Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Friday, February 08, 2008

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama agree on most policy issues, but that makes their rare differences all the more revealing. To wit, their running scrap over Mrs. Clinton's "individual mandate" for health care, which Mr. Obama has now had the nerve to expose for its inevitable government coercion.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

taxman

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

Sen. Obama does not think that having an individual mandate is an essential part of any plan for universal health care. The experts beg to disagree:

Kaiser Family Foundation's Diane Rowland: 'An individual mandate is the only alternative to government provision of coverage if you hope to achieve universal healthcare.' "Diane Rowland, executive vice president of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, which studies health policy, said it had become broadly accepted that an individual mandate is the only alternative to government provision of coverage if you hope to achieve universal coverage.'" [New York Times, 11/25/07]

Urban Institute's John Holahan: 'Implementing universal coverage requires an individual mandate.' John Holahan, Principal Researcher at the Urban Institute wrote, "Implementing universal coverage requires an individual mandate, which may or may not be combined with an employer mandate. Implementing them would make insurance accessible and affordable, and reduce the number of uninsured by about one-third. Covering the remaining two-thirds is only achievable if health insurance is made mandatory in the state." [Urban Institute, Report for the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts Foundation, October 2005]

MIT's Jonathan Gruber: 'Without a mandate you never get those people covered.' "The mandate is crucial. Many of the uninsured are voluntarily uninsured in the sense that they could get insurance today . . . but chose not to because they don't need it,' Gruber said. Without a mandate you never get those people covered.'" [Investor's Business Daily, 7/31/07]

New American Foundations' Len Nichols: Programs that do not require participation will never approach universality.' Len Nichols, director of the New American Foundation, testified before the Senate budget committee, "There are only three analytically credible ways to cover all Americans: (1) tax-financed single payer/Medicare for all; (2) employer plus individual mandates to purchase private health insurance; (3) individual mandates alone. Programs that do not require participation will never approach universality." [US Fed News, 6/26/07]

United Hospital Fund: 'An individual mandate is required to achieve universal coverage.' According to the Journal News, the United Hospital Fund in conjunction with the Commonwealth Fund "released a report in December that outlined a long-term blueprint' for universal health-insurance coverage in New York." The report specified, "Ultimately, an individual mandate is required to achieve universal coverage." [The Westchester County Journal News, 8/15/07; United Hospital Fund Blueprint for Universal Health Insurance, December 2006]

California Medical Association: There will be no significant improvement in health care coverage without some type of mandate.' In a report from the California Medical Association, "These two realities - the inherent limits in participation associated with voluntary approaches, plus the inability to address marketplace discrimination has led CMA to conclude that there will be no significant improvement in healthcare coverage without some type of mandate ... .an individual mandate would be the most viable approach to expanding health care coverage." [California Medical Association, Individual Healthcare Mandate, July 2005]

Brookings Institution's Henry J. Aaron Bruce & Virginia MacLaury: 'An individual mandate, as in Massachusetts, would be necessary to assure full coverage.' According to a statement produced by Henry J. Aaron Bruce and Virginia MacLaury, Senior Fellows at the Brookings Institution, "Furthermore, unless subsidies to low-income households shield them from nearly all out-of-pocket risk, many will not willingly buy insurance (if they must pay much of premium cost) or use ostensibly covered services (if they are exposed to significant deductibles). An individual mandate, as in Massachusetts, would be necessary to assure full coverage." [CQ Congressional Testimony, 9/11/07]

Kaiser Family Foundation's President Drew Altman: 'We can only have a big national debate about health care reform if there's a mandate that Congress can't duck.' Drew Altman, President of the Kaiser Family Foundation, said, "This is important because we will only have a big national debate about health care reform [if] there's a mandate that Congress can't duck." [The National Journal, 9/8/07]

The Washington Post: 'Obama plan could leave a third of those currently uninsured lacking coverage.' "Mr. [Obama]'s plan is less bold than the [John Edwards] model. Mr. Obama would require parents to obtain coverage for their children, as Mr. Edwards proposed in 2004; Mr. Edwards would mandate coverage for both children and adults. Edwards's approach is preferable to Obama's because it is less susceptible to being undermined by the cost-shifting created when the uninsured end up being treated at emergency rooms. Mr. Obama argues that the problem of the uninsured is mostly a matter of affordability, in which case solving the price problem would do the trick. If not, he says, a mandate could come later, when costs have been driven down enough to make it fair. Still, the Obama plan could leave a third of those currently uninsured lacking coverage. [Editorial, The Washington Post, 6/9/07]

See, all these folks are wrong, and Obama is right.

Pass the Obamaide!

"All these folks"? Everyone has their supporters. The real issue here is that HillaryCare will garnish wages of individuals - Does the average working man want the government stealing from him or would he rather have the option to purchase CHEAPER health insurance.

Does the average working man want the government stealing from him or would he rather have the option to purchase CHEAPER health insurance.

Posted by taxman at 2008-02-08 01:16 PM |


It is because women's reasoning powers are weaker that they show more sympathy for the unfortunate than men, and consequently take a kindlier interest in them. On the other hand, women are inferior to men in matters of justice, honesty, and conscientiousness. Again, because their reasoning faculty is weak, things clearly visible and real, and belonging to the present, exercise a power over them which is rarely counteracted by abstract thoughts, fixed maxims, or firm resolutions, in general, by regard for the past and future or by consideration for what is absent and remote. Accordingly they have the first and principal qualities of virtue, but they lack the secondary qualities which are often a necessary instrument in developing it. Women may be compared in this respect to an organism that has a liver but no gall-bladder. So that it will be found that the fundamental fault in the character of women is that they have no "sense of justice." This arises from their deficiency in the power of reasoning already referred to, and reflection, but is also partly due to the fact that Nature has not destined them, as the weaker sex, to be dependent on strength but on cunning; this is why they are instinctively crafty, and have an ineradicable tendency to lie.

the government stealing from him

Stealing implies taking something from someone for nothing. I think forcing them would be a better choice of word. It seems that Yes Hillary's plan would cover everyone but if your employers doesn't offer it then you have to pay for their own health insurance.

Where as Obama understands that some of the poorest people in this country are on such a shoe string budget that they cant afford even the cheapest health insurance available.

Of course there are people mostly younger people that maybe able to afford it but will simply not choice to pay for their own coverage. I didn't have health insurance between the ages of 22 and 30. I never looked into it and never would have paid for it. Thank god I never got hurt or sick.

Clinton says her plan makes sure everyone can afford it and I would like to know a bit more about it.

Of course neither one of their plans is going to get through the house or the senate without compromise. Democratics' do not have enough control of congress to completely shut out conservatives so try not to get to tied up in this argument

Sen. Obama does not think that having an individual mandate is an essential part of any plan for universal health care. The experts beg to disagree:

At the least that is what the ones "The toilet stopper" chooses to quote say anyway...

There is another side to the story (what a surprise!)

Proposals for an individual mandate respond to a legitimate concern about "free riders," the uninsured who nonetheless receive treatment and pass the costs on to taxpayers or individuals with insurance. In practice, however, an individual mandate is likely to be unenforceable because it would involve a costly and complex bureaucratic system of tracking, penalties, and subsidies.

More important, an individual mandate crosses an important line: accepting the principle that it is the government's responsibility to ensure that every American has health insurance. In doing so, it opens the door to widespread regulation of the health care industry and political interference in personal health care decisions. The result will be a slow but steady spiral downward toward a government-run national health care system.

Michael Tanner, director of health and welfare studies at the CATO Institute.

We all agree that Health Care is an important election issue so...
The question then is who's plan will stand up best to the Republican Slime Machine?

"an individual mandate...for universal health care"

This is fascism...true fascism. It's not just a derogatory word that neolibs use to describe Bush. It has a real defenition. This is government forcing what should be a personal choice on each individual. Doesn't that scare the shit out of you?

To the socialists here...why do you think the government can make the decisions in your life better than you can?

Yes I incorrectly spelled definition

"It is because women's reasoning powers are weaker that they show more sympathy for the unfortunate than men, and consequently take a kindlier interest in them."

Funny stuff, too bad you didn't write it yourself, Pinche. That rant was taken from Schopenhauer.

Again. I don't give a *damn* about the differences between these plans. A plan that actually gets passed will resemble *neither* of them at all. HRC just didn't get that in 93. Maybe the political consensus just wasn't there. But, eventually, her "my way or else" got key Democrats to drop that thing.

I think Obama might actually be more flexible. The legislative process seems more in his bones (he's arguably gotten a fair bit more done in 3 years than she in 7).

Yes, "opt-out" is dumb. This is glossed over in other countries because the entire system is paid for with either progressive taxation or a mix of progressive taxation and a sliding-scale mandated premium/fee-for-service.

A mandate under a "private insurer" who isn't allowed to charge differently based on how rich or poor someone is just doesn't work the same way. But, both these bozos are beholden to preserving the "insurance industry" rather than killing the beast.

"But, both these bozos are beholden to preserving the "insurance industry" rather than killing the beast."

Absolutely correct, Lawnchair. None of the candidates, with the exception of the late Dennis Kucinich, are supporting single-payer.

"To the socialists here...why do you think the government can make the decisions in your life better than you can?"

To the
forced-birthers here...why do you think the government can make the decisions in your life better than you can?

Hans

The media decided Kucinich couldn't win and ignored him. Many posters didn't like his big ears, his voice, or his height. I guess they didn't think his thoughts were important. Kucinich would have been for REAL change, and change that would have been good for America.

Now we've got Clinton, Obama, and McCain. At least none of them have big ears. That's the most important thing.

Be well.

ms. clinton's health care plan is not MERELY universal. It is more accurrately GOVERNMENT COERCED health care and more importantly: a massive subsidy of an industry that makes it's profit by DENIAL OF CLAIMS (service).

Frankly; removal of this "middleman" from the healthcare system is the BEST, most COST EFFICIENT way to make healthcare both; less of an economic burden, and more accessable to low and middle income groups in the U.S.

Insurers will do well; maybe even better, selling supplimental policies to the affluent...and the healthcare consumer(both rich and poor) will see a massive improvement in both quality and accessability.

www.pnhp.org


This is a massive reason NOT to vote for ms. clinton.... it shows just how much of a corporatist she really is....


" I guess they didn't think his thoughts were important. Kucinich would have been for REAL change, and change that would have been good for America."

You are correct, Bob. The corporate media would rather discuss his height and avoid his very progressive agenda.

Hmm I agree will Bill O and the Lawnchair... why can't the "mandate" force the Health Care Industry to reform rather than forcing the citizens to conform to the Health Care Industry?

Either way hope you all enjoy lesser quality health care and longer waits not only when you're in the doctor's office, but to get an appointment...

Found a lump? Your doc can see you 3 weeks from next tuesday... I'm sure you'll be fine.

But at least they'll both jack your taxes through the roof to kill you.

Health INSURANCE is not the same thing as health CARE.

If the goal is universal health CARE for all, why do we need insurance companies at all? If everyone is covered, there is no 'risk pool'. The whole concept of insurance is obsolete in a true UNIVERSAL health care scheme.

Of course, polititians cannot mention this. Guess who they get loads of contributions from?

"To the socialists here...why do you think the government can make the decisions in your life better than you can?

Posted by Pinkie "


Two words: General Welfare"

James Madison Jr., House of Representatives, February 1792:

I, sir, have always conceived--I believe those who proposed the Constitution conceived, and it is still more fully known, and more material to observe that those who ratified the Constitution conceived--that this is not an indefinite Government, deriving its power from the general terms prefixed to the specified powers, but a limited Government tied down to the specified powers which explain and define the general terms. The gentlemen who contend for a contrary doctrine are surely not aware of the consequences which flow from it, and which they must either admit or give up their doctrine.

It will follow, in the first place, that if the terms be taken in the broad sense they maintain the particular powers afterwards so carefully and distinctly enumerated would be without any meaning, and must go for nothing. It would be absurd to say, first, that Congress may do what they please, and then that they may do this or that particular thing; after giving Congress power to raise money, and apply it to all purposes which they may pronounce necessary to the general welfare, it would be absurd, to say the least, to super add a power to raise armies, to provide fleets, &c. In fact, the meaning of the general terms in question must either be sought in the subsequent enumeration which limits and details them, or they convert the Government from one limited, as hitherto supposed, to the enumerated powers, into a Government without any limits at all.

I shall be reminded, perhaps, that according to the terms of the Constitution, the Judicial Power is to extend to certain cases only not to all cases. But this circumstance can have no effect in the argument, it being presupposed by the gentlemen that the specification of certain objects does not limit the import of general terms. Taking these terms as an abstract and indefinite grant of power, they comprise all the objects of Legislative regulation as well such as fall under the Judiciary article in the Constitution, as these falling immediately under the Legislative article; and if the partial enumeration of objects in the Legislative article does not, as these gentlemen contend limit the general power, neither will it be limited by the partial enumeration of objects in the Judiciary article.

There are consequences, sir, still more extensive, which, as they follow clearly from the doctrine combated, must either be admitted, or the doctrine must be given up. If Congress can apply money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may establish teachers in every State, county, and parish, and pay them out of the public Treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may undertake the regulation of all roads, other than post roads. In short, everything, from the highest object of State legislation, down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit the application of money, and might be called if Congress pleased provisions for the general welfare.

General Welfare - the abuse continues

Take a look at that last paragraph by Madison. How many of those items he foresaw has Congress taken upon themselves?

Madison really did see the future.

Pass the Obamaide!

Posted by Corky


should be called Obamacide

Corky,

How does Hillary's ass taste?

Just wondering.

Why are Hillary and Obama qualified to manage our health care?

The reform should come from a legal (tort) aspect as well as a general reformation of insurance.

Playing with the actual PRODUCT is a big no no.
However, people believe that you can really get SOMETHING FOR NOTHING.

We will see.
We'll get what we deserve.

TAXMAN
"All these folks"? Everyone has their supporters. The real issue here is that HillaryCare will garnish wages of individuals - Does the average working man want the government stealing from him or would he rather have the option to purchase CHEAPER health insurance"

you have the option to purchase
"CHEAPER health insurance"
there is no mandate to go with the govt plan and why do you think it will be more expensive

BO has a mandate to cover all children up to the age of 25 years old. The main differences between the plans, HC cover everyone BO leaves out 25+/- million.

The government already has a plan in place now -- Medicare.
Just expand the program to cover everyone other than just those on Social Security. You can choose your own doctors and hosptials so Medicare is better than an HMO because HMOs dictate which doctors/specialists you can see and Medicare doesn't. Medicare is not free. You still have to pay about $100 a month for Medicare coverage.


Bush has continued his non-stop quest to eliminate the Medicare during the years he's been in office. Every year he keeps on slashing millions of more dollars from the Medicare amounts that are normally paid to the doctors and hospitals -- actually driving some physicians of their practices. Well, we all know that Bush's priority is into using our tax dollars to take lives (Iraq) rather than put our tax money into a program (Medicare) that helps save lives them.

Health care is a state issue.. There is nothing in the constitution that authorizes the government to get involved in the health care industry.

As usual, Americans want government to save them, and as usual the goverment will try to cure the disease with the wrong prescription. It sure is a lot easier than addressing the root causes of the problem.

The fact of the matter is that we can't afford a government insurance program and Americans can't afford to pay any more in taxes, particularly with a recession going on. It amazes me that with everything that is happening, there is only one candidate who is talking about cutting spending and yet, people are going to vote for one of these candidates that is going to try their best to sink this country.

There must be too much flouride in the water or something, because most people in this country are getting dumber by the day.

Socialist Hillary...
Marxist Obama...
Hittler Edwards...
Mao Bill Clinton

"If Barack wins I know a lot of virgins in hell are going to loose their virginity.."

Makes a very powerful argument for women to lose their virginity before dying.

Hans

Comments are closed for this entry.

Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | Copyright 2009 World Readable