How are Edwards or Hillary going to sell the idea of Healthcare mandates if they win the nomination?

I just can't imagine them convincing people of this. I worry it would mean an easy defeat of either of them. For example, i am a single female who is healthy. As of right now I don't have health insurance. that's gonna be a tough sell to people like me. granted, i'll vote for him/her, but mandated health insurance is still a scary idea to me. How is s/he going to win an election like that.

(it's a real question, not a statement).

I think Obama makes a good point: people don't choose not to have health insurance because it is affordable. We need to make it affordable!

We are, however, in my view going about the health care in the wrong way if we focus on maintaining insurance as the way of paying.....

I think we should do it the way we do Social Security. Instead of private insurance, we need to provide a government plan that will pay for what amounts to health coverage. There can be deductables, etc and the formulas can be worked out by the experts. But the key idea here is that the costs of maintaining this system would be deducted from our paychecks in a manner similar to social security. Have the employers pay half, and the employees pay half just like SS. Self employed would have to pay into it on their own, as with Soc Security.

I don't think for-profit private insurance companies are the way to go. And I am not advocating government ownership of hospitals, etc. What I would suggest is basically a government owned Health Security System similar to Social Security and Medicare, except covering all people with decent coverage.

But simply adding mandates and not changing the system of for-profit insurance companies raking in the dough and punishing people with pre-existing conditions and those not eligible for group coverage is indeed not going to fly.
Something has to be done also to solve the systematic structural problems, instead of just mandate that everyone get sucked into a broken system

I agree as to your proposal as better better - but while Obama may be correct that no mandate will allow passage of a bill that would not otherwise pass in Congress, all three are LIKELY correct that the American voter will not allow passage of a bill that does not allow choice including the choice of not changing their current insurance arrangement.

By the way, as of last Friday, use of a Mandate has resulted in 300,000 of the estimate 370,000 uninsured in Mass signing up for insurance - granted that Mass offers a free policy designed with preventive plus minimum elective plus minimum sick coverage to the very poor with a sliding scale of subsidy for all those with incomes up to 3 times the poverty level, that is still a good result - almost double what was estimated as the likely result without mandate.

The penalty that kicks in the first of the year - a deduction from pay via payroll deduction of 50% of the premium that would have been charged a person at "your" income level for the cheapest State plan, plus loss of various state income tax deductions - was of course also an incentive.

What happens if you fall and break an arm or a leg?

What happens if you become diabetic?

What happens if you get cancer?

Just asking.

They know more than anyone else what financial ruin would result if they got a major medical bill. But at the same time, the premiums are so high they can't pay the bills they already have and health insurance too. It is called the working poor.

We need to make some fundamental changes in our country. The minimum wage is way too low. And health insurance is way too high. There are a lot of people out there who are not eligible for group coverage, so their premiums are higher. These, sadly, are folks who can least afford to pay in the first place. And these folks are doubly hit by pre-existing conditions. It is a mess.

Again, Obama's emphasis on first getting the costs down makes more sense than merely mandating people who cannot afford the present system participate.

Right now most of the money goes to insurance execs. But I haven't heard Obama advocating cutting out that waste. Have I missed something?

(I haven't decided who I will support. It may be Obama. But I think I'm asking a legit question.)

parroting Republicans. We're likely to have a President Huckabee in a year.

Imagine what the GOP side is like.

If you're employed, one part of John Edwards' approach is to require businesses "to either provide a comprehensive health plan to their employees or to contribute to the cost of covering them through Health Care Markets. In return, the Edwards plan will make it easier for businesses to offer insurance by reducing costs and creating new choices."

Further, there will be a number of measures to help make plans much more affordable for everyone.

What I like the most about what Edwards is proposing is that businesses and individuals will have a choice between purchasing a private insurance plan or a public Medicare-type plan. The private insurers will have to compete with the government plans, and if they cannot provide comprehensive services at the same price as the government plan, they may go the way of the horse and buggy. This leaves the door wide open for phasing in a single payer system.

http://www.johnedwards.com/issues/health-care/health-care-fact-sheet/