As a parent, would you insure yourself, before you insured your children?

[dsc]

Obama is for mandates to insure children but against them to insure parents. His stated reason for this is that we don't need mandates for adults because they will volutarily purchase cheapter insurance. Yet, insuring children is cheapter than insuring adults (which is why we were able to insure them in the 1990's). I am not a parent, and likely won't be, but the parents I talk to wouldn't insure themselves at greater cost, before they insured their kids at a lesser one.

This is one reason I have problems with Obama. He is simply taking the safe choice here, good government be damned.

[Avalux]

1. Easier to mandate health insurance for children -

SCHIP can be expanded (as it should have already been done). It will start when the child is born; free if necessary according to income. Enforcing it can be handled like vaccinations, where children will not be permitted into daycare or public school without coverage.

As for adults, well, they are adults.

[dsc]

3. So you are willing to deny a child his or her education

because his or her parents refuse to insure them but are perfectly willing to make me pay for the health care of those who refuse to insure themselves. All the while claiming the other candidate is inconsistent.

[Evergreen Emerald]

2. the problem, according to the experts is that there must be coverage

for all to lower the costs. If everyone is not participating, the system does not work.

[Uben]

4. That is correct.

These plans need an "opt out" clause that would deny any treatment to those who do not participate without paying up front first.
Either you make the sacrifice to participate, or gamble you won't get ill. It's a life or death decision that you would make.
But, don't cry if you get cancer and opted out. You will be left to die at home.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

5. Then let's do single payer with no insurance companies

This is not "universal healthcare", it's mandatory premiums to big corporations.

[Kittycat]

8. Not necessarily

Have you taken a look at ILs KidCare program? It's a program outside of public aid, that makes it affordable for middle class parents to purchase HC for their children. It's extremely popular with the self-employed, and other families struggling to afford healthcare otherwise.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

19. Those people shouldn't be paying anything for basic healthcare for their kids.

It's nice that it's more affordable with that program but it should be free.

[Kittycat]

24. We couldn't get a UHC plan passed here.

Getting THAT passed was a huge deal, and people still gripe about it because it's state funded.

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

6. The point is that children don't have a choice. Parents do.

And routine checkups for children are vitally important.

[TexasObserver]

9. Thank you.

It's not difficult to understand if one is interested in understanding.

Are we going to have a system that is run by insurance companies? THAT is the question that matters.

[mondo joe]

10. Healthcare for chiildren is cheap and easy. But not insuring adults doesn't help families,

or individuals.

A sick parent is a blow to a family - children included.

[dsc]

12. But according to his own logic no one will choose not to insure their kids

because he will make insurance so cheap. You can't have it both ways. Either you are willingly leaving a huge number of people out of the system, or you feel you don't need mandates at all.

[Kittycat]

7. UHC is so taboo right now with the right

You can't get elected with guns blazing. But if we can build a stronger majority, it will be easier to implement a UHC program. It's obvious though that we need some immediate steps to be taken. It's logical to first cover the children - I mean who really wants a child to die of a curable illness? So we soften the blow with step 1. Then we go over overhauling medicare and the prescription drug program. You know that will be a battle, just because of all the special interest money tied up in it. But we fix it for the good of our economy & the elderly. Then we roll out fully affordable programs for adults, they can opt in or out. But in time, our economy will be back on the right track, and people will be coming around - they'll want the healthcare program, just as the many anti-social group republicans love the WIC program. Afterall, it's not "a handout" - it will be positioned to help to prevent the spread of infectious diseases, or slowdowns in the work place (you know, benefiting business by having employees healthy). No more red tape to get a blood test - affordable prescriptions. Etc, Etc.

Once we have everyone on board, it's going to be hard rolling it back. But I do believe it has to be rolled out in stages, and depends heavily on the state of congress & the senate.

[jody]

11. Insure for what? Suggest you clarify to mean health insurance, not life insurance, etc. n/t

[dsc]

13. I would think it is clear that I mean health insurance.

[jody]

14. Not to me, I purchased life insurance for my children before they started school with riders against

future un-insurability.

I read your OP and did not see health used.

Good question though.

[dsc]

15. I know there are other kinds of insurance

but to my knowledge no candidate is mandating anything other than health insurance. I actually could see buying life insurance for yourself before you bought it for your kids given that kids aren't economic assets like adults are.

[jody]

17. Have a great day. n/t

[Thrill]

16. But you have no problem having your wages Garnished

for not having Health insurance yourself?

[dsc]

22. No I don't

presuming that would be to provide me the insurance. I have my wages garnished for Social Security and Medicare as I type.

[Bluerthanblue]

18. as a single mom absolutely YES- I have, and do, and would continue

to do so.

Here in NH- we require children under 18 to wear seatbelts- but not adults- that children wear helmets- but not adults-
that children have restricted liscences until they are 18- that children can't purchase cigarettes- or beer or alcohol,

Kids depend on Adults to look out for thier safety and security until they are of an age, where they are able to make those decisions for themself- (a random age I agree, but they had to pick one).

As an adult, I cannot get insurance, and couldn't afford whatever insurance could be gotten due to pre-existing conditions. Having a child is a responsibility- My kids come first- food, clothing etc- Most parents I know, put thier kids first. We're only children for a short time.

peace~

[sandnsea]

20. No that's not his argument at all

It's that children can't make their own decision and it's cheap to insure children anyway.

His reason for not mandating everybody is we don't know what the costs will be yet and until we do, we shouldn't be putting in mandates and forcing people into these financial situations that may lead to choosing between the mandate and food or housing.

[jody]

21. "don't know what the costs will be"? Ask Hillary, she knows but then she has experience. n/t

[dsc]

23. Then why mandate coverage for kids?