AN EXCERPT from the Concord Monitor highlighted by the Obama campaign and that still appears for now at this link.
Don't get sidetracked by the mandate debate
The Concord Monitor | December 07, 2007
By Monitor Staff
The great health care mandate debate is a sideshow. Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and John Edwards insist that forcing individuals to buy a policy is crucial to providing universal health care or something close to it. Rival Barack Obama disagrees. A mandate may be necessary to force those who refuse to sign up once affordable options are available, he says, but that step should come at the end of the march to universal care, not at the beginning.
...
On the honesty question, when it comes to health care mandates, the edge goes to Obama. He rightly says they force people to buy something before they know what it will cost and how good it will be, and many won't comply.
And this from Candidate Obama at a Feb. 2008 debate:
The mailing that we put out accurately indicates that the main difference between Senator Clinton's plan and mine is the fact that she would force, in some fashion, individuals to purchase health care.
If it was not affordable, she would still presumably force them to have it, unless there is a hardship exemption, as they've done in Massachusetts, which leaves 20 percent of the uninsured out. And if that's the case, then, in fact, her claim that she covers everybody is not accurate.
Now, Senator Clinton has not indicated how she would enforce this mandate. She hasn't indicated what level of subsidy she would provide to assure that it was, in fact, affordable. And so it is entirely legitimate for us to point out these differences.
And now I get an email from Organizing for America asking me to make calls to urge my Senators to vote for Joe Lieberman's Healthcare "Reform" Bill!?!?!?!?!?
My reply --- which got bounced but felt good to "send" anyway with an angry click of my mouse:
HELL NO!
With a mandate and NO way to police the insurance companies, this bill doesn't actually deliver affordable healthcare. Perhaps it HOPES it will magically happen but it does NOTHING to rein in premium hikes.
The fact of the matter is that the insurance industry already ADMITTED/ GUARANTEED/ PROMISED us that they would raise premiums over the next 7 years by a minimum of 80% --- even without a HCR bill.
With the threat amped up to premium increases of more than 110% in 7 years if a bill passes.
Therefore, I will NOT be calling. Not today not ever... as long as the Healthcare "Reform" Bill contains a mandate while still being devoid of actual REFORM addressing affordability!
I’m with Howard Dean on this one.
And btw, can someone explain to me what exactly was ambiguous about Lieberman running against the Democratic nominee in 2006, taking up residence on the McCain bus and being a ubiquitous fixture on the McCain campaign, and tutoring Sarah Palin --- someone he should have realized during her first "lesson" had no business on a presidential ticket? What justified his continued position of power with the Democratic Caucus?
I’m sorry but Lieberman is the equivalent of a Trojan Horse with a Vegas-worthy neon sign announcing the pillaging warriors hiding inside!
Thanks but no thanks on making those calls.
I could support this bill IF AND ONLY IF the current mandate were stripped and we could get a second bite at the apple down the line on the public option, expansion of Medicare or other reasonable paths to getting universal coverage that is not based on criminalizing those who can't afford insurance in the first place. I still agree with Candidate Obama that people weren’t uninsured because they simply didn’t want or care to get coverage but because they could not afford the coverage available to them.