Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Let's tie Obama's hands behind his back, then bludgeon him on "weak" job numbers [View all]ProSense
(116,464 posts)144. Did Kucinich vote for the bill?
Did Candidate Obama campaign against the individual mandate?
Yes he did. Candidate Obama also campaigned for the public option. A real shame that Candidate Obama didn't make it to the White House.
Yes he did. Candidate Obama also campaigned for the public option. A real shame that Candidate Obama didn't make it to the White House.
President Obama never stated that the mandate was unconstitutional or that he was completely opposed to any mandate. His argument was always affordability before a mandate. In fact, the statement about homelessness was specifically to reiterate the affordability point.
Here's some info to jog your memory.
<...>
OBAMA: Let's break down what she really means by a mandate. What's meant by a mandate is that the government is forcing people to buy health insurance and so she's suggesting a parent is not going to buy health insurance for themselves if they can afford it. Now, my belief is that most parents will choose to get health care for themselves and we make it affordable.
Here's the concern. If you haven't made it affordable, how are you going to enforce a mandate. I mean, if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house. The reason they don't buy a house is they don't have the money. And so, our focus has been on reducing costs, making it available. I am confident if people have a chance to buy high-quality health care that is affordable, they will do so. That's what our plan does and nobody disputes that.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0802/05/ltm.02.html
OBAMA: Let's break down what she really means by a mandate. What's meant by a mandate is that the government is forcing people to buy health insurance and so she's suggesting a parent is not going to buy health insurance for themselves if they can afford it. Now, my belief is that most parents will choose to get health care for themselves and we make it affordable.
Here's the concern. If you haven't made it affordable, how are you going to enforce a mandate. I mean, if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house. The reason they don't buy a house is they don't have the money. And so, our focus has been on reducing costs, making it available. I am confident if people have a chance to buy high-quality health care that is affordable, they will do so. That's what our plan does and nobody disputes that.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0802/05/ltm.02.html
<...>
SEN. OBAMA...According to Senator Clinton...there are more people covered under her plan than mine is because of a mandate. That is not a mandate for the government to provide coverage to everybody; it is a mandate that every individual purchase health care...If it was not affordable, she would still presumably force them to have it, unless there is a hardship exemption as they've done in Massachusetts, which leaves 20 percent of the uninsured out. And if that's the case, then, in fact, her claim that she covers everybody is not accurate....
MR. WILLIAMS: And Senator Clinton, on this subject --
SEN. CLINTON...Senator Obama has a mandate in his plan. It's a mandate on parents to provide health insurance for their children. That's about 150 million people who would be required to do that. The difference between Senator Obama and myself is that I know, from the work I've done on health care for many years, that if everyone's not in the system we will continue to let the insurance companies do what's called cherry picking -- pick those who get insurance and leave others out.
<...>
SEN. OBAMA...I do provide a mandate for children, because, number one, we have created a number of programs in which we can have greater assurance that those children will be covered at an affordable price. On the -- on the point of many adults, we don't want to put in a situation in which, on the front end, we are mandating them, we are forcing them to purchase insurance, and if the subsidies are inadequate, the burden is on them, and they will be penalized. And that is what Senator Clinton's plan does.
- more -
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/26/us/politics/26text-debate.html?pagewanted=print
SEN. OBAMA...According to Senator Clinton...there are more people covered under her plan than mine is because of a mandate. That is not a mandate for the government to provide coverage to everybody; it is a mandate that every individual purchase health care...If it was not affordable, she would still presumably force them to have it, unless there is a hardship exemption as they've done in Massachusetts, which leaves 20 percent of the uninsured out. And if that's the case, then, in fact, her claim that she covers everybody is not accurate....
MR. WILLIAMS: And Senator Clinton, on this subject --
SEN. CLINTON...Senator Obama has a mandate in his plan. It's a mandate on parents to provide health insurance for their children. That's about 150 million people who would be required to do that. The difference between Senator Obama and myself is that I know, from the work I've done on health care for many years, that if everyone's not in the system we will continue to let the insurance companies do what's called cherry picking -- pick those who get insurance and leave others out.
<...>
SEN. OBAMA...I do provide a mandate for children, because, number one, we have created a number of programs in which we can have greater assurance that those children will be covered at an affordable price. On the -- on the point of many adults, we don't want to put in a situation in which, on the front end, we are mandating them, we are forcing them to purchase insurance, and if the subsidies are inadequate, the burden is on them, and they will be penalized. And that is what Senator Clinton's plan does.
- more -
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/26/us/politics/26text-debate.html?pagewanted=print
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
156 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Let's tie Obama's hands behind his back, then bludgeon him on "weak" job numbers [View all]
nobodyspecial
May 2012
OP
Large majorities?! Ever heard of Joe Lieberman? Ben Nelson? Filibusters? The GOP?
FarLeftFist
May 2012
#100
The problem is, that when it was the Bailouts, which btw, were voted against in the first vote by
sabrina 1
May 2012
#118
Yes, and that is why I never bought the excuses. They managed to get the HC Bill passed also.
sabrina 1
May 2012
#143
And you keep pushing the fallacy that sixty votes is needed to get anything done
MadHound
May 2012
#11
Yeah, he should have just called them dicks and rallied the people to storm the Capitol.
nobodyspecial
May 2012
#14
Wow. And he was able to do all of that without a filibuster-proof majority!
girl gone mad
May 2012
#132
Extending the tax cuts was a major capitulation, like For Profit Health Care.
bahrbearian
May 2012
#56
Actually, he did--the only problem is that the guys holding his arms behind his back were Blue Dogs.
Arkana
May 2012
#65
Well, you know, being unemployed and underemployed for two years now is pretty depressing
MadHound
May 2012
#96
congress does not matter if you have a senate that blocked a majority of good.
pansypoo53219
May 2012
#76
Yep...it is amazing. We've heard so much about the Tax cuts (for the rich) and how they will...
BlueJazz
May 2012
#2
And check out the pseudo liberals who jump right on that "Obama is bad.", bandwagon
NNN0LHI
May 2012
#10
I seriously doubt that posting on DU will have all that big an impact one way or the other.
marmar
May 2012
#35
You won't change the minds of those who have blamed Obama since day one.
great white snark
May 2012
#45
It's been the republican strategy since Obama's first day in office. Has the potential to work,
pampango
May 2012
#54
President Obama: "I've never believed that government's role is to create jobs or prosperity"
Better Believe It
May 2012
#72
"I believe it’s the...skill and dedication of our workers...that’s made us the wealthiest nation..."
ProSense
May 2012
#74
Like Obama said: "I've never believed that government's role is to create jobs or prosperity"
Better Believe It
May 2012
#112
I take it you are also against massive government public works programs to help the unemployed.
Better Believe It
May 2012
#127
Poor, poor powerless little Obama. Apparently only Republican Presidents have any power.
Edweird
May 2012
#108
There's a reason Kucinich got the 'come to Jesus' plane ride and not Lieberman.
Edweird
May 2012
#116
So we're back to poor, poor pwerless Obama against big bad Lieberman, so he has to beat up Kucinich
Edweird
May 2012
#121
The Left (an 2/3'rds of the nation) supported Single payer and accepted the public option as a
Edweird
May 2012
#131
Yep, he applied pressure to pass the RW individual mandate instead of single payer
Edweird
May 2012
#139