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: Havnt posted on DU in years... But dammit I have an insurance rant... [View all]ProSense
(116,464 posts)98. Actually,
"I am supposed to pretend...If someone had asked ANY of us in 2008 if they would support a mandate we would have laughed in their face. And I include Obama in this. Here he is, in 2007 and 2008:"
...no one cares what you "pretend." The law and mandate were upheld. You, like the Republicans, will simply have to deal with it.
As for 2008, quite a few people supported the candidates who ran on a mandate (don't ask how I'd expect you to know that).
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.
<...>
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
Edwards Statement On Health Care Mandate
November 28, 2007
Chapel Hill, North Carolina Senator John Edwards released the following statement today on the need for clear, direct answers on how we will reach universal health care:
"We need true universal health care reform that covers every single man, woman, and child in America. It is wrong to leave anyone without the care they need. A universal system will work better for all of us delivering better care at lower cost.
"Barack Obama's plan leaves out 15 million people. The truth is that some people will choose not to buy insurance even though it's affordable, knowing that the rest of us will pay for their emergency room visits.
"But it is just as bad to say that everyone will have insurance without a plan to get there. Hillary Clinton says her plan will cover everyone through a 'mandate' but does not provide even the most rudimentary idea much less a detailed plan of how this 'mandate' would work. To get fundamental change in our health care system, we need a fundamental change in our politics. That starts with being clear and direct about what we are going to do and how we are going to do it."
Edwards' truly universal health care plan will ensure that every American has health insurance. He will require proof of insurance when income taxes are paid and when health care is provided. Families without insurance will be enrolled in Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP or another targeted plan or be assigned a plan within new Health Care Markets.
Families who lose coverage will be expected to enroll in another plan or be assigned one. For the few people who refuse to pay, the government will help collect back premiums with interest and collection costs by using tools like the ones it uses for student loans and taxes, including collection agencies and wage garnishment.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=91170#axzz1qqZ9tZYk
November 28, 2007
Chapel Hill, North Carolina Senator John Edwards released the following statement today on the need for clear, direct answers on how we will reach universal health care:
"We need true universal health care reform that covers every single man, woman, and child in America. It is wrong to leave anyone without the care they need. A universal system will work better for all of us delivering better care at lower cost.
"Barack Obama's plan leaves out 15 million people. The truth is that some people will choose not to buy insurance even though it's affordable, knowing that the rest of us will pay for their emergency room visits.
"But it is just as bad to say that everyone will have insurance without a plan to get there. Hillary Clinton says her plan will cover everyone through a 'mandate' but does not provide even the most rudimentary idea much less a detailed plan of how this 'mandate' would work. To get fundamental change in our health care system, we need a fundamental change in our politics. That starts with being clear and direct about what we are going to do and how we are going to do it."
Edwards' truly universal health care plan will ensure that every American has health insurance. He will require proof of insurance when income taxes are paid and when health care is provided. Families without insurance will be enrolled in Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP or another targeted plan or be assigned a plan within new Health Care Markets.
Families who lose coverage will be expected to enroll in another plan or be assigned one. For the few people who refuse to pay, the government will help collect back premiums with interest and collection costs by using tools like the ones it uses for student loans and taxes, including collection agencies and wage garnishment.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=91170#axzz1qqZ9tZYk
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
168 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
Havnt posted on DU in years... But dammit I have an insurance rant... [View all]
bunnies
Jul 2012
OP
Yeah that is cool to say "Medicare For All" all the time, but it would never pass Congress
krawhitham
Jul 2012
#135
If you are a low wage earner you should qualify for subsidized health insurance.
notadmblnd
Jul 2012
#99
It sounds like you would be eligible for a subsidy to help with paying for insurance under the ACA
rox63
Jul 2012
#37
Seems the responses are "hold on, don't get sick, don't break any bones, don't need any health
sad sally
Jul 2012
#123
As long as you do not ilve in a Repug state which refuses Medicaid coverage
dixiegrrrrl
Jul 2012
#21
Except families making up to 400% of FPL will receive subsidies on their
sinkingfeeling
Jul 2012
#36
Then please explain exactly how you envision single payer to be paid for.
sinkingfeeling
Jul 2012
#100
It will be free in the same sense that public schools are free and the roads are free.
BlueCheese
Jul 2012
#103
No person under ACA will pay 50% of their income for premiums. Please see
sinkingfeeling
Jul 2012
#124
Funny that the person to whom the question was addressed never responded.
sinkingfeeling
Jul 2012
#121
Single payer will be the same as it is in every other civilized country where no one
sabrina 1
Jul 2012
#149
Apparently you did not follow the conversation. I asked that question to the
sinkingfeeling
Jul 2012
#159
No, the tea-party and right wing talking points include accusing Democrats of being so stupid
sabrina 1
Jul 2012
#162
Did not imply any such thing. I was rebutting the cry and hue that's been
sinkingfeeling
Jul 2012
#164
yes, but with a cap of 8% of your income, which is better than the offered 50%.
firehorse
Jul 2012
#78
The ACA is targeting to help people just like the OP. The working poor. Subsidized health ins.
Honeycombe8
Jul 2012
#140
I agree with you about non-profits. I suspect the for-profits will get out of the market
pnwmom
Jul 2012
#33
"Do you think doctors and nurses should work for free?" - That is a red herring.
Edweird
Jul 2012
#41
Absolutely not. I think that if a dr must charge $50 dollars for a papsmear.
Liberal Veteran
Jul 2012
#59
Remember, Insurance is not equal to Health Care. Just because you have insurance
harun
Jul 2012
#138
Bingo. My deductible is so high, I've declined tests I need but can't afford.
Liberty Belle
Jul 2012
#151
The ACA will subsidize ins. coverage for the working poor, which is what sounds like you are.
Honeycombe8
Jul 2012
#141
The Obamacare Solution: You just need the government to FORCE you to buy that insurance.
Abra
Jul 2012
#32
Please enlighten us with your solution to the high cost of medical care?
sinkingfeeling
Jul 2012
#40
And do you expect that to be 'no cost' to you? How would you pay for it?
sinkingfeeling
Jul 2012
#61
As in Europe? When they say, paid nothing, that's not true, their income taxes are higher.
freshwest
Jul 2012
#88
Well, the lies an disinformation about ACA are flying. Wonder what we will hear next? nt
nanabugg
Jul 2012
#38
Either you posted in the wrong thread or your reading comprehension is extremely low.
Edweird
Jul 2012
#51
But don't worry, if a slew of unknowns workout it'll cost a little less years from now, LOL
just1voice
Jul 2012
#50
Officially, it's a tax credit. In practice, it's a discount on the cost of coverage.
lumberjack_jeff
Jul 2012
#101
The only sure thing the 'Affordable Care Act' does is guarantee profits for insurance corporations
Mimosa
Jul 2012
#84
Don't agree "my employer pays nearly half." That half is really yours in any economic or cost
jody
Jul 2012
#133
So you're saying the cost of the coverage is over $16,000/yr for employee and spouse?
Honeycombe8
Jul 2012
#143
Here's a policy for the two of you for $384/mo. www.healthcare.gov Lumenos H S A.
Honeycombe8
Jul 2012
#167