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: "We warned the president -- don't ever, ever agree with the Republicans," [View all]
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)62. Most people I know without HC are without it because they cannot afford it.
It was the right wing who came up with the claim that the poor were just lazy bums who could afford it but didn't want to pay.
I just recently saw an article that this 'meme' was planned to be used as a selling point for the mandate and that the president was urged to use it.
Considering HE made the argument in the campaign AGAINST the Mandate, that 'if forcing people to buy a house would work, we could solve the homeless problem' as he pointed out that it would be very unfair to try to force people to pay for HC who could not afford it, I don't know how he dealt with that suggestion, but we did begin to hear it coming from Democrats, however carefully they tried to word it.
I do not know a single person who would not have HC coverage if they could afford it, especially those with children.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
229 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
= 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
"We warned the president -- don't ever, ever agree with the Republicans," [View all]
MadHound
Jun 2012
OP
they never even talked about the real solution- remove the middle man insurance company
Ghost of Huey Long
Jun 2012
#2
Wendell Potter is an all-American hero! He really is because he was the first to bring
Liberal_Stalwart71
Jun 2012
#24
and who will pay for it. Social Security and Medicare are paid for by us. It is mandatory, and in
still_one
Jun 2012
#155
most people have jobs, where the money can and will be taken from paychecks, tax refunds etc.
Ghost of Huey Long
Jun 2012
#208
oh jesus. is all this because he's a bitter and jaded smoove johnny supporter?
dionysus
Jun 2012
#97
In theory, the individual mandate makes sense. I support a public option, at the very least.
Liberal_Stalwart71
Jun 2012
#26
All other nations which mandate the purchase of health insurance make it illegal to profit from
Bluenorthwest
Jun 2012
#148
I think a lot of liberals supported mandate, especially to get something of value enacted.
Hoyt
Jun 2012
#78
Let's be real. Of course, everyone decent in health care would provide services to the injured.
Hoyt
Jun 2012
#144
I doubt if most states have the ability to monitor and enforce it. Feds do. Plus --
Hoyt
Jun 2012
#145
How do you freely move among plans unless you are allowed exchange access?
TheKentuckian
Jun 2012
#179
Employer health plans have to meet new federal standards. Small businesses can buy from exchanges.
Hoyt
Jun 2012
#196
Add this to the long list of other right-wing, corporate, and neocon policies
woo me with science
Jun 2012
#219
Pro, explain in your own words why you support the only Mandate on Earth to purchase for profit
Bluenorthwest
Jun 2012
#149
The mandate is going to create pressure from the Middle Class demanding Long-Term Care coverage. nt
patrice
Jun 2012
#172
It doesn't matter who wants it or not. The present system cannot sustain for any length
TheKentuckian
Jun 2012
#102
"The Wealthcare and Profit Protection Act is designed to prop up and perpetuate the insurance cartel
woo me with science
Jun 2012
#220
We can sell it to the red states much more easily when we can point to successes in blue states.
jeff47
Jun 2012
#43
How can your idea of "real change" pass the Congress TODAY? You don't live in REALITY.
RBInMaine
Jun 2012
#154
I agree, that is the true devastation that Obamacare will leave (regardless of the SC decision)
stockholmer
Jun 2012
#42
I am not singling out Democrats, just pointing out both sides dance to the oligarch's tune, albeit
stockholmer
Jun 2012
#58
a REAL FDR-style jobs/protect Social Secuity-Medicare/rebuild USA/end the banks grip/fair tax Plan
stockholmer
Jun 2012
#50
"fast track" is an absolutely HUGE assumption. & Have you ever heard of taking someone's game
patrice
Jun 2012
#166
Well, first of all, most folks who don't have health insurance can't afford to have it.
MadHound
Jun 2012
#45
Yeah, it's too bad there wasn't any price-support mechanism in the ACA....oh wait, there was (nt)
jeff47
Jun 2012
#46
The amount of time it takes depends upon the size & composition of the pools. As demand for higher
patrice
Jun 2012
#164
The big for profit "health" insurance corporations will eat up the small ones as that industry
Uncle Joe
Jun 2012
#189
The MLR is on the premium dollar, not on the costs of services. It will force prices down.
patrice
Jun 2012
#190
And do you really feel good about the fact that only some will get fair subsidies?
Bluenorthwest
Jun 2012
#152
I wish I could remember where I saw it. If it helps, it stated that Obama was 'encouraged to
sabrina 1
Jun 2012
#120
Pro sincerely believes (for some reason) that all the R's are correct AS LONG AS the POTUS agrees
Dragonfli
Jun 2012
#70
Obama is a temporary inconvenience, at most only four more years, on the other hand
Uncle Joe
Jun 2012
#22
I agree with you, Uncle Joe. This Court cannot strike down anything that benefits the Corporations.
sabrina 1
Jun 2012
#124
Nixon signed into law the creation of the EPA. Should we abolish this Republican program?
Freddie Stubbs
Jun 2012
#31
Rec'd, most Americans want single payer/universal health care, not for-profit hell
just1voice
Jun 2012
#55
The amicus briefs to the SCOTUS to shoot down the law tell you which side is REALLY right wing.
joshcryer
Jun 2012
#63
That's dubious at best. The Heritage Foundations Health guy denies ever supporting it.
joshcryer
Jun 2012
#66
One is a penalty for not doing something. The other is a reward for doing something.
joshcryer
Jun 2012
#73
Butler's clearly stated intention was to fine people who failed to insure themselves
Maven
Jun 2012
#79
The "penalty" is not being able to have a tax credit! By law they don't get a tax credit!
joshcryer
Jun 2012
#80
I disagree. I've seen the points originate from guys like Timothy P Carney and Avik Roy.
joshcryer
Jun 2012
#92
Fascinating. The new Consumer Protection Agency needs to look in to that shit.
joshcryer
Jun 2012
#121
As Krugman pointed out, Obama fed the right wing meme with his Harry and Louise ads.
joshcryer
Jun 2012
#126
BTW, I have made it clear to you on several occasions that PARTISANSHIP is what we need.
joshcryer
Jun 2012
#130
No damn wonder this was trashed re: 'Butler's clearly stated intention was to fine people
clang1
Jun 2012
#131
I fully support the mandate. It's usu. young, healthy people who don't buy ins.
Honeycombe8
Jun 2012
#75
And certainly don't lay down with one, it'll eat your face! There are plenty of differences,
lonestarnot
Jun 2012
#76
The way to make it better would be to have the feds DICTATE a single comprehensive
eridani
Jun 2012
#205
Many nations employ a mandate for health insurance, yet not one of them allows profit from
Bluenorthwest
Jun 2012
#157
I will be glad to discuss if you refrain from putting words into my mouth.
rhett o rick
Jun 2012
#159
Rhett, it is very different from the SS tax. That goes into a public fund for the people.
sabrina 1
Jun 2012
#181
You know, I may have been wrong on this. I think I am beginning to see some light.
rhett o rick
Jun 2012
#188
You make a good point, which is often over-looked, that the mandate covers a relatively
sabrina 1
Jun 2012
#209
So, what do you think of a little thing called The Constitution, which was proposed by WEALTHY
patrice
Jun 2012
#193
The point was that the mandate should be rejected because it was proposed by the Heritage Fndtn.
patrice
Jun 2012
#198
Wow that's quite a bit to absorb in one sitting. I am thinking the mandate isnt such a good idea.
rhett o rick
Jun 2012
#201
The 'mandate' of course should be an entirely government-run health system
Rosa Luxemburg
Jun 2012
#96
"Do liberals really believe...whether liberals want to admit it or not". So you're not a liberal?
AnotherMcIntosh
Jun 2012
#140
You know, though how things APPEAR does depend upon how you look at them, that doesn't make
patrice
Jun 2012
#192
You are wrong. When an uninsured person goes to the ER, they must be treated with or without
sabrina 1
Jun 2012
#214
"I would prefer single payer' they all say. Why? Few actual single payer programs exist while
Bluenorthwest
Jun 2012
#158
would definitely be ironic to have the SC support the mandate. the joke's on us.
StarryNight
Jun 2012
#147
Here is where you are off base: First, low income folks get a SUBSIDY to pay their premiums, and
RBInMaine
Jun 2012
#153
Isn't the other thing about the pools, not just downward pressure on premiums, but also upward
patrice
Jun 2012
#165
But before those funds get to the poor, they now pass through the hands of the Middle Men
sabrina 1
Jun 2012
#183
I think you and others like you have a kind of naive idea of what threats accomplish. You help those
patrice
Jun 2012
#169
Defending the constitutionality of the individual mandate is not defending
Bolo Boffin
Jun 2012
#185
The ACA is good. The mandate is not. Still, I'm reccing this because I HATE the fucking mandate.
Zalatix
Jun 2012
#223
Your argument appears to me to be largely based on buzzwords in the form of labels.
ZombieHorde
Jun 2012
#225
I don't normally rec political posts any more but this one is so clear, bright and linear...
Fumesucker
Jun 2012
#227