Where was all the hue and cry about mandates during the primary?

Did mandates suddenly stop being cool when Hillary Clinton and/or John Edwards (who both backed mandates from the very beginning) failed to become President?

For the record, I never much cared for mandates. Not then or now. I don't like that people are using them as tools to either prop up or take someone down politically. But I'm sick of seeing the histrionics regarding their use and implementation. They are nothing new. I have a mandate to purchase car insurance. I have a mandate to have insurance on my house. I'm open-minded enough to see why mandates are being considered for health insurance as well, even if I might not completely agree with the concept. There are more reasons behind mandates than "evil government giving handouts to evil corporations." I'm just tired of seeing people wig out about mandates when some of the VERY SAME PEOPLE doing so backed candidates who had them as part of their own health care plans.

One of the reasons I supported Obama's health plan was that because *unlike* Hillary's plan, coverage was optional, not required.

And I'm disappointed to see them resurface, albeit not surprised. Apparently they're popular.

And yeah, for all practicality's sake, I am required to own a car.

I ask for two reasons:

1) A great many people who think they "require" a car do not actually need a car.
2) Using a car, for even a four block trip, has really messed up American health.

Honestly a house mandate would fucking rock. ;)

(The reason we've been renters is our credit has never been good and we have always had to live month by month.)

The people who had "histrionics" over mandates DURING the primaries, but now are perfectly willing to defend their implementation because they no longer hate the person/people who are promoting them?

Where's the outrage about THAT little snippet of hypocrisy?

Sometimes the best way to go about it is to find out exactly what it's all about before dismissing it as a pile of shit. Now I have had to go back and re-examine the pros and cons of mandates because, like it or not, I will very likely end up having to live with one. Whereas in the course of selecting candidates, when things are up in the air, I think it is FAR more hypocritical to support a candidate who backs mandates and then, when that person DOESN'T win and mandates end up being part of the health care package, point fingers and call that person an evil corporatist for having them there.

What would they have done if Hillary had won and the same HCR bill had come through? They'd probably be doing what the rest of us are trying to do. Make sense out of the whole thing and maybe fucking learn something.

Lately here...

"To die, to sleep,

To die, to sleep,

Aye there's the rub!

For in that sleep of death what dreams may come...."


It's just a friggin' bill...imperfect...but just a bill...

I am glad just "to be" (rather than "not to be") with the reversal of the pre-existing condition thing.

Isn't that stipulated in a private, not public, mortgage contract? Is there a public mandate on home insurance when you aren't in a mortgage contract? Not as far as I am aware.

Were you mandated to buy that home? Were you mandated to purchase the car that you must insure? Those are all choices. Your examples fall flat.

Can you name one instance where you are forced, as an individual, by your government, to engage in a specific type of commerce and purchase a product in a marketplace?

Both Hillary and Edwards supported a public option, true. But they also both supported a public option. I have no problem with the mandate if, and only if, there is a public option to go with it. Currently that is the case with the House and might well not be with the Senate. On edit, I do have to say it is rather annoying to see my candidate beaten up in the primary for this position only to see Obama decide that mandates are an OK idea after all. Kind of reminicent of when the elder Bush said no new taxes to devastating impact to Dukakis only to embrace taxes when it was convenient for him to do so.

if there were a Medicare for all type option and strict regulations on private insurance. The house bill includes neither.

If you get something substantial in return, mandates are acceptable. Mandates without any meaningful benefits for others which is what we're apparently going to get? No.

...because whenever mandates are mentioned we get flamed to fuck and back. Krugman got thrown under the bus big time over mandates even though every study done showed that they were superior to opt-in methods. (Simply because irresponsible people are going to not opt-in and fuck everyone elses rates up.)

Single payer is still the best option, and something we desire, but if you're going to argue we can't get single payer (we probably could if we actually pushed for it, hard; it is the most cost effective solution, period), then we at least say "give us a mandate" and a "strong public option."

because they are unnecessary and just reduce the economic power of insurance consumers, but I will tolerate them as long as there is a public option.

I hated more the hefty fines for not having it---that's what's pissing me off and what bothered me a great deal with the HRC move. Hefty penalties for not signing on.