Barack Obama will fine parents if their children don't have health care

[kerrygoddess]

From the debate on Thursday regarding mandates and fining people with out insurance...

Barack Obama will fine parents if their children don't have health care:

CLINTON: ... You know, Senator Obama's plan has a mandate on parents and a fine if parents do not...

OBAMA: That's right.

CLINTON: ... insure their children.

OBAMA: That's right.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/21/debate.transcript/

And he's bitching because she wants a mandate for all. Give me friggin break. The man had no problem saying he would fine parents with out healthcare for their children - WTF? They are the last people that should be fined. Struggling parents. What a stand up guy.

[PresidentObama]

1. Great point. And one worth discussing n/t

[Abacus]

33. Exactly.

Much like feeding children which should also be optional because it's more costly.

[The Ghost]

2. Children are CHILDREN

Adults are ADULTS

[texas_indy]

4. Too bad others can''t see the difference, eh? (nt)

[kerrygoddess]

6. Yes they are

And parents with children are more likely to be unable to afford insurance than single people with out children. Commonsense and yet Obama would rather penalize them - Clinton doesn't want to penalize them.

[Bluerthanblue]

15. your last sentence is disingenuous- You may want to

do some more research before you go making statements like you have.


peace~

[The Ghost]

20. Yes

Parents who cant take care of the health of their children should be penalized much worse than financially. That sounds like child neglect to me.

[gerrilea]

114. There it is folks, don't give your children health care and you go to jail

Even though you can't afford health insurance, you must be a bad parent and BINGO, it child abuse...

[ingac70]

66. Instead she'll penalize us all..

with mandates forcing all of us to buy insurance.

People who have children should be responsible and try to provide health insurance for their kids. If they are offered subsidized policies and tax breaks, I see no reason not to punish people who don't insure their kids. You get tossed in jail if you don't immunize them.

[kerrygoddess]

77. FACT CHECK -

"The Obama campaign is trying to shift the focus to some unspecified "punishment" that Clinton's plan would mete out for those who didn't obtain coverage. It's true that a "mandate" implies penalties for noncompliance, and Clinton's campaign has yet to outline what those would be. But Obama's plan, which would mandate coverage for children, would presumably also have some enforcement mechanism, and he doesn't make explicit what that would be, either, at least as his plan is laid out on his Web site." - http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/harry_louise_again.html


And parents can opt out of immunizations for the children for religious reasons FYI.

[ingac70]

82. ....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21839294/

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/494921/immunization_importance_parents_can.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/US/story?id=3866502&page=1

[kerrygoddess]

84. In CA parents can opt out

for religious reasons - the states are different. I remember these stories though. Kids should get their shots - it's important.

[gerrilea]

115. So we are now to not believe what we heard him say?

Just what his website says...?

[gateley]

3. Both their plans need an overhaul. nt

[dorktv]

19. oh yes, both plans suck...one sucks less than the other but that is about all.

[sandnsea]

5. Children are cheap to insure

We already have a program in place that is easily expanded to cover all kids. We just need to fund it and get parents to it. Completely different than requiring a 55 year old woman to pay $1,000 a month for insurance. Do you freaking KNOW how the hell much insurance costs??

[BlackVelvet04]

11. That's not what he said...

he said he didn't believe mandates were necessary. ARE THEY OR AREN'T THEY? Just another lie? Yep...he's pandering to the young.

I'm 54 with pre-existing conditions and have a policy for $233 a month with Blue Cross & Blue Shield. Hillary's plan calls for a reduction in health insurance costs by adding more people to the FEHBP as well as other cost reduction plans and subsidies.

[kerrygoddess]

22. Must be through a job?

Your health plan - not that cheap for self employed folks like myself. But I wish the hell it was. I would have insurance if it was that reasonable.

[BlackVelvet04]

31. I pay for it privately...

I'm not employed and my husband's employer doesn't offer insurance.

So no, it's not through a job.

[bjnumb9]

101. Pandering to the YOUNG?

First of all, is it possible to pander to such a large and abstract group known as the YOUNG, and second of all, are you under the impression that the children that would need to be covered or else their parents be fined are of legal voting age? Your post is befuddling.

[BlackVelvet04]

7. the whole thing is hypocrtical

doublespeak. He doesn't think mandates are necessary....but they are necessary if you have children.....why is that? Are parents just more irresponsible than the rest of the electorate?

The most likely answer to this disconnect is he is pandering to the young people and students. He obviously knows MANDATES are necessary or he wouldn't mandate parents buy insurance.

And he wants to fine parents? What if THEY can't afford insurance? How does fining them help any more than garnishing wages helps?

[heidler1]

23. What I heard was in his reply was parents who are too poor to pay will get help

from the Government.

[BlackVelvet04]

27. And Hillary's plan has

provisions to help anyone who can't pay.

Barack is talking out of both sides of his mouth. It's truly pathetic.

[heidler1]

58. What I heard was Hillary claiming her plan was better. Obama was defending his plan.

IMO she was less than honest about her complaints. He never said that his was better as to coverage, but more doable. She said under his plan 15 million would not be covered, which was a lie. Hillary's experience back in 1992 was how to fail. Much like her experience in voting to give Bush the authority to go to war was block headed.

[usregimechange]

8. Children don't have a choice

[BlackVelvet04]

12. SO.....

mandates aren't necessary, remember? Or are they?

[slick8790]

They're necessary for children, FFS.

They don't have a choice in their health coverage. Once they turn 18, if they don't want health insurance, they don't have to get it. But when they're in someone else's custody, it's their responsibility to get it for them.

[BlackVelvet04]

53. Why? He said he believes people

WILL buy it if it is affordable. He didn't say he believed they might....he said he believed they WILL. When you act contrary to your belief it's cognitive dissonance. Oh, and it's hypocrisy.

It's everyone's responsibility to have insurance so as not to be a drain on society. PERIOD.

He's pandering.

[Bluerthanblue]

9. because children are not adults, and have no choice of their own

and because it is a parents responsibility to care for their child.-

As a single very low income mother I have been able to get health care for my youngest son who is still under 18 through SCHIP.
Obama made that point as well, but it was walked/talked over.

We don't let children smoke, drink alcohol- (hell even play "Bingo" here in NH) because they are not expected to have the maturity to make proper decisions. If you listened to Obama's answer in full- you'd find that his reasons for requiring that children be covered are quite reasonable- and wouldn't 'bancrupt' a family.

My children have had health coverage whenever it has been available to them. I have none- and would insure my child before myself in any case.

peace~

[BlackVelvet04]

16. He said mandates aren't necessary if people can afford the insurance....

I guess he just thinks parents are scumbags who are the exception to the rule.

[Bluerthanblue]

34. well, to use your logic-

which I don't clearly understand- Hillary thinks that the adults who don't have health care are lazy free-loaders who just don't want to pay their way-

Which is bull-shit.

If I was above the cut-off limit for SCHIP I cannot imagine being un-able to afford a health insurance policy for my one remaining child under 18. The only thing that would factor into that would be any pre-existing conditions, but both Hillary's and Obama's plans address this.
:shrug:
so, guess I'll just have to stay confused by your point-

peace~

[BlackVelvet04]

40. the point is either you believe

people ALL PEOPLE will do the right thing and mandates aren't necessary or you don't...you can't have it both ways and not be hypocritical about it.

[Bluerthanblue]

48. no, one scenero requires people to 'do the right thing' for another

PERSON- the other requires people to 'do the right thing' for themself.

The two are NOT the same- no hyprocricy is necessiary or automatic.


peace~

[BlackVelvet04]

49. But mandates aren't necessary for people to do the right thing....

it IS hypocrisy.

[Bluerthanblue]

62. so you are saying that Hillary believes no one will do the right thing?

she has mandates on both.

?

peace~

[BlackVelvet04]

119. Because she knows there are people who won't do the right thing....

she never said she didn't believe in mandates....HE DID. This is about HIM not her.

[DemBones DemBones]

28. But your son qualified for SCHIP, plenty of kids won't

because their parents earn "too much" yet they don't make enough to pay for health insurance for their kids.

Obama wants to fine the parents for being poor instead of finding a way to give everybody health insurance. It's a terrible idea.

[Bluerthanblue]

44. I have always been frustratingly frugal- but if I earned more than

the cut-off for SCHIP I cannot imagine not being able to pay for a plan for my son.

It would come before cable tv- (which we haven't had in over 14yrs.) a new car- (I'm happy with my 18yr old second hand car) fancy clothes (GoodWill and SA have clothed us all for years) etc. What a person can really afford, and what they have come to 'believe' they can afford, are not always the same.

Obama doesn't want to fine anyone. If you really believe that you are not being honest with yourself. I don't believe Hillary wants to fine people either. However, her plan WILL end up putting some people in very uncomfortable positions- both parents of children, and adults with or without kids.

Neither one has a great plan. But great plans can't make it past those in the legislature who care more about money than the health of their fellow citizens.

peace~

[sandnsea]

50. They will receive an "income-releated federal subsidy"

Subsidies. Individuals and families who do not qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP but still need financial assistance will receive an income-related federal subsidy to buy into the new public plan or purchase a private health care plan.

[alphafemale]

125. Parents will be fined if theydon't buy a carseat and put their kid in it.

Anyone have a problem with that? Some people will not do the right thing for their kids unless they are forced.

[LeftCoast]

10. Why that sounds an awful lot like a mandate!

But of course it's totally different because he's Obama and she's Hillary. It all makes perfect sense.

:crazy:

[MadBadger]

14. He does have a mandate on Children, because they dont have a choice on health care.

[BlackVelvet04]

21. Not the point......

either mandates are necessary or they aren't, unless of course you and Obama believe that parents are just irresponsible jerks who won't bother to take care of their kids.

[Umbram]

127. Wow...

Even when you are actually trying to be logical, you make no sense.

The law imposes hundreds of duties on parents as to care for their children that are not also imposed on the parents themselves.

Want to stop eating? Have at it. Want to stop feeding your child? It's called neglect.

But then again, as you've already declared sixty or so times you will only support ONE of the current Democrats, should they win the GE - I consider you per se irrational. This is no surprise.

[LeftCoast]

37. But all the arguments against HRC's mandates also apply here

The main one being that if you don't have the money to afford it you just can't pay. I won't get into the validity of that argument - my point is that you are really trying to have this both ways.

And as to whether children have a choice in health care. Why would you think you have a choice in terms of health care? Does an adult chose the time to have a heart attack or get pneumonia?

[noiretextatique]

96. it's just a mandate for children, which is not really a mandate

even though it is a mandate, but it's just for children...got it now? :hi:

[DemBones DemBones]

13. I couldn't believe he said that, can't believe anybody supports

such crap. If people can't afford health insurance, how is fining them supposed to help?

[kerrygoddess]

17. You got me

The last thing parents with sick children need is that. He was so cold when he said "that's right." Smug - turned my stomach.

[barb162]

64. He was smug all evening n/t

[K Gardner]

18. Oh lordy.. Hillary's whole plan is one BIG MANDATE for everybody ! Wage garnishment, fines for ALL.

The hypocrisy of this thread is astounding. But not at all surprising.

[BlackVelvet04]

24. Hypocrisy is saying mandates aren't necessary

unless of course you have children and then you can't be trusted to do the right thing and insure your children. Parents, are, after all irresponsible jerks, right?

Or maybe he's just pandering to the young people he is depending on for votes....couldn't that be it? Yep, it sure could.

[FrenchieCat]

30. Mandates for those who cannot be given a choice, like children

is the way to go.

However, adults who have a choice as they are responsible for themselves, should not be forced to write a check to Insurance companies.

It is the principle....not to force folks to write checks to Insurance companies....unless they have chosen to do so.

Neither are offering Single Payer....so don't pretend.

[kerrygoddess]

26. But Obama said she won't garnish wages

Why wouold say she will if he says she won't?

"Obama: "Senator Clinton has said that we won't go after their wages" - http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/21/debate.transcript/

[ProSense]

41. What are you talking about?

Now, Massachusetts has a mandate right now. They have exempted 20 percent of the uninsured because they've concluded that that 20 percent can't afford it. In some cases, there are people who are paying fines and still can't afford it, so now they're worse off than they were. They don't have health insurance and they're paying a fine. (Applause.) And in order for you to force people to get health insurance, you've got to have a very harsh, stiff penalty. And Senator Clinton has said that we will go after their wages.

Now, this is a substantive difference. But understand that both of us seek to get universal health care. I have a substantive difference with Senator Clinton on how to get there, okay.

link

[kerrygoddess]

52. What are you talking about

I quoted the CNN Debate from the CNN transcript. You quoted from the NY Times - evdiently there's disparity in the transcripts. Thanks for sharing. Goes to show we can't trust the press.

[ProSense]

56. The NYT is correct, and Hillary did say she plans to go after wages. n/t

[kerrygoddess]

75. Ha ha ha - the NY Times is correct

Why because you say so. Give it a rest.

[ProSense]

89. No because I watched the debate. The fact is, Hillary's mandates include garnishing wages. tn/t

[kerrygoddess]

78. FACT CHECK

"The Obama campaign is trying to shift the focus to some unspecified "punishment" that Clinton's plan would mete out for those who didn't obtain coverage. It's true that a "mandate" implies penalties for noncompliance, and Clinton's campaign has yet to outline what those would be. But Obama's plan, which would mandate coverage for children, would presumably also have some enforcement mechanism, and he doesn't make explicit what that would be, either, at least as his plan is laid out on his Web site." - http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/harry_louise_again.html

[mculator]

132. Don't watch Sicko K

because you'd want universal health care by any means necessary. besides, if you can't afford it, they subsidize it.

[The_Casual_Observer]

25. Obama's plan would never happen anyway, so the details aren't

important.

[ProSense]

29. Are you being desperate? The issue is not mandating children and the entire exchange is clear:

SEN. CLINTON: -- because this is a significant difference. You know, Senator Obama has said it's a philosophical difference. I think it's a substantive difference. He has a mandate for parents to be sure to insure their children. I agree with that. I just know that if we don't go and require everyone to have health insurance, the health insurance industry will still game the system, every one of us with insurance will pay the hidden tax of approximately $900 a year -- (applause) -- to make up for the lack of insurance.

And you know, in one of our earlier debates John Edwards made a great point. It would be as though Social Security were voluntary; Medicare, one of the great accomplishments of President Johnson, was voluntary. (Applause.) I do not believe that is going to work.

So it's not just a philosophical difference. You look at what will work and what will not work. If you do not have a plan that starts out attempting to achieve universal health care, you will be nibbled to death, and we will be back here, with more and more people uninsured and rising costs. (Applause.)

MS. BROWN: All right. We appreciate that you want to make a point.

Senator Obama, we have limited time --

SEN. OBAMA: Yeah.

MS. BROWN: -- so I would like Jorge to move on to another subject, or we're going to be out of time.

SEN. OBAMA: But I -- well, I -- I understand, but I think that Senator Clinton made a -- (laughter) -- you know, she's making a point, and I -- and I think I should have the opportunity to respond very briefly, and I'll -- I'll try to make it as quickly as possible.

MS. BROWN: Very briefly, absolutely.

SEN. OBAMA: Number one, understand that when Senator Clinton says a mandate, it's not a mandate on government to provide health insurance; it's a mandate on individuals to purchase it. And Senator Clinton is right; we have to find out what works.

Now, Massachusetts has a mandate right now. They have exempted 20 percent of the uninsured because they've concluded that that 20 percent can't afford it. In some cases, there are people who are paying fines and still can't afford it, so now they're worse off than they were. They don't have health insurance and they're paying a fine. (Applause.) And in order for you to force people to get health insurance, you've got to have a very harsh, stiff penalty. And Senator Clinton has said that we will go after their wages.

Now, this is a substantive difference. But understand that both of us seek to get universal health care. I have a substantive difference with Senator Clinton on how to get there, okay.

SEN. CLINTON: Well --

MS. BROWN: All right. All right, Senator Clinton --

SEN. CLINTON: Wait a minute. No, this is too important. (Laughter.) This is the number one issue that people talk to me about. You know, when a mother grabs my arm and says "I can't get the operation my son needs because I don't have health insurance," it is personal for me. And I just fundamentally disagree.

You know, Senator Obama's plan has a mandate on parents and a fine if parents --

SEN. OBAMA: That's right.

SEN. CLINTON: -- do not insure their children.

SEN. OBAMA: That's right.

SEN. CLINTON: Because he recognizes that unless we have some kind of restriction, we will not get there. He's also said that if people show up at the hospital sick without health insurance, well, maybe at that point, you can fine them.

We would not have a social compact with Social Security and Medicare if everyone did not have to participate. I want a universal health care plan. (Cheers, applause.)

SEN. OBAMA: That mother, who is desperate to get health care for her child, will be able to get that health care under my plan, point number one.

Point number two, the reason a mandate for children can be effective is, we've got a ability to make affordable health care available to that child right now. There are no excuses. If a parent is not providing health care for that child, it's because the parent's not being responsible under my plan, and those children don't have a choice.

But I think that adults are going to be able to see that they can afford it under my plan; they will get it under my plan. And it is true that if it turns out that some are gaming the system, then we can impose potentially some penalties on them for gaming the system. But the notion that somehow I am interested in leaving out 15 million people, without health insurance, is simply not true.

SEN. CLINTON: Well --

MS. BROWN: (Off mike) -- (applause).

SEN. CLINTON: We disagree on that.

link

This is not a secret, it was just discussed in a nationally televised debate!

[K Gardner]

35. Stop it. That requires reading.. and thinking.. and processing. Enough already :-) No mas factoids.

[BlackVelvet04]

36. duh.....

"If a parent is not providing health care for that child, it's because the parent's not being responsible under my plan,"

So what makes him think everyone else will be responsible? Why aren't mandates necessary...oh wait they are if you have children. That's so damn hypocritical and a bunch of bullshit.

[ProSense]

43. People who want Hillary to garnish their wages can stick with her. n/t

[BlackVelvet04]

45. yeah so irresponsible young people can continue to drain

the system and cost the adults money.

[ProSense]

63. The only alternative is to garner people's wages?

Get real!

[kerrygoddess]

68. Speaking of young people -The California University system requires that all students have insurance

My daughter is in her first year there. Because it's required and the UC system is so large, the plan is so cheap that it is astounding - just under $900 per year for a PPO - with low co-pays and tons of benefits including wellness exams and shots.

Like the Congress program, the plan covers all students regardless of pre-existing conditions (which kids do have actually). You can opt out, but you must provide proof of insurance - which is similar to what Clinton proposes. The UC system has had this requirement since 2000 and it works quite well - http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/students/healthinsurance.html

[ProSense]

88. A Message to Sen. Clinton -- Forcing People to Buy Insurance is Not Universal Healthcare

A Message to Sen. Clinton -- Forcing People to Buy Insurance is Not Universal Healthcare

Posted February 4, 2008 |

Someone needs to tell Senator Hillary Clinton and her minions to stop practicing consumer fraud on healthcare. Forcing people to buy insurance is not "universal healthcare."

Especially when you let insurers continue to charge as much as they want, and do nothing to stop their callous, all too routine practice of denying medical treatment or blocking access to specialists or diagnostic tests because they don't want to spend the money.

Sen. Barack Obama is right on this point. And his mailer, which the Clinton camp has denounced, is right when it opposes "forcing everyone to buy insurance even if they can't afford it. Is that the best we can do for families struggling with healthcare costs?"

In analyzing what is wrong with an individual mandate, start with its flawed premise that treats health as a commodity which must be purchased.

"Having" insurance is not the same as being able to use it. You're only being mandated to purchase the premiums; they're not mandating the insurance companies to make sure you get the care you need.

Nor does "having" insurance protect you from financial ruin. Consumer Reports, for example, last year identified four in 10 Americans as "underinsured." Among those, more than half postponed needed medical care due to cost and a third had to dig deep into their savings to pay for medical expenses. Additionally, over a third postponed home or car maintenance repairs due to medical bills.

Add to those numbers the onset of a recession and it's not hard to imagine an individual mandate exacerbating financial insecurity and encouraging many families to self ration care because they can't afford the rising co-pays and deductibles while still having to pay the premiums. And threatening to garnish your wages or put a lien on your home if you don't go along.

The individual mandate cheerleaders claim that if you don't put everyone in the insurance pool, only the sick will buy healthcare and insurance companies will raise costs. Have any of them noticed that insurance premiums have gone up 87 percent nationally the past decade without a national individual mandate? Expecting the insurance industry to practice price restraint after marching 47 million more customers into their offices is like handing a lion more steak and expecting it to become a vegan.

That is part of why individual mandates are so popular with the insurance industry and those close to it. Insurers reap millions of new customers with minimal requirement to change their behavior. It further entrenches a dysfunctional system, expanding the reach of an industry that treats every dollar spent on care as a "medical loss ratio."

It distorts the role of government, which should be to protect people, not act as an insurance agent.

It transfers the health risk and financial burden from the healthcare industry to individuals and families; just a crushing burden on individuals to make it on their own.

Just ask Gina Dooley of Albuquerque, one of hundreds who responded to a California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee ad describing the disparity of care available to Vice President Cheney and members of Congress and the rest of us (www.cheneycare.org ).

more

Deborah Burger is a Registered Nurse and President of the California Nurses Association (CNA). CNA is a growing, progressive, female-dominated union dedicated to achieving a single standard of healthcare for all Americans. Over the past year, Burger has led the CNA through a wide-ranging confrontation with Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger over his attack on patient safety laws, his unpopular special election, and his record-setting corporate fundraising. Burger has been nursing for over thirty years, in almost every hospital unit, and currently specializes in diabetes care management in Santa Rosa, California.

[Mr.Fitzgibbons]

131. This is true -- in fact,most universities require this. My undergrad & grad schools did.

And even though some of us as grad students found the fees a bit high, it was very smart for us to have health insurance. I actually had three different friends in grad school who faced major illnesses while there and used their university-enforced insurance to the limit. Otherwise, unless the parents had been willing to fund them, these grad students would have declared bankruptcy. One woman had bizarre complications resulting from a routine surgical procedure that she had right before returning to grad school after a winter break.

[bjnumb9]

105. I notice a reoccuring theme in your posts...

You dislike young people. What a strange affliction. And "irresponsible young people" are currently paying for retired old people's social security, while at the current rate there will be none left once it is time for their retirement to roll around. So you can take solace in the fact that the old people are coming out smelling like a rose to those blasted "young people" that you have such a problem with.

[kerrygoddess]

42. Ah well - you copied my response to you from the other thread

All of debate transcript that I posted, but you see I left off some of the healthcare discussion before that section you copied from my comment where Hillary starts out discussing "Universal Healthcare" and then the conversation segues into children - so you naturally assumed it was only about children - but it wasn't. Here's what came before that:

CLINTON: It is not enough to say, "Let's come together." We know we're going to have to work hard to overcome the opposition of those who do not want the changes to get to universal health care.

You know, when I proposed a universal health care plan, as did Senator Edwards, we took a big risk, because we know it's politically controversial to say we're going to cover everyone.

And you chose not to do that. You chose to put forth a health care plan that will leave out at least 15 million people. That's a big difference.

When I said we should put a moratorium on home foreclosures, basically your response was, well, that wouldn't work.

And, you know, in the last week, even President Bush has said we have to do something like that.

I just believe that we've got to look hard at the difficult challenges we face, especially after George Bush leaves the White House.

CLINTON: The world will breathe a sigh of relief once he is gone. We all know that.

(APPLAUSE)

But then we've got to do the hard work of not just bringing the country together, but overcoming a lot of the entrenched opposition to the very ideas that both of us believe in, and for some of us have been fighting for, for a very long time. You know, when I took on...

(APPLAUSE)

When I took on universal health care back in '93 and '94, it was against a firestorm of special interest opposition. I was more than happy to do that, because I believe passionately in getting quality affordable health care to every American.

I don't want to leave anybody out. I see the results of leaving people out. I am tired of health insurance companies deciding who will live or die in America.

(APPLAUSE)

BROWN: All right, Senator Clinton, thank you.

Senator Obama, please respond.

(APPLAUSE)

OBAMA: Well, I think that Senator Clinton mentioned two specific issue areas where we've got some differences. I'm happy to debate those, which is what I think should be the focus of this campaign. We both want universal health care.

When I released my plan a few months later, we were in a debate and Senator Clinton said we all want universal health care. Of course, I was down 20 points in the polls at the time, and so my plan was pretty good. It's not as good now, but my plan hasn't changed. The politics have changed a little bit.

We both -- 95 percent of our plans are similar. We both want to set up a system in which any person is going to be able to get coverage that is as good as we have as members of Congress. And we are going to subsidize those who can't afford it.

OBAMA: We're going to make sure that we reduce costs by emphasizing prevention. And I want to make sure that we're applying technology to improve quality, cut bureaucracy.

Now, I also want to make sure that we're reducing costs for those who already have health insurance. So we put in place a catastrophic reinsurance plan that would reduce costs by $2,500 per family per year.

So we've got a lot of similarities in our plan. We've got a philosophical difference, which we've debated repeatedly, and that is that Senator Clinton believes the only way to achieve universal health care is to force everybody to purchase it.

And my belief is, the reason that people don't have it is not because they don't want it but because they can't afford it.

And so I emphasize reducing costs.

(APPLAUSE)

And as has been noted by many observers, including Bill Clinton's former secretary of labor, my plan does more than anybody to reduce costs, and there is nobody out there who wants health insurance who can't have it.

OBAMA: Now, there are legitimate arguments for why Senator Clinton and others have called for a mandate, and I'm happy to have that debate.

But the notion that I am leaving 15 million people out somehow implies that we are different in our goals of providing coverage to all Americans, and that is simply not true. We think that there's going to be a different way of getting there.

One last point I want to make on the health care front. I admire the fact that Senator Clinton tried to bring about health care reform back in 1993. She deserves credit for that.

(APPLAUSE)

But I said before, I think she did it in the wrong way, because it wasn't just the fact that the insurance companies, the drug companies were battling here, and no doubt they were. It was also that Senator Clinton and the administration went behind closed doors, excluded the participation even of Democratic members of Congress who had slightly different ideas than the ones that Senator Clinton had put forward.

And, as a consequence, it was much more difficult to get Congress to cooperate.

OBAMA: And I've said that I'm going to do things differently. I think we have to open up the process. Everybody has to have a seat at the table. And most importantly, the American people have to be involved and educated about how this change is going to be brought about.

The point is this, you know, we can have great plans, but if we don't change how the politics is working in Washington, then neither of our plans are going to happen, and we're going to be four years from now debating once again how we're going to bring universal health care to this country.

(APPLAUSE)

BROWN: All right, we've got some time constraints here, so we've got to take another real quick break. Stay with us. We've got a lot more ahead.

You can compare the candidates on the issues any time; just go to our Web site, Cnnpolitics.com. A lot more ahead here at the University of Texas. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(APPLAUSE)

BROWN: An enthusiastic crowd here at the University of Texas.

Welcome back to the Texas Democratic debate. Let's get right to it. Jorge Ramos with the next question.

RAMOS: Senator Clinton, yesterday you said, and I'm quoting, "One of us is ready to be commander in chief."

Are you saying that Senator Obama is not ready and not qualified to be commander in chief?

CLINTON: Well, I believe that I am ready and I am prepared. And I will leave that to the voters to decide.

But I want to get back to health care, because I didn't get a chance to respond after Senator Obama finished. No, let me finish, Jorge...

RAMOS: But I would like to come back...


http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/21/debate.transcript/

[Control-Z]

110. Okay, so

BO is going to make insurance affordable for everyone -

'we've got a ability to make affordable health care available to that child right now' this covers all the kids
'adults are going to be able to see that they can afford it under my plan' this covers everyone else

- yet only parents (the ones who can least afford it, say like single teenage mothers) will be punished if they don't purchase it. His young adoring fan base will get to spend their money on something more fun. No penalty. Right? Is that how it will work? That's the fair and better universal coverage?

I don't get it. Please explain how that is fair, better, sensible, reasonable, smart...?

Sounds a bit like the logic behind Bush's tax breaks to the wealthy.

[casus belli]

111. self delete - response to wrong thread

[Forkboy]

32. As a poor person I have no faith in either of their plans.

Ponder that. :)

[Fox Mulder]

38. I don't either.

I think Dennis Kucinich and John Edwards had the best plan.

[Forkboy]

46. I know they did.

Sadly, our choices are reduced to Do Little, Do Less, and a fucking Repub. :puke:

[Fox Mulder]

47. I know.

But a Democrat is better than a Republican. Most of us need to realise that come November.

[sandnsea]

51. At least his isn't mandated

So if it doesn't work, you aren't stuck paying god knows how much for a plan you can't even use because it doesn't cover anything.

[kerrygoddess]

57. God knows you still haven't read her plan.

Cause if you had you wouldn't be making that claim.

[sandnsea]

61. You're moving pretty close to stalking n/t

[kerrygoddess]

79. Why because I am responding to you responding to my thread?

that is rich. Considering I am rarely here also it's even richer. You can always put me on ignore or not respond to me.

[Forkboy]

69. I'm so poor I'm not stuck for anything. I have better insurance than my hard working buds.

MassHealth is the friggin gold card of health insurance. And I've needed every cent of it the last two years. :)

[sandnsea]

71. Shoudn't they have something good too?

With more federal assistance, maybe Mass could expand their subsidies so everybody would have a quality plan.

[Forkboy]

76. I honestly feel bad for my friend.

He works his ass off in a thankless and hateful job, yet my meds are cheaper than his. I know the poor need help, but so does the regular guy working in shops across the country. I've never felt quite right getting the help I have and watching the hard working people get so little of the benefits I do as a mental case. :)

[sandnsea]

90. It's been a problem for a long time

I hope we can get something affordable because I would hate for your friend to end up owing so much every month that he can't afford his rent. That would be even worse than having nothing.

[Forkboy]

93. it;s not to that point yet, but he pays $17 for a med that costs me $1.

That doesn't seem right to me, even though I obviously benefit from it. He works far harder than I do (though some might argue being mental is no picnic either...). I'm grateful for what I have, but I feel guilty that there are others who work and struggle to get what I'm getting for free.

[sandnsea]

98. You shouldn't feel guilty at all

It isn't your fault that we have a stupid society that puts a $500 billion military over the health of its people. None of us want our family members to be in a position where they can't get needed medication. That's why we collectively support medicaid. Don't worry about it.

[Forkboy]

100. I have to worry, I see my friend struggling everyday.

I do understand your point, but damn, working people, especially single working people, seem to get royally screwed. There has to be a fairer way.

[sandnsea]

104. I agree, I hope we find it n/t

[kerrygoddess]

81. Mass Health is mandated right?

Good to hear it is helping people.

[Forkboy]

85. I honestly don't know. It wasn't mandated for me.

But yes, it has helped me tremendously, and I'm grateful beyond words (I couldn't afford a $50,000 surgery without it!).

[kerrygoddess]

86. MassHealth is mandated.

There are subsidies that cover low income people - much like what Clinton is calling for. The model for MassHealth is the medicare system.

[Forkboy]

92. I'm not following you.

Forgive me because I'm slow, but how is it mandated? I didn't have to get it.

As you can tell I'm pretty ignorant on this health stuff.

[kerrygoddess]

97. You have MassHealth

In Massachusetts the law is that everyone must have healthcare. There is a mandate in Massachusetts. If you were to drop out of the MassHealth system for any reason, you would be required to provide your own insurance or face a penalty.

[Forkboy]

99. I should probably pay attention to these things huh?

Now I don't know whether to be happy or upset. :)

[kerrygoddess]

102. LOL! It's confusing...

Clinton wants to make sure that everyone in this country gets healthcare if they need, just as you have in MA. I think that's a real good deal! I lived in MA for 33 years -- in CA now. Stay warm back there. :)

[Forkboy]

103. Warm? What's that?

Sure, you enjoy your surfing and sushi. See if I care. :P

[kerrygoddess]

106. I hear there's snow back there!

I miss that. Can't surf and hate sushi! It's raining here in SoCal. Take care. :)

[better tomorrow]

39. I am a senior citizen on Medicare....

and I have to pay for healthcare AND prescription drugs automatically out of my SS check and if I didn't sign up I would pay a penalty later on the drugcare. I know, I waited until the last day to sign up for the prescription plan before penalty and now prescriptions are only 4.00 at Walmart so I am stuck paying 23.00 a month for nothing. Maybe that is what he will do. Not a mandate or wage attachment, like Hillary's, but a choice. And, fine you as a penalty....

[LBJDemocrat]

54. I'm against any mandate

But Obama's mandate is less sweeping. Clinton's idea is to FORCE me to give MY hard-earned dollars to an insurance company, and to force my employer to foot part of the bill directly as well.

Health care should either be single-payer or up to the individual to decide. No wonder the health care lobby loves Hillary.

[busymom]

55. This is why his criticisms of her healthcare plan are so absurd...

He has criticized her for wanting to mandated it, but he will fine you if you don't have coverage and then get sick and need it.

[better tomorrow]

60. The key is Penalty....not fines

just like the credit card companies. Use it responsibly, you earn. Gamble unwisely and you lose.

[NastyRiffraff]

67. BINGO!

That's the crux of it. People still get sick and injured, whether they're covered or not. If they're not covered, they go to the emergency room...they have no choice. Do you know how expensive ERs are?

As for mandating for children, fine. But what happens if those children's parents get sick and are uncovered? Do the children suffer, or not?

The POINT of universal health care is that everybody is covered. If you don't do that, the uncovered are a drain on the system. Sure, you must exempt some people from the costs, and have costs related to income, but everybody must be covered, or the whole thing falls apart. Under anybody's plan. Good god, that's what we have now.

[better tomorrow]

70. The problem with saying the term Universal...

is that everyone thinks of the kind of healthcare plan in Canada and that is what they want....but, the Repugs wouldn't support or cross-over to a Democratic candidate if they really believed that the Federal gov't. was going to cover it all. So, I think Barak is just playing the middle of the road and won't really "mandate" anything, but will work for lower costs with incentives for the poor.

[NastyRiffraff]

80. So, Obama's plan is basically more of the same

I'm aware that any version that has a chance of passing here isn't anything like Canada's. I wish it were, but that hasn't a prayer. But health care is a hot issue, and the people are going to demand it, and demand answers of their Congresscritters, Republican or Democrat, if they don't get it.

That's my problem with Obama's plan. It's incomplete, and why he gets away with calling it universal is beyond me. "Universal" in this case means everybody's covered. Period.

[RoadRage]

59. He fines parents.. She fines everyone - that's the difference

Parents SHOULD be forced to provide for thier kids. He also said that there will be subsidy's for those who can't afford it - so we're talking about fining the parents who'd rather just go on vacation a couple of times a year instead of being responsible by providing for thier kids.

Hillary will fine EVERYONE - not just parents.

[kerrygoddess]

72. As FactCheck points out - she doesn't say she will fine everyone

"The Obama campaign is trying to shift the focus to some unspecified "punishment" that Clinton's plan would mete out for those who didn't obtain coverage. It's true that a "mandate" implies penalties for noncompliance, and Clinton's campaign has yet to outline what those would be. But Obama's plan, which would mandate coverage for children, would presumably also have some enforcement mechanism, and he doesn't make explicit what that would be, either, at least as his plan is laid out on his Web site." - http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/harry_louise_again.html

[VenusRising]

65. Obama's Healthcare plan from his website.

Barack Obama's Plan
Quality, Affordable and Portable Coverage for All

* Obama's Plan to Cover Uninsured Americans: Obama will make available a new national health plan to all Americans, including the self-employed and small businesses, to buy affordable health coverage that is similar to the plan available to members of Congress. The Obama plan will have the following features:
1. Guaranteed eligibility. No American will be turned away from any insurance plan because of illness or pre-existing conditions.
2. Comprehensive benefits. The benefit package will be similar to that offered through Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), the plan members of Congress have. The plan will cover all essential medical services, including preventive, maternity and mental health care.
3. Affordable premiums, co-pays and deductibles.
4. Subsidies. Individuals and families who do not qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP but still need financial assistance will receive an income-related federal subsidy to buy into the new public plan or purchase a private health care plan.
5. Simplified paperwork and reined in health costs.
6. Easy enrollment. The new public plan will be simple to enroll in and provide ready access to coverage.
7. Portability and choice. Participants in the new public plan and the National Health Insurance Exchange (see below) will be able to move from job to job without changing or jeopardizing their health care coverage.
8. Quality and efficiency. Participating insurance companies in the new public program will be required to report data to ensure that standards for quality, health information technology and administration are being met.

[better tomorrow]

73. the part that I like is....

not disqualified for pre-existing conditions. I think THAT is what makes it Universal. Certainly the system the insurance companies have now where they pay bonuses for employees who disqualify people to save them money stinks. They had a report on last night where one employee made 20,000 in bonuses for denying claims. The one was for a woman who said she was well when she took it out and then was diagnosed with breast cancer a short time later. They said she had a pre-existing condition because of some minor thing. The lady sued and won a 9 million dollar settlement. Good for her!

[VenusRising]

83. I saw that story, too!

And I have a lot of family and friends who have pre-existing conditions that just can't get insurance. It's unfair to penalize people for something that is clearly not their fault. My husband and I are lucky in that we can afford it, but we're just breaking even every month. One hefty unexpected expense and we're sunk. I know that a lot of people are in that situation, and if there is also a subsidy for families unable to afford health care, then I think that's a big up side, as well.

[kerrygoddess]

74. Clinton's Plan

Senator Clinton laid out a major plank in her framework for providing affordable, quality health coverage for all Americans: her 7-step strategy for lowering spiraling costs. The rising cost of health care is threatening working families, American businesses, and the nation’s economic competitiveness. Premiums have almost doubled since 2000 - up 87 percent - four times higher than wages. And if left unattended, health care spending will double to $4 trillion per year over the next 10 years. Senator Clinton stressed that the necessary commitment to cover all Americans will require the reform of our often irrational, inefficient and wasteful policies.

Senator Clinton proposed a series of initiatives that will cut the spiraling rate of growth by one-third over time. Her health care modernization strategy achieves this by targeting the drivers of health care costs, including (1) our back-ended coverage of health care that gives short-shift to prevention, (2) the nation’s reliance on an antiquated, wasteful, costly and even dangerous paper-based medical records system, (3) unmanaged chronic illnesses such as diabetes and heart disease which account for over 75 percent of health care spending, (4) the over-utilization of medical interventions that provide little added value and the under-utilization of those that do, (5) and excessive insurance, drug, and malpractice costs.

Senator Clinton’s proposals would reduce costs and improve quality in the health care system. Taken together they would lower national health spending by at least $120 billion dollars a year. If businesses received a proportionate reduction in their health benefits spending, they would achieve at least $25 billion in savings in 2004 dollars. Families would substantially benefit as well. In fact, Business Roundtable has estimated $2,200 in national health savings for the typical family. And these savings would be reinvested in the system to help cover the 45 million uninsured.

To achieve this goal, Senator Clinton’s strategy would:

A Groundbreaking National Prevention Initiative to Reduce the Incidence of Such Diseases as Diabetes and Cancer that Impose Huge Human and Financial Costs

Institute a New "Paperless" Health Information Technology System

Transform Care of Today’s Chronically Ill Population to Improve Outcomes and Decrease Costs

Ending Insurance Discrimination to Help Reduce Administrative Costs

Create an Independent "Best Practices" Institute to Empower Consumers, Providers and Health Plans to Make the Right Care Choices

Implement Smart Purchasing Initiatives to Constrain Excess Prescription Drug and Managed Care Expenditures
Put in Place Common-Sense Medical Malpractice

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcare/

And...

As President, Hillary would fundamentally reform the nation’s health care system by lowering costs, improving quality, and covering all Americans. Earlier in the campaign, she announced a multi-faceted plan to lower costs and increase value in the nation’s health care system, which taken together would lower national health spending by at least $120 billion a year. Today, she announced several proposals that build on those initiatives to ensure high quality care by empowering health professionals, patients, and private and public payers to improve the financing and delivery of health care that every American receives. And next month, she will unveil her proposals to ensure universal coverage, so that every American will have quality, affordable health care.

Hillary’s agenda returns patients to the center of the health care system again by empowering and relying on the skill of those who provide care - physicians, nurses, other clinicians, and health care organizations - to improve that care continually. - http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthquality/

The full plan is here - http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/americanhealthchoicesplan.pdf

[better tomorrow]

91. Paperless.....

Institute a New "Paperless" Health Information Technology System (Hillary's plan)...

Yes, just what we need...more government databases so they can catalogue our DNA. Isn't that akin to what Dumbya's Great Grandfather was trying to do in the Holocaust when his Pfizer Pharmaceuticals funded that kind of "research?" Just another way to implement a microchip, too....

where'e my tinfoil?

[kerrygoddess]

108. Paperless

Is the wave of the future and can make things easier for medical professionals and ensure better care for patients.

[Thrill]

87. Of course. Thats the right position. Kids don't have a choice

Parents do. If they don't want it fine. But they need to make sure they get it for their kids. Hillary wants to make them buy it for themselves and their kids. That in my opinion is a problem. As an adult if I don't want it I shouldn't have to get it.

[Colobo]

94. Adults can make their own decisions. Children can't.

Why is that so hard to understand?

[kerrygoddess]

95. Mandates and the Dem Convention

Now that everyone is paying attention and we've seen that some Obama supporters didn't know that he would fine parents who don't have healthcare for their kids, maybe some will get the importance of the mandate.

The bottom line if the public wants universal healthcare and most feel the way to achieve it is with mandates. Paul Krugman noted that you have to start there at the top to get what we need.

In '04 Kerry's healthcare plan was adjusted to reflect the Dem Party platform during the convention and some of Edwards ideas were joined into the plan.

What astounds me with everyone defending Obama's lack of the mandate is that no one seems to be looking to the future and thinking about the fact that if he is indeed the nominee, his healthcare plan will get tweaked during the convention -- as will all of his plans. Likewise so will Clinton's if she should become the nominee.

My point here is this. I think a lot of good people are arguing over this with out understanding that his position and plan could change and probably will because there will be enormous pressure on him from Edwards and Clinton to add a mandate. That pressure will also come from the many members of the party and other Dem leaders who think a mandate is neccessary. And when and if that happens - I predict some here who now decry the mandate will be saying -- yes we need a mandate.

All the states require auto insurance. You must have homeowner insurance. Think about it. We should ALL have healthcare insurance.

I posted this in response to the thread here on whether Kerry called for a mandate in '04. He didn't in '04 but did in '06 and he said in his speech in '06 that we must " secure the basic right of health coverage for every American." He has said many times that it should be a "right not an option" and Hillary Clinton says the same thing.

I think a lot of people here who support Obama would probably agree on that but won't say they think he should change his plan. Why not? Why not speak up and say Obama needs to add the mandate for all. We all deserve to health care in this country.

We simply can not afford to just agree blanketly with who ever our nominee is. No candidate is perfect. No candidate has all the right ideas. We have a convention not only to choose our nominee but to put forth a platform on all the issues. This issue is so important to so many Americans. We must get it right this time. We must.

[Hippo_Tron]

107. I could be wrong, but don't many people whose children qualify for medicaid not sign them up?

That might explain why he wants it mandated.

[Laurab]

109. I believe he said something similar to that.

That it was free, or very low cost, so the only reason a parent would not sign them up would be irresponsibility. In that event, there would be a fine. Parents who just didn't take the time to sign their children up would be fined. That's a mandate I agree with, and would no doubt get parents to sign their kids up.

[casus belli]

112. Hillary and Obama's plans both have fines.

Implying that's it's just a feature of Obama's plan is intellectually dishonest.

[BootinUp]

116. Hillary has spoken against fines (penalties).

A fine is not purchasing healthcare coverage. I challenge you to present any evidence she has used one word to suggest she would fine people.

[casus belli]

120. Come on now.

Read her plan. There is an individual mandate REQUIRING all Americans to have health insurance under her plan. How do you expect the mandate to succeed unless there is a penalty for non-compliance in the form of monetary fines, wage garnishments, etc.? Both plans make coverage involuntary unless you already have an insurance plan - which you would be allowed to keep. There would be no way to enforce such plans if they didn't have a penalty component. The use of the word "fine" would not be wise language to include in a plan you're trying to sell to the public, but rest assured that BOTH plans will assess penalties for non-compliance.

----------------------

edit: More on this...

When asked by George Stephanopoulos, on the ABC's This Week, whether Clinton intended to garnish people’s wages, Clinton said, "… we will have an enforcement mechanism, whether it's that or it's some other mechanism through the tax system or automatic enrollments." She however clarified that these measures would only be aimed at workers who refused to buy health coverage even though they could afford it, thus burdening hospitals.

[BootinUp]

121. automatic measures to enroll people

and withhold money to pay for it is not a penalty.

[casus belli]

122. The term is "enforcement mechanism"...

automatic enrollments is just one of her possible enforcement mechanisms. Garnishing wages, intercepting tax returns, etc. - penalties. If you don't consder those things to be penalties, then you can't say that Obama's plan has "penalties" either. We're splitting hairs. Both plans will include as yet undetermined enforcement mechanisms - and are pretty similar in that regard.

[BootinUp]

124. No, Hillary has not subscribed to any form of punishment.

There is no material benefit to a person who is punished. She would "punish" them with Healthcare coverage. How cruel, lol.

[casus belli]

126. You've just described the end goal of both plans.

The bottom line is, it's not really accurate to state that either plan is different from the other, when the specifics of the enforcement mechanisms have not been stated, or even decided upon. I think the idea for both is a framework, with the specifics of compliance to be decided on when we're trying to get legislation passed.

My only point is that to say that saying Barack's plan penalizes in a way that Hillary's wouldn't, when those specifics have never been stated by either candidate, is a misleading argument.

[BootinUp]

134. You suggest that Barack does not know the definition

of the words fine and penalty when he used them. Quite a position to argue, I commend your effort, lol.

[Vinca]

113. Hillary will fine everyone. Neither has a good plan. We need Kucinich's. nt

[ileus]

117. Sounds like a load of people are going to have to get jobs if he's elected.

Real jobs, where health insurance is affordable...not to be confused with wallyworld/McDee's jobs.

[boston bean]

118. he basically called all those parents irresponsible. nt

[gravity]

123. Children don't have a choice. Adults do. nt

[Mr.Fitzgibbons]

128. We desperately need a national health system & Obama's plan seems more humane than Clinton's

at least from what I have read so far. This post seems to mischaracterize Obama's plan -- I thought Clinton was all about enforcing the health care system by making it mandatory? And I am sorry but it makes sense to require parents to have health care for children.

[jillan]

129. delete -

computer timed out and posted 2x

[jillan]

130. I loved it at the debate when he implied that he would fine a parent when s/he brings their

child to the emergency room!

As a parent who has had to take a child to the emergency room - the last thing you need is
more stress.

[backscatter712]

133. As usual, it's more complicated than the Hillary fans make it.

Obama said he would fine parents who didn't insure their kids, with the following caveats. There's no excuse for not insuring your children under his plan, because he'll be expanding programs like Medicaid and S-CHIP, so if you can't afford it, you have these options. Quite frankly, if you have the means to insure your kids (and you will under Obama's plan,) not doing so is borderline criminally negligent.