Mandated Coverage
Apr 21st, 2008 at 9:27 am by Susie
I watch these incessant negative Obama ads on Clinton’s health care plan, and I just want to throw something at the TV. Bill’s right:
Clinton started the day completely focused on his wife’s policies. But by as the day wore on Clinton found himself in Waynesburg, Pa., where he couldn’t help but mention the latest round of ads put out today by Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign.
[...] The new television ads, which deal with Sen. Clinton’s plan for healthcare in America, were clearly on the former president’s mind throughout the day. While discussing his wife’s plan at an earlier event in Hermitage, he took offense with what he says are false claims by the Obama campaign.
“Hillary’s being subject to a television ad that has been roundly criticized in the form of mass mailings all across this country saying she’s trying to make you buy insurance you can’t afford and you’re gonna be fined and all that. It isn’t true. It is not true,” he said. “Every expert who has looked at this says if you provide the subsidies and you cap somebody’s income, everybody’ll be able to afford it, it’ll be cheaper than anything you’re buying now if you buying it. But I’m just telling you, we won’t get control of cost unless we cover everybody. Doing the morally right thing is the economically essential thing. If you agree with that, if you agree with that, you have only one choice left with the three candidates for president. You got to vote for Hillary for president, she’ll fix this problem.”
But 20% of the money we pay under her system will go to give the insurance companies their profit margin….FUCK THEM…all funds should go to the HEALTH PROFESSIONALS! Why does Hillary think I should be subsidizing the insurance industry…couldn’t be the millions she has gotten from the insurance industries?
So you’re saying that someone who is now uninsured by choice will NOT be required to buy insurance under the Clinton plan? That’s not what she has said when questioned on it.
Mandatory means mandatory. While I disagree with them, I do know a young, healthy self employed couple who chose to not have any health insurance so that they can save faster to buy a house. Hillary’s plan will take that choice away from them, but in their eyes they cannot afford it because it will delay achievement of one of their primary life goals. Their choice may involve risk and may be very short sighted, but they are adamant that they should have the right to make that choice for themselves, not have it forced on them by the government. They are generally not at all interested in politics and do not even always vote. They plan to this time if Clinton’s on the ballot because this issue has made them both extremely anti Hillary.
I do not agree with this couple, but they certainly have the right to know all of the facts that inform their voting choices. Of course it is not wrong for anyone (Obama, McCain or a Republican 527 in the fall if she gets that far) to point out what the definition of “mandatory” is and how it will effect all people who do not now have insurance including those who don’t have it by choice.
Clinton has repeatedly criticized Obama’s plan because it DOESN’T include penalties for those who choose not to buy health insurance. While that’s a completely legitimate argument, how can she or Bill then turn around and cry foul when Obama’s ad points out that her plan DOES include penalties? I’ve never heard Obama use the word “fine”, just penalty, btw. Maybe he has, but I think Bill uses it because is sounds harsher.
There are clear policy differences in the two plans. I do not see either candidates ads pointing out these differences as being in any way problematic. “Afford” is one of those relative terms that does not hold the same meaning for everyone. Obama’s ads appear truthful, though he biases the meaning of relative terms in his favor. Clinton’s ads appear truthful as well and she biases the same terms in her favor. People’s reactions will depend on her own take on these relative terms. This is fair and normal campaigning.
while i don’t like the insurance companies in the mix, i do see this plan as hopefully a bridge to universal healthcare in this country.
as for the couple saving for a house, well too fucking bad. it’s as selfish as childless people not wanting to pay taxes that go to fund schools. no one want to invest in the common good, but that’s what’s needed. and you know what? they are stupid and short-sighted too, because they will lose that home anyway if one of them gets ill and they don’t have coverage.
if you buy the unity talk, you have to also realize there’s no free lunch either.
somegirl - I’m not saying the couple is RIGHT. In fact if you bothered to actually read what I said I made it clear I disagree with their decision. The topic at hand is whether it is a fair campaign strategy for Obama to give all the information to these voters that THEY will find relevant so that they can make an informed decision. He is not lying in his ads. You and I might not be in the least inclined to change our minds about health care policies because of mandates and penalties but other voters have the right to disagree, and they have the right to know how the candidates’ positions will effect them.
If it was unpopular to be saying she would bring the troops home do you think Clinton should complain and claim she is being smeared if an opponent pointed out that she said she would? I certainly hope not. It is just as valid to point out the truth and reality of what Clinton’s health plan entails. Voters do have the right to disagree with you, and yes, they even have the right to be selfish and to vote based on that selfishness.