Obama shifted his position on mandates, but he was never fully against them

[ProSense]

June 2008:

Obama's plan would only require all children to be covered. Obama would consider an individual mandate for adults once affordable health insurance is available to everyone. To get there, he proposes a national health insurance exchange to help individuals who want to buy private coverage. His plan would also provide federal income-related subsidies to help people buy coverage.

link

June 2009:

I understand the Committees are moving towards a principle of shared responsibility -- making every American responsible for having health insurance coverage, and asking that employers share in the cost. I share the goal of ending lapses and gaps in coverage that make us less healthy and drive up everyone's costs, and I am open to your ideas on shared responsibility. But I believe if we are going to make people responsible for owning health insurance, we must make health care affordable. If we do end up with a system where people are responsible for their own insurance, we need to provide a hardship waiver to exempt Americans who cannot afford it. In addition, while I believe that employers have a responsibility to support health insurance for their employees, small businesses face a number of special challenges in affording health benefits and should be exempted.

link

July 2009:

I feel pretty good that I've been pretty consistent on this. The individual mandate is probably the one area where I basically changed my mind. The more deeply I got into the issue, the more I felt that the dangers of adverse selection justified us creating a system that shares responsibility, as long as we were actually making health insurance affordable and there was a hardship waiver for those who, even with generous subsidies, couldn't afford it. And that remains my position.

I think other than that we've been pretty consistent about how I think we need to approach the problem. And by the way, I in no way want to suggest that cost is more important than coverage. My point has been that those two things go hand in hand. If we can't control costs, then we simply can't afford to expand coverage the way we need to. In turn, if we can expand coverage, that actually gives us some leverage with insurers or pharmaceutical industry or others to do more to help make the health care system more cost-effective.

link

Now consider what Edwards had proposed:

The Edwards Mandate

THE EDWARDS MANDATE....Both John Edwards and Hillary Clinton include "individual mandates" in their healthcare plans that require everyone in the country to sign up for coverage. But what if you don't? Today, John Edwards explained how his plan would deal with that:

Under the Edwards plan, when Americans file their income taxes, they would be required to submit a letter from an insurance provider confirming coverage for themselves and their dependents.

Edwards Explains His Mandate

Later today, John Edwards will announce the specifics of how his mandate works. And they're quite good. Whenever you come into contact with the health care system, or whenever you pay your taxes, you will be asked to provide proof of insurance, presumably a policy number or some similar identifier. If you cannot, you will automatically be enrolled in either a public plan that you qualify for (like Medicaid or S-CHIP) or the cheapest plan offered by his Health Insurance Market. Bills will then get sent out, and if they're not paid, will be collected just like the government collects on student loan debts, or taxes, or anything else, using tools up to and including collection agencies and wage garnishment. (It's notable, here, that Edwards doesn't shy away from saying what his stick will be.)

So at the end of the day, if you don't have health care, your wages will be garnished or your credit will be damaged because a collection agency will see to it that you buy your insurance. You might even go bankrupt! And since it's called a mandate, we'll need a new IRS-like bureaucracy to handle all of this, but it won't be the IRS since a mandate is not a tax, it's just a required fee you pay to a private company.

[ProSense]

1. No comment? n/t

[TheKentuckian]

2. Bashing protocol is currently under reexamination...Please standby

Enjoy the sound of these crickets in the interim. Your patience is appreciated and bashing will resume as soon as possible.

[ProSense]

3. Seriously, it goes from a stream of misinformation to

the critics disappearing when the facts are presented.

[emulatorloo]

5. Interesting . . . n/t

[Oregone]

4. Who cares if he was for or against. On a purely policy level...

mandates suck if a non-profit subsidized public policy will not be readily available to all with ease.



This isn't about Obama. Absurd.

[ProSense]

6. "This isn't about Obama. Absurd." You're right, it isn't, and

the reality is that mandates will likely be a part of the bill whether Obama likes it or not.

[Oregone]

7. And the reality is that the "Mandates or Nothing" crowd is really posioning the debate

Of all health care issues to choose to be uncompromising on, its mind-boggling they chose that one.

[ProSense]

8. "'Mandates or Nothing' crowd"? Who the hell are they?

Who the hell has ever said mandates or nothing? I know when Hillary and Edwards pushed them, people claimed it was impossible to get to universal coverage without them, but who has been pushing "mandates or nothing"?

Most people wouldn't give a damn if a mandate got dropped from the bill.

[Oregone]

9. "Most people wouldn't give a damn if a mandate got dropped from the bill."

I think you under-estimate their power in the legislative process. Naturally, as they haven't been talked about much.

Who are they? I don't know. But I can't point fingers and rail against imaginary groups, just as the centrists rail against the "Single-Payer or Nothing" group (who really don't exist anyway).

I tell you though, that if mandates were dropped from the bill, the bulk of the left (who are against the legislation) would hop right on.

[ProSense]

10. "Who are they? I don't know." You know that's called a

strawman, right?

[Oregone]

11. Precisely

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8654822&mesg_id=8654981

Welcome to the club.

But the reality is that the mandates are polarizing the left and pitting it against itself. Without them, the left would be united on health reform

[ProSense]

12. What? n/t

[Oregone]

14. The real straw man here....

Is that the fringe leftist oppose insurance regulations and subsidies because its not Single-Payer. They are called the "All or Nothing" or "Single-Payer or Nothing" group. Thats just all bullshit.

Most everyone in that imaginary classification will compromise and support incremental improvements if the lawmakers compromise and drop the mandate from the reform. In the spirit of keeping the left united, maybe some compromise should be made. This doesn't mean some people will not be dismayed about an insufficient reform. But, they will most assuredly be there.

What is the purpose of keeping in a controversial measure, that it seems you think no one really cares about, if its also dividing the left? There must be a "Mandates or Nothing" group causing this, right?

Of all the work you do trying to convince people to get on board of this reform, maybe it would be more efficiently spent asking the lawmakers to drops the mandates they don't really care about anyway, right?

This debate is not about Obama. Its not even about uncompromising fringe commies on the left. The real problem here is the mandates (which will still leave millions uninsured), which no one seems to be considering as compromisable.

[ProSense]

16. "everyone in that imaginary classification will compromise and support incremental improvements"

it's not an "imaginary classification" or there would be no one in it. Second, are you saying they're grandstanding?

[Oregone]

17. Somewhat, yes.

It is a position that solves many of the ills created by the mandates. Of course it becomes their rally cry in the face of what they see as unjust, problematic legislation (and mandates do actually work when paired with single-payer).

Why though, can't lawmakers just drop mandates from the legislation? Why is that so difficult? Why aren't mandates a compromisable measure?

[ProSense]

13. You throw up someone's quote to prove a point, but people say anything: Single payer or

or nothing is repeated over and over. I have seen no one saying "mandate or nothing." Strawman.

[Oregone]

15. It is the lawmakers who are saying "Mandates or Nothing"

Everything else is on or off the table, depending on how the wind blows. You drop the mandates, and most everyone on the left, united, will be for the simple and straightforward, non-controversial improvements to the status quo.