Obama on mandates - forcing homeless to buy a house?

[quinnox]

Obama was against mandates during the campaign. What happened?

Here is a video where he talks about them: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoSnqofelsQ


Obama says "If a mandate was the solution, we could try that to solve homelessness by mandating everyone to buy a house"

He was right then and if he allows a bill with mandates to become law he will be wrong now.

[sandnsea]

1. Hillary, Krugman, Reich, THE LEFT HAPPENED n/t

[Oregone]

2. "the left"?

Does America have one anymore? Is it hiding behind the big fuckn laughing stock?

[FatDave]

11. I don;t follow you.

Are you suggesting the left is responsible for twisting a good thing (strong public option) into a horrendous thing (mandates)? Surely you're not, because that would take the cake for the most misguided thing ever uttered on DU, and that's a pretty big prize to go after.

[sandnsea]

12. The mandates came well before the public option

Do you not remember who was screaming for the mandates during the primary? It wasn't Obama supporters.

It came from the left, Krguman, Reich, who were for Hillary, because she was the liberal running. Don't you remember?

[FatDave]

18. I remember Hillary running.

I don't ever remember her being considered the liberal. I remember her being considered corporatist DLC. I remember Edwards being considered the liberal.

[sandnsea]

20. Go read Krugman and Reich again then

And the rest of the people who supported the mandate at the time.

Where are they now?

Oh yeah, suddenly against the mandate and blaming Obama for it. :crazy:

[FatDave]

29. So because you can name two high profile liberals who supported Hillary...

...you're going to call her the most liberal candidate in the primary? And therefore blame liberals for the shitty mandates we wound up with? Sir, you're crazy. Hillary was never considered the most liberal candidate. Never. Most liberals considered her a triangulating centrist. There may have been a few (say Krugman and Reich) who stuck with her out of loyalty to the Clinton brand, but she was never the favorite of liberals.

[Sebastian Doyle]

22. Hillary is the DLC poster girl. She was the most right wing candidate in the race

Anybody following her in the name of "liberalism" was hopelessly delusional.

At least those who expected Obama to be more reasonable could point to his campaign speeches as their excuse.

[sandnsea]

26. That's not what her supporters said n/t

[Cherchez la Femme]

24. You can call Hillary many things

but NEVER Liberal!

[paulk]

27. of course Hillary Clinton is a liberal

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Hillary_Clinton.htm

[JoeyT]

31. Sure she is!

And according to that same website, Lieberman is quite the lefty himself.
Hell if we pick and choose the right issues we can make McCain and Bush liberals.

[paulk]

33. same holds true for the uber left, you know

they can make anyone an inch to the right of Noam Chomsky a card carrying fascist...

by any real world, objective measure, Hillary Clinton is a liberal. That's why the right hates her.

[Cherchez la Femme]

39. Baloney

the right hate her because they hate Clintons, they hate an independently thinking woman with an education empowering her, and let's face it, they just hate women.

But DLC Hillary is as conservative as a Democrat can get.

[Cherchez la Femme]

40. Psst

don't bother them with the facts, their minds are already made up :D

Welcome to DU!

[paulk]

41. at least have the courage to insult me to my face

post some "facts", why don't you.

you're the one making generalized statements, not me.

I posted her voting record to back up my opinion - what have you posted to back up yours?

[paulk]

28. you don't need to make excuses for pragmatism

or saying whatever it takes to get elected.

I knew that Obama's "no mandates" stand was BS from the start, but, then again, I always also realized he was a politician not some greek god...

[Hannah Bell]

35. what? "the left" favors mandated rent streams for insurance corps?

hilary clinton = "the left"?

is this what you're saying?

whatever, damn funny.

[sixmile]

3. That's why he should have started with Medicare for all

and never backed down from that position.
Now the working class is getting screwed again for the benefit of corporations and their rich shareholders.
This is not going to end well.

[Davis_X_Machina]

4. Under those conditions...

...we'd have been doing the 'what went wrong' post-mortems back around August 1.

But we'd be unsullied by compromise.

[izquierdista]

7. No, we would have Medicare for All

If he had his eye on the prize, he would have found numerous ways to expand Medicare, relentlessly chipping away by including more and more people as eligibility was expanded little by little. But the way the Dems have gone about it is to implant a cow embryo into a rabbit. And I agree, this doesn't look like it will end well.

[truedelphi]

8. No it will not end up well.

[optimator]

5. what corporate products will they force us to buy next?

my guess is mandatory private education.
I can already hear the cheerleaders saying 'don't you want everyone to have an education?'
then they will force everyone to buy stocks to abolish social security.
This is the first step towards total corporate state.

[treestar]

23. Don't you already pay property taxes/school taxes?

That's not going to happen.

[Hannah Bell]

36. yes, that's definitely on the agenda. they've already put out the carrot.

an the stick as well.

[truedelphi]

6. How does the mandate situation not make sense?

If the homeless would just shut up and buy a house, we would have no more homeless problems.

And the sick should just shut up and get well. it's about positive thinking, you know.

And there is no excuse for the jobless to not become self-employed. They could borrow the money from someone. After all, Bill Gates and his dad got MicroSoft rolling with less than $ 50K.

[hootinholler]

9. Yes and the Ultra poor will get tax credits to cover the mortgage. n/t

[sandnsea]

14. Actually they can, through HUD

And more people should, but that's another fight for another day.

[truedelphi]

16. it is not the ultra poor I am worried about with the Health Reform Bill

It is the working poor.

For instance, If you are a low income person, but not low enough to be subsidized, then you are better off paying the 2.5 % penalty. (Or would be except for the jail terms facing you.) After all, insurance is supposed to provide coverage. but if at the rate of an income of $ 25K a year, you are required to pay $ 2K for your insurance premiums AND THEN AN ADDITIONAL DEDUCTIBLE of 2K, you probably cannot afford any treatment because after living expenses, and after paying the insurance premiums, you just will not be able to come up with money for any treatment options.

So in essense, this bill INSURES that the lower classes pay premiums for coverage that they cannot step forward and use, as they will not have the deductible money. Then that money from the premiums of those who never use the insurance can offset the treatments and operations for the wealthier people.

[sandnsea]

21. "not low enough to be subsidized"

Who would that be?

Go to that Kaiser calculator, plug in the numbers for the House bill, and then tell me who you are referring to.

Let me explain how an insurance card works. You make an appointment, you give them the card number, and voila, you get to see a doctor. Always.

Now it's true that you may rack up $2,000 of deductibles or other costs and not be able to pay them. I can't.

But it's the seeing the doctor and getting treatment that you consider.

My husband got Hep C treatment, he is now getting treatment for a torn disc in his back, that's been there for 20+ years. He got a triple hernia surgery fixed, one of which had been there for 20+ years. He gets his heart medication.

Do you think I give a crap about a few hundred dollars at the collection agency?

That's reality for working income people.

[truedelphi]

34. And you are willing to seettle for that - the endless calls from collection agencies. The fact

That you OWE the same rat bastards that have inflated the costs such that an operation performed on me in house (doctor's chair - three and a half minute procedure!) in the eighties for a mere $ 95 is now a two person surgery in an ampitheatre and costs $ 900 bucks.

We don't have the Health Care "Reform" Bill yet, so why should we all agree to get on the Titanic and suffer the endless abuse of steerage passengers, only in the end to be thrown out in the drink, makes no sense to me.

The time is NOW to change the system. And if we settle for a shit sandwich now, God only knows what crap will come into this legislation as tacked on provisions to some War Supplemental Bill.

[Egnever]

30. preventative care has no copay under this bill

So that 2k you are talking about should not kick in till you actually need something done.

[truedelphi]

37. That is my point exactly. I mean, I was not aware of

The preventative care aspect, and that is good news, but the notion that someone making 25 K a year, has $ 2K left over for premiums, and then an additional $ 2k for an actual procedure to start being in the works - that just blows me away.

Many of those of us who are making paltry sums of money are in our fifties. We don't have parents to borrow from. In my case, our retirement money has ALREADY been used for a medical bankruptcy. If M. was still in need of an eye operation to restore his sight, and we had to come up with that $ 2K, I have no idea (other than a fund raiser here on DU) where that dough would come from.

BTW sandandsea's assumption that you could have a necessary procedure and then start the bickering with the creditors also blows me away. The day M. had his last surgery, I sailed through the line with only a $ 5 co-pay from the HMO required. Someone behind me who needed M's surgeon to fix her eye, but was not part of the HMO, she had to scarf together $ 16K. THEY WOULD NOT DO AN EYE SURGERY TO RESTORE SIGHT UNLESS THE MONEY WAS OFFERED UP FRONT.

So how is sandandsea going to get her spouse's treatment? That deductible will be required UPFRONT, or no procedure!

[AllentownJake]

10. Uh-oh using the President's own words against him

I hear a pep rally from hell about to start.

[greennina]

13. Politicians lie. What do you have against Obama?

He's not doing anything any of the rest of them do. Why are you singling him out? What is your agenda?

[anonymous171]

15. God forbid we hold politicians accountable for those lies. Who knows what might happen?

They might STOP LYING for one. And we can't have that, can we?

[AllentownJake]

17. What?

[Cherchez la Femme]

25. That comment... just wow

so the bar is a toothpick laying on the ground...

quite audacious, eh? :crazy:

[ProSense]

19. "Our focus have been on reducing cost" Sounds like the same thing he's said all along.

Obama on mandates

[Xenotime]

32. What Obama is saying is that..

mandating something outside the power of that person is wrong. I have no problem mandating if they are able to do so and choose not to. That's just not fair.

[truedelphi]

38. Personally I agree with your statement. The problem is, that...

Right now, the assumptions on how people who are in a salary area that is 250 percent up from Federal Poverty Standards, such that a $ 24 or 25K a year person is required to somehow have 2K for their premiums and an additional $ 2 K in deductible -how will that happen?

The only people that most Congress people associate at that level of poverty are their own sons and daughters, who still live at home, and attend Georgetown. The fact that older people might be in a real bind trying to make this work doesn't occur to them.

It reminds me of when as a single mom, my thirteen year old sons' best friend remarked (He had peeked at my resume) "But there's where you are going wrong. You should apply for EXECUTIVE positions like my dad does, so you can make 200 thousand a year. then you and G. would be rich!" (This kid meant well -- he just has no concept of how society operates.)

That thirteen year old's mentality is pervasive throughout our society. LET THEM EAT CAKE, indeed.