NO WE CAN'T: Obama rejects universal health care for 15 million out of the gate

[Proud2BAmurkin]

Starting out from a position of weakness. That's how to get things done!

Will you be one of the 15 million?

[OzarkDem]

1. Obama supporters refer to it as a personal choice

until they get sick.

[flyarm]

2. i refer to it as garnishing my health insurance by those adults without insurance! eom

[rodeodance]

11. "CHOICE" rhetoric is hightly overrated,

[rodeodance]

13. Bush uses that terminology when he tried to dismandle Social security.

[joshcryer]

38. Yep, I've been pointing this out but some people here don't get it. Same language.

It's the same fucking talking point and everything. They even displayed the same fucking Harry and Louise ad. Incredible.

[joshcryer]

37. Like Bush's social security plans, until their investments go to shit.

[Vinca]

3. "Hillary will garnish your wages" - will that be a campaign ad or what? nt

[BootinUp]

12. Yes the Repukes will use against Obamas mandate for children in the GE nt

[Hippo_Tron]

30. To which we respond with ads about how Republicans don't support health care for children

There's a big difference in how people view health care for children and for adults. Many Americans believe that adults should be responsible for getting their own health care, but that is not the case with children.

[rodeodance]

20. and Sheepies will cry with glee.

[stray cat]

4. Pro-choice is Obama, Anti-choice is Hillary

I myself think it has to be mandatory because even people w/o health insurance will be treated and not just left to die.

[OzarkDem]

7. So being uninsured is "pro choice"?

Then who is going to pay for your health care when you get sick and make the "choice" to finally enroll?

Actually its a moot question, since Obama's plan will collapse quickly because of this very provision.

[rodeodance]

15. Precisely---and who, in the end will pay for this?? all of will. I am very puzzeled

by your subject line given what you said in your text.

[Radical Activist]

5. Health insurance is not health care.

Obama is smart. He reframes the debate to Democratic advantage by avoiding slogans about scary socialized medicine.

[OzarkDem]

9. How is access to Medicare and Medicaid not health care?

Care to elaborate?

[Radical Activist]

22. A lot of people with health insurance don't get good health care.

Haven't you seen Sicko? Hillary's plan of mandating the crappy private health insurance system is not my idea of being progressive.
And if you're worried about access to plans like Medicare and Medicaid then you should be happy with Obama's plan which provides that. You can have access to something without being shoved into it by big brother.

[Warpy]

6. Which 15 million will he throw under the bus?

People over 50 with significant health issues who can't get insurance at any price now? People under 30 who are healthy and whose inclusion into the pool would reduce rates for us all? Certainly not children, they're too cute to throw under any bus.

Personally, my group of 15 million would be the happy folks with net worths over $10 million, on the theory that they can pay for just about anything that comes along without bankrupting themselves.

[rodeodance]

8. he might hit the disenfranched voters of Florida again?

[bpeale]

35. the 15 million who can't afford to pay will be thrown under the bus

those are the poor anyway and everyone knows they don't matter

[Triana]

10. Yep. That he does...and here is the research and the numbers

Author(s): Linda J. Blumberg, John Holahan
Other Availability: PDF | Printer-Friendly Page
Posted to Web: January 29, 2008
Permanent Link: http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=411603

The nonpartisan Urban Institute publishes studies, reports, and books on timely topics worthy of public consideration. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.

The text below is an excerpt from the complete document. Read the full paper in PDF format.
Abstract

In this brief we conclude that, absent a single payer system, it is not possible to achieve universal coverage without an individual mandate. The evidence is strong that voluntary measures alone would leave large numbers of people uninsured. Voluntary measures would tend to enroll disproportionate numbers of individuals with higher cost health problems, creating high premiums and instability in the insurance pools in which they are enrolled, unless further significant government subsidization is provided. The government would also have difficulty redirecting current spending on the uninsured to offset some of the cost associated with a new program without universal coverage.
Introduction

Our contention that an individual mandate is critical to achieving universal coverage rests upon three points. First, many individuals will not choose to obtain coverage under a purely voluntary system. Second, adverse selection will occur under a voluntary insurance system.Third, it is politically difficult to redirect current government spending on care for the uninsured to offset the costs associated with new broad-based reforms unless the full population is insured.

Evidence on Voluntary Participation. There is abundant evidence that without an individual mandate a health reform would fall well short of achieving universal coverage. As part of the work that we did early in the debate over universal coverage in Massachusetts,we showed that voluntary approaches without an employer or individual mandate would only cover about 40 percent of the uninsured; adding an employer mandate would still leave about 50 percent of the uninsured without coverage. We found that Massachusetts could achieve universal coverage only with an individual mandate, even when we assumed relatively generous subsidies provided to those with incomes up to 400 percent of the FPL, government-sponsored reinsurance for high-cost cases in the private nongroup and small-group (fewer than 100 workers) markets, and an organized purchasing pool.

Other analysts have reached similar conclusions. In a study that analyzed health reform options for the state of New York, the Lewin Group found that voluntary measures including a public expansion and subsidized buy-in to a state health plan reduced the number of uninsured by 29 percent.Adding an employer mandate (but not an individual mandate) to these voluntary measures reduced the number of uninsured by 36 percent. In an analysis extending the Massachusetts type plan to the United States, Jon Gruber found that voluntary measures, including income-related subsidies and a purchasing arrangement, would reduce the number of uninsured by about 50 percent.

(REGARDING PLANS LIKE OBAMA'S...)

Opponents of an individual mandate argue that they can come close to universal coverage with a combination of income-related subsidies, more options for purchasing affordable coverage (e.g., through purchasing pools), and administrative mechanisms for facilitating enrollment in insurance. The most recent data indicate that there are 47 million uninsured people in the United States. Even if subsidies, benefits, and administrative simplifications are sufficient to reach two-thirds of the uninsured (a reach beyond what any study to date has shown for a voluntary system), this would still leave 15.5 million people uninsured. This would be admirable, but would be considerably less than full coverage, and, as health care costs and insurance premiums increase, these numbers could easily erode unless further government dollars were injected into the system.

[rodeodance]

19. Very informative thanks much. Bookmarked.

[reality based]

14. Making insurance coverage voluntary destroys universal health insurance.

Those with the higher costs will drop out, driving up the costs of the remainder, thereby causing further dropouts, etc., etc. Ask an actuary. Its like the old Republican scheme to destroy Social Security by making it voluntary. If Obama opposes mandatory participation, he guts the prospect of an effective program.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

16. yup

[Bluerthanblue]

17. bullshit- Hillary's PLAN only benefits insurance companies-

MANDATING that every person must purchase coverage is "universal health care"-

It is NOT "Universal- single payer care"-

I'm already among the uninsured. All Hillary will do is force me to sign a lien on my home, and potentially leave my children homless and parentless.

great mandate?

not in my view.

peace~

[creeksneakers2]

24. You can choose a government run program if you like

Nobody is going to take your home. Your policy will be subsidized so you can afford it.

Even under single payer you'd be obligated to pay what you can toward a government policy. That's no different than what Hillary is offering.

[Alexander]

18. At least he won't garnish their wages.

I can see the attack ads now. Hillary's quote will be played over and over again and we will lose.

[creeksneakers2]

25. Obama has mandates too

They just don't admit that until they are cornered on the details.

[Alexander]

26. But he doesn't pretend he knows which workers can "afford" insurance.

Hillary does. Big difference.

[creeksneakers2]

32. How will Obama enforce his mandates then?

[Thrill]

21. This is the sound of Panic from Proud2BAmurkin

Its funny too

[dkf]

23. Question is...do we want to lose the election over championing an unpassable health insurance plan?

Not worth it to me.

I say we win the election, make health insurance affordable, figure out who is left, and THEN we make further decisions.

[creeksneakers2]

27. We can't make it affordable without a mandate

Somebody has to pay in to cover all the ill people who aren't covered now.

And if you want to get major change in the US government, that change has to be vetted in an election and given a mandate by the voters.

[dkf]

28. We are paying for all the ill people now.

We don't let people die on the streets you know.

[creeksneakers2]

33. And for 47 million its not affordable.

[frankenforpres]

31. WHERE'S YOUR HOPE????????? NT

[Jed Dilligan]

29. Proud to be a murkin

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=murkin

on edit:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=1005121205598

[bpeale]

34. i think if you opt out, you should sign a form that states

if you get sick you are not to be treated in any way shape or form, thereby absolving the system of any guilt in letting you die. i think that's fair. that way we don't end up all having to pay for your foolishness. because sooner or later we are all going to need healthcare.

[OneBlueSky]

36. both Clinton's and Obama's plan involves billions of dollars for HMOs and . . .

allowing them to continue to make healthcare decisions instead of doctors . . . until we have a single payer plan that cuts out the unnecessary middlemen (and the huge percentage of the healthcare dollar they take as profit), nothing will change . . . we'll continue to have the most expensive and least efficient healthcare system on the planet, all to subsidize huge corporations that have found a way to rob that system blind while contributing nothing of value to it . . .

[RaleighNCDUer]

39. Thank you.

We've already screwed ourselves by allowing the two candidates who seem to grasp this to be marginalized out of the race.

IF we get any kind of healtcare plan, it will be weak, non-universal, and expensive, but it will be touted as a tremendous advance and will stop all further reforms for a generation.