Obama knocks down Stephanopoulos's stupid claim that an insurance mandate is a tax increase

Run time: 02:36 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNP5YXJYeL0   Posted on YouTube: September 20, 2009 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: September 20, 2009 By DU Member: jefferson_dem Views on DU: 4645

 

Welcome to DU! :hi:

That's so much worse than a tax. That is legalized robbery by an insurance corporation to make you pay for health care.

the Insurance Industry loses me too. This is a rightwing idea and I'm appalled that Obama is in favor of it.

In Baucus's bill, it gets worse, anyone who cannot afford to buy insurance will be fined over $3,000. I don't know whether it's correct to call it a tax or not, but I'm with Stephanoupolis if what he's saying is that mandates are wrong.

Is it even constitutional to force some to buy a commodity? Interesting that when the argument is that healthcare is a right not a commodity, the righwingers and rightwing Dems claim it is a commidity. So, is Obama now claiming it is NOT, yet people can be forced to pay for it?

Sorry, I don't see a smackdown here. I see Obama defending mandates, something he was against in the primaries. I heard him use rightwing talking points about the poor, that once he provides tax credits to them, then there is no excuse for them to be 'irresponsible'. I have news for him, tax credits are pretty meaningless when you can barely feed your family because your salary is so low.

George should have dropped the 'tax' argument. He was using rightwing framing also. What he should have done was to ask Obama how the hell people who cannot eat, can afford to pay his friends in the Health Insurance business? And if they cant' and are fined for it, is he sending them to jail?

Obama changed his mind about mandates, but then said he was against fines. This man seems to change his mind every time I hear him speak.

And why is he defending 'Mandates'? I heard, and was shocked, that he is supporting Baucus' Bill. If that turns out to be true, then I am finished with him.

If we were given a less expensive, public alternative to the greedy for profit private insurance companies, then I could see trying to compel people to join but not (corporate) mandates. The US fought against that kind of fascism in WW2.

There should not be any mandates unless we are going to change to a total government run, not for profit health care system such as Canada has.

Anything less, and a mandate becomes forced corporate enslavement of it's captive victims.

The Baccus bill makes no mention of regulations or antitrust for the insurance companies to keep them from exploiting all of these mandated customers.

No punishment for creating a health care crisis because of their greed in denying coverage, denying care and kicking people out that may cost them too much profit to treat.

Let's just reward them by giving them millions of new victims.

Oh, and let's make sure the victims have no avenue of escape.

Let's kill the Baucus bill before it kills us!

Are the majority of USians so out of touch with poverty that they don't understand this basic fact?!

WAKE THE FUCK UP, OBAMA---SOME OF US ARE POOR!

and how should it be changed?

Did you GET what I said?

even though I don't know you personally. I am asking you because I thought you had something else to add to the plan to help the working poor,poor,etc..

on hips, in a challenging stance.

The point I am making is that not all poor people are WORKING, and if we aren't factored into the equation accurately, it is tantamount to telling us that we are worthless and to hurl ourselves off a cliff or find an ice floe with sitting room.

AND, even at that... many working poor aren't making enough money to be taxed, either, so that would be very unfair! It would mean that people with MORE money are given MORE breaks, than the people who are hardly surviving. I can't for the life of me understand how we got to the point where so many people don't understand this very basic fact!

:hi:

:toast:

He ripped Stephanopolous' face off. He's the same jerk that asked Obama during the debates why he was seen without a flag pin and wasn't wearing one himself.

decide they know it all I wonder why they don't run for president. When one argues with the president he or she should know without a doubt what they are saying. Just reading the newspapers this morning I see that everyone knows what the president should do about EVERYTHING.

is one is forced to pay out additional dollars into a running system or be penalized if they don't, like a tax. The prez' rebuttal of auto insurance is a little different as one can decide to not buy a car or not drive the car. With health inevitably you ARE going to get sick and will have to use the system. It makes sense to mandate the buying of insurance when there is an open-to-all public option (actutally taxing and single payer is best) but being forced and penalized all are like a tax. The only thing stopping it from being called taxing is i had the choice of not buying it in the first place, hence i broke the law. It's clearly politically motivated as it is dirty and inefficient approach than to just straight out taxing but with an existing for profit insurance system, a nation of fearful citizens, and the word "tax" being evil during times of prosperity and hardship one has no choice but to accept mandate.

i'm completely disappointed and even shocked by Obama's actions and his response. it comes straight out of GOP playbook.

disgusting. x(

right down to showing the rightwing disdain for the poor who, he said, will be acting irresponsibly if they do not buy Health Ins.

This does not look good, and it seems to support the reports that he, the guy we all stood up for, is in favor of Baucus' egregious bill.

who gives a rip what they say

other than filling air time (that could be much better spent covering actual aspects of policy) they offer nothing but negativism, no alternative, nothing of relevance.

an idea mandates are. I agree with him, so did Obama during the primaries. I am very glad he brought it up as it has been reported that Obama will support Baucus's bill. George didn't do a very good job, he allowed Obama to shout him down with rightwing talking points. But, in essence, he was right, mandates are not only a bad idea no matter what you call them, this system will criminalize the poor even more, and the rich, who appear more and more to be Obama's main interests, will get richer off the backs of the poor.

What I heard in that video means there will be no public option as he expressed a disdain for the poor similar to what you hear from the right. Disappointing is not the word, we were fooled, if this represents his idea of healthcare reform.

I'm a little incredulous and shocked, at this point. He basically supports the monstrosity of the Baucus' bill and falsely claims that it represents "affordable choice". He's full of right-wing talking points, and I am also shocked that apparently the majority of DU'ers are oblivious of that fact.

It almost looks like a betrayal at this point. Instead of Universal Health Care, we are getting government-mandated RACKET by the profiteering, rapacious health"care" corps. IMO, this is just going to exacerbate the problem. No, this is not the change I believe in, and this is not what I voted for.

:(

There's a story at this link titled PHARMA's Big Bribe Comes In. Obama may indeed plan to support the Baccus bill as the "agreed upon" compromise with big Pharma and insurance industries.

http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2009/09/14/phrmas-big-bribe-comes-in/

"The drug industry’s trade group plans to roll out a series of television advertisements in coming weeks specifically to support Senator Max Baucus’s health care overhaul proposal, according to an industry official involved in the planning."

According to the article, the deal was cut with the White House in July.

"Tauzin, who has never been one for subtlety or finesse (he took his $2 million-a-year PhRMA job about ten seconds after he finished pushing through the Prescription Drug Benefit bill), stupidly later revealed some of the contents of that shady meeting, saying that the White House had “blessed” a plan involving the $150 million. He disclosed to reporters that he had extracted a promise from the White House to drop two important reforms: one, to allow the government to negotiate bulk rates for drugs in Medicare, and the other to permit the importation of cheap drugs from Canada (which was once an Obama campaign saw)."

I DID NOT HELP ELECT OBAMA TO HAVE HIM SELL US OUT LIKE THIS TO THE BIG HEALTH INDUSTRY CEOS.

PS: IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO BUY THE MANDATED PRIVATE INSURANCE, THEN THE FINE IS A TAX!!!

seriously, i feel like i've been kicked in the chest.

disappointment is an understatement here, i simply did not expect an outright betrayal from Obama.

you would want other people paying your medical bills if you don't have insurance.

i certainly don't want the insurance companies making more money and would prefer a public option, but i'm tired of paying higher premiums because some people who can afford it refuse to be responsible.

:thumbsdown:

another's view point, they are accused of being a right winger.

grow up. you're supposed to be a progressive. i don't think progressives want other people paying their bills.

'I've got mine and why should I be paying for yours'? talking points. I see Obama is verging on the brink of uttering these obscenities also.

In every other developed country the one thing no one objects to is providing the poor with life-sustaining health care. To do otherwise borders on criminal negligence.

You will, btw, be paying far more if Obama backs Baucus' bill. But it won't be for the poor.

You need not worry about your money paying for the poor. Over 45,000 of them are dying every year becaause they cannot afford to live. So, not much or your money has been wasted on those irresponsible leaches, has it? But your money HAS kept the obscenely wealthy CEOs of the Insurance Industry very healthy. I don't see any of them dying from lack of care.

Progressive? To want to give money to the rich, but to deny healthcare for the poor? I don't think so. I am more than willing to help out those who need it, especially when it is a life or death issue, which should be a right. But as of now, thanks to the rightwing, the idea that they are lazy and irresponsible, has prevented them from getting help which has proven to be lethal to over half a million Americans since 9/11.

You know what? I know people who are without healthcare, and I can assure you, not a penny of your precious money is going to help them out. So relax, you haven't contributed to saving a single one of those 'worthless' lives.

i've been poor. i've been without health care. i've also paid for health care with very little money.

i believe that we should be like every other industrialized nation that has universal health care for all. but it's not free. those countries are highly taxed. that's not a problem for me. i would rather pay higher taxes and have everyone covered. what i do resent is someone who doesn't want to pay their fare share. i'm not talking about poor people. i'm talking about those who can afford it. my best friend was totally against the mandate, but after obama's speech to congress, he said "i'm not happy about the mandate, but it's for the good of all". of course, he like i, prefer that we have the choice of a public option, but that might not happen.

i never said or implied that anyone's life is "worthless". those are your words and your thoughts.

i wish you the best.

you and should not have been so quick to judge from just one post. Again, sorry about that.

I'm glad we agree that health-care should be available to all.

I do vehemently disagree with you regarding mandates though. They have this in Mass. thanks to Romney, and as predicted the costs of health-care there are rising at an alarming rate in just the few years since it was instituted. Also, hundreds of thousands of Mass. residents are still without health-care. I can provide links if you are interested. I believe the latest figure I saw was approx. 5% of the population there. And this is with the threat of fines. I doubt that any of those people would risk not only their health, but the legal consequences if they could afford to pay.

I agree that if someone is just being selfish, they don't deserve much sympathy, but those numbers are far too small to use as an example of why we should have mandates.

The truth is that far too many people simply will not be able to afford to pay these premiums. The fact that Baucus' bill was written by the Insurance Ind. should tell us that Wendall Potter, the Cigna whistle-blower, was right. For a long time the Ins. Ind. has wanted to get the millions of uninsured Americans as customers, and now they are close to realizing their dream. And it will be the tax-payers again, who instead of paying for direct health-care through a Universal system, will have their money going through the Ins Ind first, where one third of it will go to profits.

Anyhow, my apologies again. We disagree on how this ought to be done, and my anger is directed at the greedy, selfish CEOs who have pocketed more money doing a job that is not needed, and are still not satisfied. They want more, and will cost us far more in the end, than Universal health-care plan would cost, as the overhead for Medicare eg, is only 3% while their's is 30%. We don't need them. It is they who are costing us so much money and giving sub-standard care in return.

CEOs. the average pay for a health insurance CEO is 12 million and i know some make as much as 24 million. i'm hoping for the public option. I think that's the only thing that will keep them honest.

it would be interesting to see what would happen if mass. had a public option.

One thing I read that has happened in Mass. is that because of the many previously uninsured who are now insured, another problem that was not anticipated has arisen. There are more patients but not more doctors and other health-care personel. That has caused longer waiting periods for everyone.

It is something to think about. Even if there was a Single Payer system, where everyone was covered, or a really strong public option, there will be a need for more doctors. It is a huge problem and it was allowed to grow for so long, it is going to be difficult to fix. But it is worth working on and a good public option would be a start. At least despite the problems in Mass. it has high-lighted areas that really need to be addressed.

But as you say, those enormous salaries are so wrong. The country simply cannot afford them.

"you would want other people paying your medical bills"



I want our federal taxes to go toward health care for everyone whether they pay into federal taxes or not.

Who are these people who want others to pay their bills when they get sick? Have any data on how many people there are like this?

health care for everyone, but i don't think that's going to be a reality in my lifetime.

we're going to have to make the best of this health care reform. am i happy with it? absolutely not. i'm hoping that there will be a public option.

will i turn against obama and call him a right winger? no. he's doing the best he can and it's not just republicans giving him a hard time. it's democrats too. i'm extremely disappointed and feel betrayed by my party.

President Obama is the one that said, "Make me do it." A lot of the venting, protesting, and lobbying now is to make him do it. I call the White House and they tell me "Keep the faith." I am sorry, faith should be reserved for your personal deity not for a President. Anyway, I am responding to your disappointment that Democrats are giving him a hard time, I see it as necessary.

of my medical bills, sweetie.

However, you probably did pay something when my neighbors had to declare bankruptcy to get out of the medical bills THAT THEIR INSURANCE COMPANY REFUSED TO PAY.

Sell crazy somewhere else, dear.

i said:

"i certainly don't want the insurance companies making more money and would prefer a public option, but i'm tired of paying higher premiums because some people who can afford it refuse to be responsible."

notice the word "AFFORD".

then they can probably also afford to pay off medical bills or work out a settlement. Forcing everyone to give money to corrupt insurance companies is the opposite of a solution to our crisis.

The goal is to get the government "involved" in cost control for the health care of Americans under 65. Once that is accomplished the door is open for any number of "tweaks" regarding that involvement. The first tweak will be a regulation against arbitrary "previous conditions" exclusions. In response, the health insurance industry will try to push for higher premiums. Large Democratic victories in 2010 will thin the ranks of Republicans in congress which will, by then, have electoral permission to swat them down. That popular victory will force the money-power out of the Insurance Industry. The underwriters will move on to something else to invest in. Renewable energy, maybe?

It's been 70 years since the New Deal and this is the first time there is a chink in the for-profit health care system. Trust the smart guy you voted for. Don't let the propaganda get to you.

My wife and I listened to the President here. She is a lefty Independent, won't choose a party affiliation for personal reasons. I am a proud Progressive Democrat, but what I heard here was the President sounding like a jerk, so did my wife and she said something first that got the conversation started.

You don't pull any punches and you mentioned jumping the shark, maybe you meant it sarcastically but can you elaborate?

Anyone else notice the President lose this argument?

Is it a tax? Not exactly.

Does that make it right? Not at all.

Does it even matter what its called? No.

Is it the same as auto insurance? No, not exactly. There is public transportation as an option but life or death is a different issue than taking a bus or driving your own car.

Beyond these surface arguments this is entirely the wrong direction to take this issue. Mandatory contributions to private insurers for "health care" is wrong as I see it. If in fact, we all ahd the option of choosing public health insurance, the addition as an option would have been acceptable.

Barack Obama is a heart breaker. He's a smug, superficial salesman who works for corporate interests and not the people. He has established himself as a weak and compromising non-leader. He has flushed down the toilet the enormous political capital he once had and he did this by choice.

His cabinet is a litter box of assholes. He stands to make the Left as big if not a bigger failure than the right after the Cheney administration.

And another thing, there will be NO substantive action regarding the prosecution of high level officials for war crimes. A little soft shoe and song and dance but not justice.

The military fundamentals will remain largely unchanged as well. We have been kicked to the curb.

How is what Obama is saying in this piece any different what sleazoid Romney did to the people of Massachusetts? "Well we set up tax credits, and BLAH BLAH BLAH" How expensive will it be for people to figure out those tax credits? How many accountants will you need? How many layers of bureaucracy? Who is this whole structure going to benefit if not THE INSURANCE CONGLOMERATES!?!

What is so sad about this is we no longer have two parties. The Democrats like Obama are basically Republicans, while the far end of the Repug party are now Nazis. But where are the Kennedy Democrats?

They are in the grave with Teddy, aren't they?

UNIVERSAL SINGLE PAYER HC FOR ALL NOW!!

He had better start thinking about that.

know what you would do with the 24 year old patient that just came into the emergency room after a car accident. They do not have health insurance of any kind - private or public because they did not want to spend the money for it. They did not want to join a public option and they are too rich for Medicaid. How do you want to handle this issue in the final bill for health care? Who is going to pay for this patient's care? It is a real problem, so what are the options?

You lost me right there. Do you know ANYTHING about being poor?

Your question is specious. It starts with a rightwing assumption that people who are without healthcare are just plain selfish, and therefore doesn't deserve a serious answer.

Here's a question for you, from the real world. What do you about a widow who has lost her husband and is trying to raise two children on minimum wages? She is working two jobs just to provide them with a roof over their heads and food on the table.

Now, along comes Obama's new 'mandate'. She now has to add to her already strained budget, how much? He hasn't said, for the Insurance Industry. And, is she doesn't because she just can't find the money every month, what does a 'tax credit' do to help her? And when she makes the choice to feed her kids (you know, they die if they don't eat) rather than pay for a premium, because this is HER priority, she is then fined over $3,000.00, which may as well be a million to this woman.

So now, she cannot pay the fine, you tell me, what should be done with this 'useless piece of selfish garbage'? Throw here in jail is the only option, it's what we do when people don't pay fines. So now, what is the cost to society when her kids have no mother to take care of them? You tell me.

This whole argument is ridiculous. We should be out in the streets demanding what every other country has for its citizens. But we allowed the political operatives to tell us 'we can't get it' so 'we have to settle'.

That was never the reason. It was a lie. We can't get it because we elected people who sold us out.

And please, stop with the 'people without insurance are doing it because they are selfish' I had enough of that on the rightwing boards I used to frequent.

health care programs for most of that. However, you may be right - most people will sign up regardless. But what are your suggestions if someone does not? Do you really think that guy carrying a sign against health care in the protests is going to run right out there and voluntarily buy a health plan when he can get by without doing so?

Aren't there still people who have not signed up for Medicare Part
D?

Any argument for mandate hinges on a strong public option.

Cover young adults longer on their parents' plans or state children plans, even past 24, where covering young people costs all of us very little.

If the person is indigent, many hospitals write off the cost. If the person is not, then he or she can work out a repayment plan. I would also want to regulate hospital costs from making up false numbers to screw people.

And sorry but your scenario is still weak for mandates. Even with a mandate the same situation can happen. The person chooses not to buy "auto" health care and he or she gets fined and we still have the problem of how the bill is paid.

Only single payer fixes this easily.

Tell me where I am wrong. I welcome it.

this short of a miracle. You are not wrong.

by the President?

Seems like it was just a gimme to the wealth care industry so they won't blitz the public on any reform.

No public option, no mandates.
Mandates without a public option is fascism.

taxation without representation. The insurance companies do not represent us in a way that
gives us fair recourse. If the Government is running this then I can change my elected officials
until they make working it right a priority. A mandate without a Public Option IS a Tax Increase

he moderated during the primaries. He was in the tank for Hillary. He's always looking for a gotcha moment. Fuck him.

Mandates are a stealthy tax hike on the middle class. Stephanopoulos is just saying what the rest of us are thinking. Obama is going to lose a lot of voters if he goes through with this plan.

Won't insurance premiums still be inflated by this amount (or any amount the insurance companies choose to pump up our premiums by)? Why would the insurance companies magically lower our rates? Out of the goodness of their heart?