Obama Schools Stephanopoulos on Individual Mandates

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_09/020025.php

OBAMA SCHOOLS STEPHANOPOULOS ON INDIVIDUAL MANDATES.... This was one of the livelier exchanges between President Obama and George Stephanopoulos on today's ABC News' "This Week."

The host argued that an individual mandate would force people to spend money, which necessarily makes the idea "a tax." The president disagreed -- strongly.



At that point, Stephanopoulos referenced Merriam Webster's, to try to nail down a precise definition of a "tax." The president responded, "George, the fact that you looked up Merriam's Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you're stretching a little bit right now. Otherwise, you wouldn't have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition."

The host added, "But your critics say it is a tax increase."

Obama replied, "My critics say everything is a tax increase."

And here endeth the lesson.

-Steve Benen

I love our intelligent President. :loveya:

From http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/09/20/republicans-obama-mandate/">Think Progress' "The Wonk Room":

He and George Will are jerks.

:spank:

And that's saying something! Does doing a "tough" interview, mean you can't let the President of the United States complete his sentence before you interrupt him, mulitiple times? I don't really think so.

I'm quite familiar with interviewing techniques and being combative and interrupting is not equivalent to being tough. It's equivalent to being rude. Interrupting someone who is spinning a line of bullshit or going off subject, is perfectly acceptable but the President did neither of those things.

Also, if you would allow your interviewee to finish his/her sentence, they might say something that you can throw back in their face, which we all know you live to do. Cutting them off before they finish their sentence does not help you reach your "gotcha" goal.

I think it all stems from the decades of demonizing the press as liberal. What this does is cause the press to go after democrats to prove they aren't liberal lackeys and in turn they are careful not to anger the conservatives because they don't want to be branded as tougher on conservatives...

Obama seems to have taken the right approach.

Religious Power-Hungry Extremists don't.

and directly slammed Katie Couric as the liberal media maven. Every since that attack, Katie Couric has gone rightwing rogue, pushing propaganda and being one of those cheerleading the war.

To her credit, she admitted that she and her colleagues were encouraged to support the war, but it doesn't stop her from continue allowing misinformation to seap through the minds of Americans.

The same can be said of George "Steppin' Fetchin". Since he worked for the Clinton Administration, perhaps he feels that he must do all that he had to disprove that he is a liberal, even if he's not. They go much harder after Democrats than they do Republicans.

To those liberals who bravely stood up, they have been marginalized and demonized, not only by the right and Republicans, but my their colleages. Donohue was fired, as was Dan Rather. Bill Moyers has been relegated to PBS. All the good, investigative journalists have been pushed out of the system.

All we now have left is a corporate, rightwing opinion disguised by make-up and a pretty face.

"All we now have left is a corporate, rightwing opinion disguised by make-up and a pretty face."

A bunch of Air Heads that pretend that they have the inside dirt ~ they have sand.

It's not a tax it is an extortion. You can't deny us the ability to treat our illness as we see fit, restricting the market place, and then selecting a small number of corporations who have a twenty-year history of lying to legislatures, and a well documented habitual practice of denying customers what they have paid for, and then tell me its somehow my duty to contribute. I can opt out of car insurance by not driving a car. I should be able to opt out of American health care, and no longer be bound by those laws creating the Health Care monopoly.

As for the President trying to put moral imperatives on us, when he and Congress clearly prefer to ignore the majority choice and instead capitulate to Corporate bribery, that's just losing sight of the reason for America's existence in the first place.

Spock will be intellectually honest, Obama and Congress are not.

between "Tax increase" and "Premium Increase" is astonishing. The money still comes out of your pocket the only difference is where it goes.

"My critics say everything is a tax increase".

So that shut the little whining mediawhore UP?

Obama's brief rejoinders are so fantastic. "My critics say everything is a tax increase." Nothing can be said to that. Point made, conversation finished.

Do people want to convert insurance premiums to an employer/employee tax resulting in more net income?

Instead of paying health care in the form of high insurance premiums. They would pay health care in the form of a tax lower than the health insurance premiums.


The benefits:
More income
Guaranteed coverage
Eliminate insurance company death panels
Individuals more likely to seek medical help
Emergency rooms less congested
If everyone has the same plan there would only need to be one form to file.
If several plans (5 or less) would still be fewer forms then currently.
Doctors would have more freedom to practice medicine without insurance companies looking over their shoulders.
Patients would not be shoved out of hospitals too early based on insurance company dictates
Fewer bankruptcies
Fewer liens placed by hospitals on the homes of patients

Lower salaries for hospital administrators
Fewer benefits for hospital administrators
Lower fees for board directors
Less advertising costs
Fewer retreats

Surely the flawed logic he answered with is obvious?

I reeks of Ronald Reagan, frankly.

are not the answer--unless you are in the health insurance bidness.

I'm glad he was taking George to task, but he should have been taking the anti-public option types to task.

Sorry, Mr. President, I'm not buying this mandate bullshit.

about your not supporting Mandates..I have.

two days ago--I told the President that he and the Democratic Party had lost me and would have to win me back.

I cannot take the double-dealing and downright deception that has gone on with the healthcare reform debacle.

Sometimes you just have to say "Enough is enough." So I did.

Now I'll get one of their standard email responses: we appreciate your support of President Obama's agenda and thank you for your suggestions blah blah blah.

From here on it's supporting individual Democrats and Independents who share my ideology. I'm tired of sending my money to people who have other more important donors that they listen to.

Whereas my letters are respectful and supportive of what all they are doing but I let them know I don't want the mandate.

this phony healthcare reform. All it's reforming is the number of policyholders Big Insurance is going to have.

This was the opportunity of a century for the Democrats and for President Obama and they have blown it. No matter what half-assed reform comes out of this process it will be far, far less than the American people deserve because the administration was prepared from day one to give away the store to the big money contributors.

I know that's not a popular sentiment around here, but I'm calling this one the way I see it.

I supported Barack Obama because I thought he would be a true instrument of change, but I no longer believe he nor any President can do jack shit for the American people. It's all about what the politicians can do for their financiers. And until I see tangible evidence that is changing I am refusing to give them money or material support.

The way I see it, the flowery oratory and the hope and change meme were all about getting you and me to give them more money so they could carry on with business as usual. A little sop to the women here, a little tidbit for the progressives there, a little teeny bit to the gays, a few more appointments for the non-whites, a bone to the environmentalists, a scrap to the constitutionalists. But none of it adds up to anything but the bi-partisan bullshit that the President likes to talk about, but which is only a one-way relationship.

See, you got me going.

Pissed. Not whiny. Very pissed.

Hell I'd even support a Republican if he shared my ideology. But they don't. I'm not sure about Democrats, they don't seem to have any driving principles. It's time for a Peoples party. We have three pro-corporatist parties Dem, Rep. and Libertarian, so all views from right of center to far right are covered. Now we need a party that covers the interests of the common good.

I had hoped that the Green Party would be the one to challenge the Democratic Party, but that isn't happening.

If I were young and energetic I might take on a project like that, but I'm not young or as energetic as that would require, so I'll keep pushing and hoping for some real change.

That little 'you're it' at the end of the debate......

Either through increased premiums or through state and local taxes for county run hospitals. Unless we are prepared to have hospitals turn away emergency room patients based on lack of insurance, someone is paying for their care, and that someone is us. There is no free lunch.

Thats right. Overhead including ridiculous exec pay and profits that rich shareholders get for being born rich. It sort of makes the 8% you pay extra for the uninsured a fucking STUPID area to focus on for cost-cutting. And if you think the magic free market will just pass the savings right down to the consumers, who were able to pay the higher rate, you have not been paying attention.

You have to love MSM talking points. All the points you raise become irrelevant by screamining "taxes" at the top of your lungs.

With single payer, costs are much lower, but because it is paid by taxes, we can complain about a tax hike even though the costs per person are far lower than our current system, since under single payer, people don't pay for premiums or deductibles. BUT, the little they do pay, can be called a tax, and in the U.S., that makes it a non-starter in the eyes of the right wing media. Apparently, $10 dollars in taxes to support a universal health care is a lot worse than $100 in premiums and deductibles.

It is as you point out there. The only thing to consider, is that those that own the media (top 1%) would pay twice as much, while everyone else would pay half as much. Maybe that is why the narrative is so skewed

If, on the other hand, we're giving tax credits, we've set up an exchange, you are now part of a big pool, we've driven down the costs, we've done everything we can and you actually can afford health insurance...

Yes, part of a 'big pool' that they claim will lower costs - but unless price caps are imposed, or a public option offered, there's not a chance our insurance industry overlords are going to forgo any part of their profits or obscene salaries to give us poor slobs a break.

And a tax credit is weak. Very weak.

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2009/09/obama_somehow_not_breaking_thr.html

snip//

Asked if he has forfeited the idea of a "public option'' for people who cannot find insurance privately, Obama told NBC: "No, that's not true. What I've said is the public option, I think, should be a part of this but we shouldn't think that, somehow, that's the silver bullet that solves health care.''

"I absolutely do not believe that it's dead,'' Obama said of the public option on Univision. "I think that it's something that we can still include as part of a comprehensive reform effort.''

why does George always seem like an advesary to this admin?

I always believed George supported Hillary Clinton no matter what. If you notice she can say anything to him and he will laugh it off. As far as Obama, I think George respects him and is like a pooch yapping at his heels getting Obama's attention.

What the hell has happened to him?

It's not the same!! People can choose not to drive. There's so way around mandated health insurance. Obama continually using this false comparison is making him look foolish. The mandate is wrong and Obama should stand by what he told us during the campaign.

Ask the residents of Manhattan, e.g.

But go cheer for your hero who won the tit-for-tat talking point game with George Stephanopoulos

But still, how do we address the issue of people who choose not to get insurance? We're still paying for them. I'm still lost on this point.

I do see where a mandate may be a good idea, though I don't support one. The issue will always come down to (1) is insurance affordable and (2) how do we ensure competition in the industry to keep prices affordable?

especially if the insurance companies become heavily regulated. To not mandate that everyone have health insurance WHO CAN AFFORD IT is insane. Because the people who don't get health insurance WE END UP PAYING FOR ANYWAYS. And when we do pay, we pay much higher than we would have. Indeed, mandates would reduce costs while making sure everyone was covered. I only believe we will mandate health insurance if the government has a heavy hand in saying what those health insurance companies can do.

prices should be kept low and affordable, thus allowing more people to be able to afford health care. But how can we convince people that mandated health insurance is the way to go?

and I think I can speak for many others on here, we would rather just have a single payer system or a public option at the least (and there still could be one). But if we aren't getting those things, a heavily regulated insurance industry with mandates is the next best thing. It definitely has bright spots over the current system that the vast majority of people can support (no refusals for pre-existing conditions, no droppage of coverage for getting sick, etc.)

of people who choose not to get insurance? We're still paying for them."

You're not paying for them. Most uninsured pay cash for healthcare, just like they do for any other service. If they have a job or assets, they can't get out of paying for healthcare, any more than they can get out of paying their credit card bill. If they try, hello bill collector.

In fact, it's the just other way around. People who are ininsured but pay cash pay for the people who pay with insurance or Medicare. That's because insurance companies and Medicare lowball healthcare providers, and the healthcare providers make up the difference by shifting that unpaid cost to the uninsured who pay cash. I've seen this so many times myself. Providers have two sets rates -- one for the insured and medicared people, and another higher one for the uninsured who pay cash. My son didn't have insurance. I paid cash for his healthcare. Routinely, a bill for an office call for him was $90. I have insurance for myself, my bill was $60.

The only people without insurance who can get away with not paying their medical bills are the very poor who don't have much income. The rest of us pay for them. But under Obama's mandate, we'll pay for them anyway through tax credits or subsidies.

So it's not true to say we pay for the uninsured now, but won't pay for them under Obama's plan. Obama himself has promoted this myth.

I wish Obama would be more honest on this issue. It is a tax increase for most of the uninsured ... it's extra money they will have to pay after the law goes into effect that they did not have to pay before the law went into effect. In many ways, it's worse than a tax increase because, without a public option, people will be forced to buy the product of a private company.

If Obama thinks this is a good idea, he should be more honest about it.

:dem:

-Laelth

First, he says: "but you've just decided, you know what, I want to take my chances. And then you get hit by a bus and you and I have to pay for the emergency room care." Even under his plan, the people who would walk away from an ER bill are going to have their bill paid for by you and me. That's because Obama is going to give these people (the very low income people who can't/won't pay an ER bill) tax credts, which is just another way that "you and I have to pay for the emergency room care." They're not paying under the current system and won't be paying under his system. So the idea we're going to get out of paying for these people is not true.

Also, he says that the people who currently are picking up the tab for the non-payers are those with insurance. But the people who pay cash also pay for the non-payers. So it's not true that the people who don't have insurance, but pay cash, are getting out of paying for the non-payers.

Second, auto insurance and health insurance are totally different. The health insurance he is proposing will cost about $5,000 per person. Auto insurance is generally $1,000 or less. There's a big difference bewteen mandating a $5,000 payment and a $1,000 payment.

Third, he says "we're giving tax credits." But only to the very poor. Anyone who makes more than $44,000 won't get any tax credit and will be paying the full price of $5,000 per year. Below that income level there will be a sliding scale, so someone making $35,000 a year will be paying a tidy sum.

Fourth, he says "we've driven down the costs, we've done everything we can." That's bs. They're not doing anything to drive down costs other than set up an exchange. The costs will remain exorbitant. Since a full public option is estimated to drive down insurance cost by 10%, how much will this exchange without full public option drive down costs? 5%? Less? Especially with no limit on health care costs?

Fifth, he says because he's driving down costs, "you actually can afford health insurance." That's also not true. A $5,000 premium is not affordable health insurance for someone making $44,000 a year.

Obama could avoid all these controversies if he would just put out his plan in writing, so we know exactly what it is and can have a discussion about it grounded in fact.

When I was uninsured, I paid all of my medical bills, often at a much higher rate than the insured did. My next door neighbor has health insurance but her recent hospital bills in the tens of thousands of dollars were denied. She had to declare bankruptcy, which means everyone else is footing her bills.

The President is using a lot of intellectual dishonesty in this argument.

The problem is... how much taxes one pays on an absurdly low income. If one only earns 12-15k in a year, one pays maybe $1200-$2000 in taxes... but if one is mandated to spend $5k on insurance from an exchange... how is a "tax cut" going to solve this issue? It's still going to take a huge chunk out of one's income... over and above taxes saved. These poor will be contributing not only their otherwise tax contributions instead to health insurance companies... but they will also be paying an extra 25% or so of the paltry income they once had to the health insurance companies on top of that.

All so that it can be argued that the rest of you (not me, I have no insurance) will no longer have to bear the horrendous moral burden of knowing that your employers are paying for the ER visits of the uninsured when they become so desperate for care that they decide to brave the 6-18 hour waits for treatment in an ER? And that's "reform"?

Face it... that is a concession to the health insurance industry. A bone thrown to them... to increase their revenues... on the off chance that they might stop denying coverage to those who are receiving employer based health coverage when they actually have to use it for a costly illness treatment. Just like giving up on a public option and instead turning to an "emporium" is a concession... to make sure that everyone has to use a private plan... which is itself a concession of the public option... which was a concession of Single Payer...

All these concessions... and still nary a Republican vote... which means these are concessions to the new Democratic Super Majority... which is ... a sad comment on "hope you can believe in". It's more like "hope I was afraid of"...

I apologize to anyone who might've read any of my posts in the past about the "Hope" that Obama represented. I think I must've been projecting...

This is not a tax cut. This is a refundable tax credit. That means if you make $0/year, and you qualify for a $5000 tax credit, the IRS will write you a check for $5000. It has NOTHING to do with how much you pay in taxes.

Carrying water for the GOP scumbags.

I despise that little twit.

:thumbsup: to President Obama. :-)

There is no logical or moral reason to allow a for profit "health" insurance industry to exist, except to funnel precious health care dollars to people having nothing to with health care including the corporate media with their ads and commercials along with the Peoples' supposed representatives via lobbying (bribe money).

People having car insurance haven't faced financial ruin, the same can't be said for those having for profit "health" insurance.

I believe this is the worst thing I've heard from Obama.