Obama Addresses the Mandate Issue (and Why He Changed His Mind)

[Clio the Leo]

I just posted this in the Summit Thread but felt it deserved it's own OP. I tried to transcribe what he said as closely as possible. I suggest everyone listen to the segment for themselves when it becomes available, but maybe this will tide us over until then.

And please correct me if I mis-characterized something he said....

"I was dragged kicking and screaming to the conclusion that I arrived at which was we need to have everyone buying insurance." "I thought we could lower the cost without doing a mandate."

Reason 1 on why he changed his mind: "Cost shifting, everyone who has insurance is paying for those who dont..... We are ALREADY putting the money in (paying for it), just in a very ineffecient way. We're not saying money, we just dont see (the money we're spending.)"

Reason 2: The issue of pre-exisitng conditions that we have discussed previously ... you MUST have a large pool to hold down costs.


(He said this at approx 2:40pm)

[stray cat]

1. Facts and whats good for others don't mean much when it comes to people's pocket books

[thereismore]

6. Because we are Americans and we don't give a shit about other people's needs. nt

[terrell9584]

39. No

Because some of us don't make much as it is and don't like being told we'll have to spend $400-1000 per month to a private company by mandate when we could have decided how we did it on our own.


People don't have health insurance because they choose not to or can't afford it. For those who choose not to we should respect that choice. This is America and unless you have single payer its not right to force anyone to do anything. And as for the people who can't afford it, mandating it won't make it any less expensive. If anything it will make it more expensive and worsen deductibles as insurers will have a captive market, similar to what happened after they began requiring car insurance to be a licensed driver.

[Hello_Kitty]

50. Good luck selling the mandate to people who don't want it with that. eom

[BrklynLiberal]

Why did he change his mind on the Public Option?

[Captain Hilts]

3. He's got some 'splaining to do there, doesn't he?

[ProSense]

9. Who says he changed his mind?

He supports its. He'll sign the bill if it passes.

He said he didn't campaign on a public option, but he made his position clear:

MR. LEHRER: And let's say, for instance, the public-option plan: It's in - it's in the House version; it's not in the Senate version.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Right.

MR. LEHRER: All right. What is - what's going to be your position when you sit down and talk about this?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: You know, look, I've been in favor of the public option. I think the more choice, the more competition we have, the better.

On the other hand, I think that the exchange itself, the system that we're setting up that forces insurance companies to essentially bid for three million or four million or five million people's business, that in and of itself is going to have a disciplining effect.

Would I like one of those options to be the public option? Yes. Do I think that it makes sense, as some have argued, that, without the public option, we dump all these other extraordinary reforms and we say to the 30 million people who don't have coverage, "You know, sorry. We didn't get exactly what we wanted"? I don't think that makes sense.

link

[BrklynLiberal]

14. If he did not actually campaign on the public option,

he had no problem leading people to believe that he was in favor of it...when it suited the situation.

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2009/12/22/obama_public/index.html

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/obama-i-didnt-campaign-on-a-public-option-progressives-excuse-me.php

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/12/yes_obama_did_campaign_on_the.html

http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/president-obama-strongly-supports-publi

[BrklynLiberal]

23. The Real Reason Obama's Plan Doesn't Include a Public Option

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/the-real-reason-obamas-pl_b_473924.html

[ProSense]

32. "he had no problem leading people to believe that he was in favor of it"

"Would I like one of those options to be the public option? Yes."

He is in favor of it.

[freddie mertz]

16. Follow the news much?nt.

[bvar22]

13. Why did he change hs mind on the Cadilac Tax?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x420430

Has he apologized to Hillary for his comments ridiculing her position on the Individual Mandate during the debates?
Obama got MY support BECAUSE he so strongly opposed the Mandates.

Bait & Switch?

* Would you favor or oppose the national government offering everyone the choice of a government administered health insurance plan — something like the Medicare coverage that people 65 and older get — that would compete with private health insurance plans?

Favor 82%

Oppose 14%

Not Sure 4%
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010010320/poll-shouts-message-massachusetts-voters-were-sending

"When given the choice between a Republican, and a Democrat who acts like a Republican, the voters will choose the Republican every time." ---Harry Truman

QED Massachusetts

[ProSense]

15. When did he oppose the excise tax that's in the bill? n/t

[dsc]

57. during the campaign against mccain

admittedly mccain went further than that tax does but not that much further.

[Captain Hilts]

2. Yes. It's good he changed his mind and said this. nt

[Cha]

4. So, I'm just throwing this out there..

What if you're over 65 and you have medicare or medicaid?

[DrDan]

5. sounds like a darned good argument for single payer . . .

wonder why he did not change his mind about that

[thereismore]

7. Ding ding! nt

[vaberella]

25. Because he found out he has traitors called Conservadems who would NEVER vote on it.

Not to mention the 30-40+ Bluedogs who would never let it see the light of day. You saw what happened to the PO. How can you logically assume we'd even get this far if he pushed single payer.

[DrDan]

26. of course he is not going to push it - he won't even push the PO

[vaberella]

27. Don't spread lies. Please.

If you say that you ignore the dozens of speeches and townhalls where he supported it. It has been clearly stated even with his push...his Dems turned on him. End of story.

[DrDan]

29. saying you "support" it and pushing it are two different things

I do not believe he has ever pushed it . . . or twisted any arms to get it included.

Please do not accuse one of lying when it is clearly not the case. Please.

[boppers]

34. He did not murder puppies for the public option.

Therefore, he has not done enough. If he does murder puppies, and congress doesn't have a PO in the bills, he will have to start murdering kittens, otherwise he's clearly not supporting it.

[DrDan]

37. lets bring in some hyperbole . . .

speeches are not fighting for a bill.

[boppers]

43. Oh, you literally meant physically twisting arms?

I'm not too big on our president committing physical assault to get his way.

[DrDan]

58. well - I think you would agree that "twisting arms" has a couple of accepted meanings

as opposed to the term "murder puppies".

No - I take it back. I am sure you would not agree.

[dflprincess]

35. He did -

when he was a lowly state Senator he supported single payer.

The higher up the food chain he goes, the more corporate friendly he becomes.

[Sebastian Doyle]

47. Eggzactly!

He's making the case for single payer and using it to justify corporate welfare. This is such bullshit.

[Hello_Kitty]

51. EVERY argument for the mandate sounds like an argument for single payer. eom

[SnoopDog]

8. Mandates are still Unconstitutional... Period.

The Constitution does not provide for government to force you to buy a private business's product or service.

Social Security was a lawful mandate because it applied to all people (relatively) equally.

If you want to mandate insurance, and I would like that, the government would have to provide it equally to all people...

Oh, we already have that - Medicare for Everyone.

[Teaser]

31. I want legal chapter and verse on that

or you're just blowing smoke out your ass.

[SnoopDog]

33. Well...first, have you ever read the US Constitution?

I ask because most people you have a need to write 'you're just blowing smoke out your ass."
have not read it.

I cite Article I Section 8:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

It's the 'uniform throughtout the United States' that causes an objection. Additionally, no where does the Constitution state that
"Congress shall be allowed the right to impose a fee upon people for not buying a product or service from a private or otherwise company'.

Please read the Constitution and write something intelligent should you have a legitimate thought on my post...

[johnaries]

36. "uniform throughout the US" simply means the rules has to be

the same for each State. As long as the fine is the same across the board, there is no objection.

The Constitution also doesn't say anything about allowing tax exemptions or deductions, but those are certainly considered Constitutional.

[SnoopDog]

54. No, that section says nothing about "States"....

It says 'uniform throughout the United States".

The Framers were very specific with their terms and used "States' very specifically...
I view this to be 'uniform to people".

Tax Exemptions or deductions are 'allowed' strictly and only After the legality of taxes first. In this case, the Constitution
has nothing to do with 'deductions or exemptions'.

And finally, please note the interpretation of the Constitution is a full time job.

[Unvanguard]

44. It is no different from any other tax/tax deduction policy.

The constitutional argument against it is silly--or, at least, overinclusive.

[Sebastian Doyle]

48. Taxes for a single payer system would be constitutional

Taxes to pay private corporations are NOT.

[Unvanguard]

49. We are taxed to pay private corporations all the time

especially if you include subsidized purchase. Do you object to food stamps, too?

Edit: Perhaps you mean that tax policy as an incentive for purchasing the services of private corporations is objectionable. But then you must oppose, say, the employer health insurance tax deduction, too, or the charitable giving tax deduction, or any other tax deduction oriented toward rewarding economic behavior.

[SnoopDog]

53. Wow - a whole bunch of false arguments....

First - 'food stamps' are paid out of taxes levied upon all Americans... And that's ok with me.

And your "EDIT:" part - these are all Tax Deductions - not taxes imposed for not buying a product or service from a private business.

[Unvanguard]

55. That's a false distinction.

There is no difference between "buy insurance or pay a penalty" and "buy insurance and get a deduction." Think of it this way: the individual mandate is effectively a universal tax upon all Americans. Those with health insurance get the tax deducted; those without, don't.

[Oregone]

10. Then create an egalitarian system if you are forcing everyone to pay into it

Multi-tiered plans with copays and deductibles that have impact on the lower classes is not a fair system that delivers equal health care and access for all

[area51]

38. +1

As the OP said, the Obama quote with "we need a big pool". No shit. That is best done by creating one huge pool in single-payer, which as another poster mentioned, is what originally Obama claimed he was for, before he hit the white house. He's governing like Bill Clinton -- a moderate republican. He's no fscking liberal, continuing GW Hoover's wars of choice, "patriot" act, and now trying to implement GingrichCare, forcing people to buy for-profit, unregulated insurance.

[depakid]

46. At the very least, if you're interested in efficiency & cost savings- rather than placating insurers

and their bought and paid for representatives- you muscle through the choice of a robust public option that creates incentives for better and less expensive care.

The current proposal does the opposite- and on top of that, it's not politically popular and will result in a lot of people pissed off at the party and the President down the line.

[joeybee12]

11. I have no problem with a mandate COMBINED with a public option...

...without the combination, mandates screw you over.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

22. I agree with this wholeheartedly and think it makes sense, If you're going to have the mandate,

then make it less expensive to do so. Everyone wins because the insurance companies will have more customers and everyone will be covered. Costs are kept down when everyone participates, whether in the exchange or not.

[LatteLibertine]

12. I agree with President Obama AND

for profit insurance means our well-being means nothing to them unless it negatively impacts their bottom line. Close heavy regulation is needed.

Premium hikes over the past year or so should be rolled back and temporarily frozen. They were done in anticipation of possible HCR.

Yes, I prefer medicare for all.

[ThomCat]

17. So instead of having taxes pay for it in a progressive way

he is passing a law, mandating that we all become customers of private corporations, billing everyone for it in a regressive way.

I think most of us agree that he's going about this in entirely the wrong way. Every other industrialized nation has found MUCH better ways of doing this that DON'T require enshrining profit-making parasitic insurance companies at the heart of health care.

Obama's way embeds a psychopathic, ravenously greedy entity that doesn't care if we die between us and our doctors, between us and every health care transaction. How is that even remotely the best way to accomplish what he's trying to do?

[bvar22]

20. +1...worth repeating

"Obama's way embeds a psychopathic, ravenously greedy entity that doesn't care if we die between us and our doctors, between us and every health care transaction. How is that even remotely the best way to accomplish what he's trying to do?"

But HEY, Its a "Uniquely American Solution."
LOL.


You would think that with every other civilized country in The World having Health Care Plans that acknowledge Health Care as a Human Right, Obama & The Democrats could have found something to borrow from them.

Instead of honoring Health Care as a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT, Obama and the Democrats are going to Force everyone to BUY Health Insurance from a For Profit Corporation as a basic American OBLIGATION!

Am I pissed?
YES!

The Republicans could have NEVER gotten away with a SCAM this large.
Something THIS bad takes a "Centrist" Democrat!

[Hell Hath No Fury]

18. And Hell Hath No Fury --

changed her mind about Obama.

"Fool me once..." :mad:

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bluenorthwest]

21. Did he explain why these mandates need to be to purchase

from for profit, self compensation crazy companies that have been high jacking us for decades? Did he mention that any other nation that mandates purchase also mandates that all basic health insurance be provided on a non profit basis? Did he address the fact that forcing people to contribute to for profit businesses is different from what it done in any other nation on earth?

So what DID he say about why profit must be job one, and force must be used to raise those profits, what did he say was the reason that non profits could not provide the same service, without the private jets and gold toilets?

He addressed none of this, of course.

[Armstead]

24. It avoids the core issue --- NO MANDATES WITHOUT PUBLIC COVERAGE

It's all about protecting the books of the fucking healthcare industry.

He can wiggle and dance around it all he wants, but that is the bottom line of mandates for private insurance.

"The only way those poor insurance companies can afford to cover sick people is if we force everyone to buy their shitty policies at whatever rate they want to gouge us for."

That's what it's about. The ONLY justification for mandates is if it includes the opotion for people to have public coverage available.

All else is BULLSHIT.

[grahamhgreen]

28. Because it give 1 trillion to big insurance every 5 years, duh. nt

[Amonester]

30. If I refuse that silly mandate, AND refuse to pay the fines...

what's gonna happen next? :shrug:

Will I end up in jail? :shrug:

And, is healthcare in prison 'free'? :shrug:

[dkf]

40. Government redistribution through private companies is not the way to go.

Especially when they skim so much off the top and have a history if ripping us off

Obama needs to rethink this.

[Hekate]

41. We need to have "everyone" paying in to Social Security for it to work, and we do. I HOPE this is...

... the same psychology.

Fingers crossed here.

Hekate

[Hello_Kitty]

52. But SS doesn't skim 30% off the top to pay execs big $$ and bean counters to deny your benefit. eom

[LatteLibertine]

42. IMO

We should have started out demanding insurance for all under medicare. As is we probably aren't going to even get a public option.

Antony Weiner is right about the Republicans and there are more than a few Democrats who have sold out to the insurance industry too. Unfortunately, some of the folks that claim to support a PO do not because they've been bought.

[Unvanguard]

45. He's absolutely right, and has been ever since he changed his mind.

Popular anger toward the mandates is profoundly mistaken, and severely undermines the attempt to make sure that high-risk people can get decent, affordable health insurance.

[jeanpalmer]

56. Private insurance is the worst possible mechanism

for providing health care. If you tried to devise a system from scratch, which is what Obama is doing for those who currently don't have insurance, the worst system would be the one he is proposing. His system will be the one that is most costly and inefficient. He say the current system involves "cost shifting" that is a "very inefficient way" of "putting the money in." But his private insurance proposal is a cost shifting mechanism in the extreme. And it adds a middleman insurance company that charges a profit that isn't being paid now, plus state exchanges and appeals boards etc., and therefore has to be more costly and inefficient than the current system. It may be the preferred system that he supports for whatever reason, but it's not an efficient system. So the reason he offers for going with mandated private insurance system seems to be unfounded.

[brand404]

59. Repubz have their Ammo for November -- w/o a Public Option this Mandate is political suicide

regardless of how much it might make sense (and at this point ti seems more beneficial to the health industry since it gives them $1 trillion in new profits than the added benefit of spreading the risk for the people -- costs will still go up).