Obama's new slogan: "HEALTH CARE FOR ALL". Sorry - but WTF???

[Apollo11]

I don't get it.

One one hand, I saw Obama standing in front of a backdrop with his campaign logo and the slogan "HEALTH CARE FOR ALL"

You can see it here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3mahceNgW4

On the other hand, Obama is distributing this flier to voters in Ohio:


So what's it gonna be Barack?? Health Care For ALL? Or only for people who (a) want it, (b) can afford it, and (c) take the time and effort required to purchase it? :eyes:

I would like to give Obama supporters the opportunity to defend his duplicity on this issue.

[Johnny__Motown]

1. He has always been for universal availability for health care. he just is not in favor of a mandate

[Apollo11]

5. If it is Health Care For All, then everyone should be covered.

I don't need to explain why, because Michael Moore, Dennis Kucinich, John Edwards and Hillary Clinton have already laid out the arguments in much more detail than I have time for.

[sandnsea]

14. Hillary does not offer an entitled coverage to everybody

I don't know why people cannot get that through their heads. Passing a law to require auto insurance has not guaranteed that everybody has auto insurance. Why can people not THINK.

[rodeodance]

29. Her's is the almost same as O. except Hill covers ALL---get it!!

[Kitty Herder]

37. Oh, really? By UNFUNDED mandate?

Look at what is happening with this in Mass. It's not working. You don't provide health care for everyone by mandating that people buy a sub-par product that they can't afford and fine them if they don't.

[Kitty Herder]

36. There is a huge difference between what Michael Moore and Dennis Kucinich

are proposing and what Hillary is proposing. If you can't see that, then I'm afraid I can't help you much.

[bigtree]

28. Universal 'Availability'

:rofl:

[Hobarticus]

45. Don't we have that NOW????

Cripes, I'm unemployed and can still get health insurance....just can't afford it. But it's "available"!!!

[Bluerthanblue]

58. no we don't- "pre-existing conditions"- eom

[MethuenProgressive]

2. "Except the 15 million I don't give a shit about!"

[fenriswolf]

9. thats the "estimated" who will choose not to buy it.

as opposed to being forced to, if they have a choice then thats great. Under hillaries plan it is estimated that they would be forced to buy the same health insurance at a little more cost. so its simple, it would cost the same under hillaries plan but they choose not to rather then being forced. Get over yourself.

[MethuenProgressive]

17. I'm tired of paying deadbeat's bills. If they can afford it, but refuse to buy it,

they should be forced to pay for it themselves.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

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

[bluestateguy]

24. Thank you MItt Romney

In Massachusetts, people get fined, and some of them just pay the fines because it's cheaper than buying insurance that they cannot afford anyway.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

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

[OzarkDem]

20. and the $900 a year the rest of insured suckers pay

to care for the ones who can afford insurance but won't buy it.

Don't forget the massive tax giveaway to insurance companies.

[ingac70]

3. Insurance and actual health care are two different things. n/t.

[jlake]

55. True. And Obama offers neither - yet he claims he does.

[NC_Nurse]

4. If you want it, you'll get it. The idea is to make it affordable for all.

What do you mean by "if you can't take the trouble to purchase it"?

[Apollo11]

8. Why would anyone not want hospital treatment in the event of illness or accident?

Both Obama and Hillary have promised to make health cover more affordable.

But my question is - why is Obama attacking Hillary because she is determined to make sure that everyone will be covered? Doesn't he really want "HEALTH CARE FOR ALL"?

[NC_Nurse]

15. They'll get it whether they have bought into the system or not. They'll

just have to pay for it. That's the gamble they have CHOSEN to take.

The reason he isn't mandating it is because it WILL not make it through Congress as easily, if at all, with mandates.

His stance is, if it's affordable, then most people will get it. I think that is true.

There are some people who will opt out of ANY good program. There were people living 14 ft. below sea level in N.O. with no
flood insurance. They said they couldn't afford it. I don't know. There are people who drive cars with no insurance - even though it is mandated.
There are just some people who don't take what's offered/available. Maybe they think something else in their budget is more important and they'll take that chance.



:shrug:

[dsc]

52. that would be a back end mandate

would it not?

[frazzled]

18. Placing a mandate on individuals (instead of gov't) may take us further away from universality

That is the ideological side of the debate, as I understand it. Economists like Robert Kuttner believe that progressives should not be in favor of mandates, because they place the responsibility on individuals and thus ultimately make a government solution harder.

There is a practical side of the debate, too: namely, that requiring that people buy their own insurance will help lessen the costs to all (a plan that is backloaded). I've read the arguments on all sides, and best I can tell, however, is that it may be a wash. A mandated system will never achieve universal compliance unless penalties are draconian (and that will never be politically viable); a non-mandated system that offers true cost reductions up front may achieve about as many enrollees in the end.

As far as I'm concerned, I lay the mandate issue aside for the moment. Both plans prevent excluding anyone on the basis of prior conditions and thus offer coverage to 100% of individuals. Both plans seek to reduce cost and improve service. I am not going to decide between these two candidates on the basis of one issue that will probably change a lot before any congressional action anyway.

[OzarkDem]

23. Yeah, Social Security is such a bad idea

hasn't worked very well has it? :sarcasm:

[frazzled]

32. Social security is a government mandate--not a mandate on individuals; Clinton's plan is NOT like SS

That is exactly my point, which either I didn't explain well enough or you didn't understand.

Social Security doesnt say everyone has to save for retirement and you are mandated to either go out and invest in something or buy into the government retirement plan (social security wouldn't work if we did that--and, if fact, if you tried to make SS like a mandated health insurance plan a la Clinton's, it would be exactly like that--sort of like Bush's plan to privatize social security).

The comparison of a Clinton plan to Social Security or Medicare is totally inappropriate. These are NOT the same thing.

We all want to get to a "Medicare for all" type of plan--there is a big question about whether mandating may be a bad way of moving us toward that goal.

[Usrename]

47. Most people think social security works fine...

... and are opposed to privatizing it.

[superkia]

49. It seems the people that grew up poor can understand why...

Clintons mandate is horrible and unthoughtful of those in need. If her plan will help those that make under $15k a year and you make $16k a year, you are shit out of luck. Whoever the people are that just miss getting assistance but can barely afford to feed their children, they will be fined and will have no food for their children. I have been there as a child, my mother worked two jobs to give us a roof over our heads and the bare minimum of food on the table ( I am talking ketchup or mayonnaise sandwiches sometimes ).

The government said she made too much money with her two minimum wage jobs and she could not get any assistance. I cant imagine it if the government had some mandate back then that took money from her paycheck because we would have had to choose between housing, food or clothes, something would have been lost because we had no extra.

This goes to the problem with many Americans these days, they feel like Clinton and don't care about the people that are in situations that they themselves have never been in before. If they had been in this kind of situation, they wouldn't support anything that punished the poor to give the insurance industry even more money.

That is why Obama is against this ignorant mandate, he must be intelligent enough to see it or he himself has been through it when he was also raised by one parent. I wish Americans would ignore the media and get back to how it was when I was a child, everyone in my neighborhood always helped each other, whether it was with food, clothing, school supplies and so on. America has become a divided selfish nation because our wealthy politicians have brainwashed the part of the country that hasnt seen the reality of hard times in America. Don't worry its coming to some of you that have never seen it and I hope you can cope, I know I can.

Wake up America before its too late, remember you are not a part of the elite, powerful and wealthy and eventually it WILL hit home!

Learn from history and educate yourselves!

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

[OzarkDem]

21. Clinton's plan covers everyone and is affordable

Obama's plan allows those who can afford coverage to skip it.

[bluestateguy]

6. Universal health care can be achieved if it is done gradually

Not Hillary's bossy mandates on regular people.

It's going to be hard enough to get any legislation passed. Having a Hillary mandate is prime fodder for demagigues who just want to sink any reform at all.

Hillary's "15 million not covered" charge is a bogus made up figure that was concocted by her supporters who simply did a faux-study to invent that number.

[Apollo11]

10. You might want to change your avatar

Hillary's "bossy mandates" are exactly the same as the mandates proposed by John Edwards.

It's called giving people an incentive to make sure that everyone is covered.

[Cameron27]

44. Yep

Hillary's "bossy mandates" are exactly the same as the mandates proposed by John Edwards.

[Libface]

51. Mandates are how you get the costs down.

That's why Hillary's plan costs less. It's basically setting up a false monopoly to negotiate the price down. The only reason not to have a mandate is to appease scared or angry people who don't want to be told what to do. If Hillary could lower the price without the mandate, she'd do it because it's politically convenient, but it's just not as effective that way.

[LadyVT]

7. Good job!

[Apollo11]

11. Thanx!

:kick:

[Fovea]

12. Every American deserves CheneyCare

or Cheney doesn't.

[sandnsea]

13. Yep, it is for ALL who apply for the subsidy

to purchase it. Not forced to buy it and hope the tax credit is enough to keep them from bankruptcy.

[juajen]

16. We certainly need safeguards for low income people.

I have a friend that makes $10 per hour and can barely afford to eat, let alone pay for insurance. I believe that Hillary said that when income is low, the premium will be adjusted accordingly, a percentage of your income, I believe. This sounds very good, but there is no wiggle in my friend's paycheck. What happens then? Will there be a subsidy so that my friend can eat as well as have health insurance?

I hope so. I guess I don't have to worry about this if it's Obama's plan. Number one, I doubt it will ever be passed, but, if it is, low income people will go on as before.

[OzarkDem]

19. He becomes more "Bush" - like every day

What a pantload. He lies without a trace of conscience.

[Straight Shooter]

25. Ladies and gentlemen, it's time for another episode of What Obama Really Meant.

Here we go again. The man's policies are clear as mud. W.O.R.M.

[rodeodance]

30. I am tired of playing the WORT game. sorry. they are not interested in learning.

[Straight Shooter]

31. Maybe we can look forward to serving heapin' helpings of "I Told You So" soup in the future.

I'm thinking Ireland is a lovely country. :hi:

[rodeodance]

33. maybe, i am

thinking norway---if i had the $$

best.

[chimpymustgo]

50. He scares me like that.

:scared:

[rodeodance]

26. he only--3-4 wks ago starting using the UNIVERSAL word--its just a tactic.

[rodeodance]

27. Most Obama folks have repeated that false poster ad nausaum!

[Apollo11]

34. It looks like nobody around here is defending Obama's flier

As I understand it, both Hillary and Obama want to make health insurance available and affordable for all Americans.

So I don't understand Obama's flier, talking about folks who "can't afford it" being forced to buy insurance under Hillary's health plan.

I thought the whole point is that everyone will be able to afford it.

The poorest folks are covered by Medicaid in any case - right??

So how is Obama justified in attacking Hillary on this?

Until now - I have not seen anyone defending the content of Obama's flier here on DU. :eyes:

[AtomicKitten]

35. He will make healthcare available to all.

On edit: And, he's right. Clinton's plan does have an across-the-board mandate. I have no clue why pointing that out gets some in a tizzy. It's true.

[Apollo11]

40. So you think it's OK for Obama to attack Hillary for her healthcare plan?

If the whole idea is to make health insurance affordable for all Americans, then I don't think it is fair to say that Hillary wants to force folks to buy something they "can't afford".

If it is affordable then you CAN afford it. Otherwise it's not affordable.

Maybe Obama is trying to say that Hillary would not make healthcare affordable for everyone?

Because if the couple in the photo "can't afford" health insurance, how can it be affordable?

But however you look at it, this is a negative attack by Obama's campaign against Hillary Clinton.

Obama is putting out the message that Hillary's (and John Edwards') health care plan sucks.

Obama's message to Ohio is: "Don't vote for Hillary Clinton. Her health care plan sucks."

How is that NOT a negative attack? :eyes:

[AtomicKitten]

43. Then please explain what you consider

Clinton repeating over and over again that his plan leaves people out? That isn't true, but she keeps saying it. That's about as negative as it gets. Obama on the other hand is pointing out her plan's mandates, and that is true.

That's the difference.

Now that you've, um, long since gotten off the fence on this, it helps to stand back and look at it all and not just react like a mother of a bully when precious gets knocked back on her heels.

And, yes, I will be glad when all this nonsense is over.

edited for lack of caffeine

[Kitty Herder]

39. And the award for non-sequiter of the day goes to.....Apollo 11

How does it follow that because Obama doesn't support an unfunded mandate, he doesn't support universal health care? He just doesn't think that's the right way to go about it. And neither do I.

As far as I'm concerned, NEITHER of these two candidates is truly serious about providing universal health care. If they were, they would be supporting H.R. 676, which would provide for a single payer program for EVERYONE. Sure, this would create some problems that would need to be solved, but they are solveable. And it's the only humane way to distribute health care in a modern nation.

[Apollo11]

41. I didn't prepare a speech.

But I would like to take this opportunity to thank Barack Obama :sarcasm: for launching negative attacks against Senator Clinton, and making deliberately misleading statements about her healthcare plan (which let's not forget is basically the same as John Edwards' healthcare plan).

Remember folks - the greatest thing about affordable health cover is that you CAN afford it! B-)

[Kitty Herder]

42. Affordable for me is free. I'm on medicaid. It's wonderful. I think everyone should have it. nt

[Avalux]

46. Have you been paying attention? Obama's and Clinton's plans are 95% the same.

The difference is the mandate; Hillary will force people to people into coverage by garnishing wages if necessary.

Enforcement of a mandate is incrediby difficult to do and will end up penalizing the very people who need help the most.

[Usrename]

48. There is a different perspective than the one you have.

I know what you are saying, but you are mischaracterising the argument.

Although their plans are very similar, much of the recent campaign debate has centered on their difference over individual mandates, which are included in Clinton's plan but only apply to children in Obama's. Clinton has argued that Obama's plan is not universal, as many would choose not to buy health insurance. Obama contends that people will buy health insurance if it is made affordable.

This is a significant difference, as most health care policy experts believe a voluntary plan can at best cover 95 percent of those eligible. On the other hand, this difference is less than meets the eye because Obama's plan, unlike Clinton's, includes automatic enrollment in the public plan for anyone who is employed and does not have access to quality affordable coverage. As a result, Obama's plan would likely lead to higher enrollment in the public option than Clinton's, which many health policy experts believe is the best way to effectively control health care costs.

http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/column/272528

[Apollo11]

53. Thanks for the info

It is very confusing for folks like me who have not studied the different plans in detail.

I like the sound of "the public plan" if it means there is no profit motive involved.

[HeraldSquare212]

54. He's saying he'll make it cheap enough that all can afford it.

She says the same thing, but she wants people to agree to be forced to buy it without knowing whether what it will cost. Maybe in her plan, $750/mo. will be considered affordable for, say, a family with income of $50G. Maybe that's affordable, maybe not. But people won't know that until after they've agreed to being required to have the insurance - it's like being asked to write a blank check.

[Vinca]

56. Re Hillary's plan - enacting a law that says you must buy health insurance

is not universal health CARE. It's a law. People will always break the law. There will be people who are not covered. If Hillary was serious about universal health CARE, she would adopt a plan where EVERYONE who is entitled (citizens) automatically receives health services by presenting their government health card to a provider. It's paid for by an increase in taxes and the obscene profits raked in by the insurance companies are eliminated, making it affordable. That's universal health CARE. Sadly, both candidates are promoting universal health INSURANCE.

[ProgressIn2008]

57. Universal health care. Now. No triangulating

posturing, lying, vaccilating or weaseling. I am *done* with my health care depending on the whims of politicians without problems paying for an emergency room visit, medication, or operations. This is a big issue for me. If we can pay this for defense:



we can pay for universal health care.