LOS ANGELES (YBH.ME) – With the health care bill first and foremost in Washington, a look back at President Obama’s positions before and after taking office, specifically during the 2008 Democrat primary contest, is much needed. YBH! has undertaken this task.
Candidate Obama, during the Presidential primary debates, claimed that the difference between his plan and Hillary Clinton’s was that Hillary would “force people who don’t have health insurance to buy it.” The Huffington Post wrote at the time that the difference between the Clinton and Obama plan was that “hers would require every American to own health insurance. His would not.”
Obama pitches health care reform on the campaign trail.
Healthcare-NOW, a left wing group that currently calls for “a new campaign of non-violent, civil disobedience targeting the private health insurance industry”, analyzed the Clinton, Edwards, and Obama health care plans during the primary season. Their analysis concluded the following:
Everyone (for Edwards and Clinton) or children (for Obama) would be required to have insurance, either through their employer or purchased on their own (an “individual mandate”). Income-related subsidies would be provided through the tax system.
To look at the issue comprehensively we must look at the transcript of the January 31, 2008 Democrat debate in Los Angeles:
Obama talking about Hillary’s mandate:
What they’re struggling with is they can’t afford the health care. And so I emphasize reducing costs. My belief is that if we make it affordable, if we provide subsidies to those who can’t afford it, they will buy it.
Senator Clinton has a different approach. She believes that we have to force people who don’t have health insurance to buy it.
Shortly after the above exchange, Obama directly challenges Hillary:
And, by the way, I want to congratulate Governor Schwarzenegger and the speaker and others who have been trying to do this in California, but I know that those who have looked at it understand, you can mandate it, but there’s still going to be people who can’t afford it. And if they cannot afford it, then the question is, what are you going to do about it?
Are you going to fine them? Are you going to garnish their wages?
Today, President Obama told ABC News:
What I think is appropriate is that in the same way that everybody has to get auto insurance and if you don’t, you’re subject to some penalty, that in this situation, if you have the ability to buy insurance, it’s affordable and you choose not to do so, forcing you and me and everybody else to subsidize you, you know, there’s a thousand dollar hidden tax that families all across America are — are burdened by because of the fact that people don’t have health insurance, you know, there’s nothing wrong with a penalty.
Candidate Obama clearly distanced himself from a health insurance mandate and penalty due to non-compliance during the primary season last year. Now, President Obama is fully on board with a mandate and penalties for those that don’t purchase health insurance.
Will the flip-flopping make a difference as the health care debate moves forward in the Senate? Likely not, however it is always a useful exercise to match politicians campaign “promises” with the actions and views they take once in office.
Related posts:
- Obama Flip-Flop: “Not Just A Fifty Plus One Majority” on Health Care
- Health Insurance Mandate Enforcement? Even the Fact-Checkers Don’t Have the Facts
- Perspective: Insurance Company Profits Less Than 1% Of Health Care Costs
- Democrats To Bolster Health Insurance Companies With Bill
- Democrats Under Fire Over Health-Law Reporting Mandate
John Romano is the publisher Yes, But However!, the lead singer of the rock band The Sugarmen, a political correspondent for BBC Radio London and a and a serial web entrepreneur. Oh, and his nickname is Johnny Rome, has been for 15 years.
