his only realistic option. As long as it isn't overly burdensome on the poor I think everyone needs to contribute and a mandate is warranted.

[Laelth]

57. Well, yes and no. Single payer is compulsory, but it's not a mandate to buy insurance.

And it's definitely not a mandate to buy insurance from a private entity.

The "mandate" the U.S. Congress is considering is overly burdensome on the struggling middle class. I would prefer a compulsory payroll tax or an increase in the progressive income tax. Only those who are working pay payroll taxes, for example, and if they're working, there's a reasonable belief that the worker can "afford" the new tax. Similarly, not everyone pays income taxes. Only those who can afford to pay into the system are compelled to do so. The individual mandate, as written, makes no such distinction. It places the burden on the individual to prove that he or she can not "afford" the insurance the government is ordering him or her to buy. And if the system were based upon payroll or income taxes, everyone would get health care. With the "individual mandate" those criminals who could not or would not pay the new tax to buy the required insurance would have no health care because they would not be able to show proof of insurance.

Ultimately, I would prefer a progressive income tax to cover the costs of health care for all Americans. That way, only those who truly can afford to pay will pay, and those of us who can not will not.

Again, the individual mandate places the burden on the individual to prove that he or she can not pay, as opposed to general IRS taxation in which the burden is on the government to collect from those who obviously can pay because they are employed and filing income tax returns. And the individual mandate will not provide health care to all. Funding the system with a new payroll or income tax will insure universal coverage.

:dem:

-Laelth