published Saturday, February 5th, 2011

Before he was for a 'mandate' ...

There is a certain irony in the recent federal court ruling that ObamaCare socialized medicine is unconstitutional.

The law was struck down mainly because it requires virtually all Americans to buy government-approved insurance — and punishes those who don't. In fact, if that so-called "individual mandate" had not been part of ObamaCare, the federal court might have left the law intact.

So it is interesting to note that before President Barack Obama supported fining Americans who do not buy insurance under ObamaCare, he vigorously opposed those fines.

During the presidential primary campaign, then-Sen. Obama told a TV talk show host that his proposed medical plan differed from that of fellow Democrat candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton in one respect: He said that her proposal would punish people for not buying insurance, and his would not.

Here is the key quote: He said Sen. Clinton "mandates that everybody buy health care. She'd have the government force every individual to buy insurance, and I don't have such a mandate because I don't think the problem is that people don't want health insurance, it's that they can't afford it. So I focus more on lowering costs. This is a modest difference. But it's one that she's tried to elevate, arguing that because I don't force people to buy health care that I'm not insuring everybody."

Today, of course, the president stridently defends forcing Americans to buy insurance approved by the federal government — and punishing them if they do not.

But just think: If he had stuck with his original position against that "mandate," ObamaCare might not be under legal attack by 28 states — and it might not have been ruled unconstitutional!

Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
librul said...

You are correct. A year-and-a-half ago, in an effort to save health care reform from the steamroller of the intransigent Republicans, big pharma lobbyists, the insurance cartel and the Tea Party blabbermouths, Obama reversed his position on mandates so America could at least START on a path of reform which our people deserve. For his supporters, this was the first big capitulation to entrenched corporatist greed (which you champion) soon to be followed by too many others. It was aptly described at that time across the blogosphere as here:

"During the presidential campaign, Obama opposed the so-called “individual mandate,” under which every individual is legally required to have health insurance.

This reactionary approach puts the onus on the consumer, rather than the health care companies, imposing fines on people who are not insured under an employer-provided plan and fail to purchase private insurance.

Early on in his health care drive, President Obama changed his position and adopted the individual mandate approach in order to assure the insurance giants that they stood to reap large profits under his scheme.


"The provision of quality health care as a basic human right is incompatible with a system based on corporate profit and administered by a political establishment beholden to a financial oligarchy.

The manifest failure of the present health care system in the US — which leaves some 50 million people (one sixth of the population) without any form of insurance — is precisely due to the subordination of health care to private profit.

The fight for a health care system that corresponds to the needs of the population requires a political struggle against the capitalist profit system and the two parties of big business that defend it.

Socialist medicine — based on the nationalization of the hospital chains, pharmaceutical companies and insurance giants and their transformation into utilities democratically controlled by the working class — is the only basis for providing high quality health care for all."

February 5, 2011 at 12:38 a.m.
nucanuck said...

I wonder if the nutjob weak writing editorial hack who continues to refer the new health care legislation as Obamacare socialized medicine likes disrespect as much as he seems to like dishing it out?

This forum should be about ideas,not insulting language.

February 5, 2011 at 1:18 a.m.

Librul, your last paragraph is quite a fantasy! Your quote is amusing.
"democratically controlled by the working class"

While that all sounds fine and dandy at the outset as a motivation, it always degenerates into utter incompetance and corruption, as we've seen demonstrated in other countries who have a government controlled health care system. Granting our government a crown of trust and of expertise in this matter is foolish and dangerous.

The often quoted and absurd figure often thrown around of 50 million Americans with no health coverage at all is simply a lie. Ever heard of medicare and medicaid? A more accurate figure would be about 11 or so million. The bulk of those are younger people who don't feel the need to pay for it.

I hardly think catagorizing Obamacare as socialized medicine is a sign of disrespect. That's an opinion based on the agenda of those who are backing it who seem to admire other governement run health systems around the world.

The federal judges ruling in Florida, and in the other states, makes it quite clear that the federal government has no business forcing citizens to buy something. That's a slippery slope. Anyone who will deny that either has no problem with it or is naive.

February 5, 2011 at 10:23 a.m.
librul said...

Sizzle, you wouldn't recognize "socialized medicine" if it yanked your tonsils out with needle-nosed pliers.

February 5, 2011 at 11:04 a.m.
Livn4life said...

Librul, I need you to go to the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights and show us where "quality health care is a basic human right." Then show us where that basic human right is mandated to come from the federal government. It is not there! Keep on telling a lie long enough, have the left-leaning media and Democratic party all over it all the time, and I guess people believe it! This big government "solution" is not the answer to the situation in health care in this country. Just wait and see how marvelous it will be!

February 5, 2011 at 11:25 a.m.

Well, Librul, I do recognize it. I see it in Europe and Canada. I also recognize a socialist when I see one, and a socialist agenda. Come on! No one is fooling anyone. You can see it a mile away. In the information age and with piles and piles of examples of failed socialist policies in various countries since the early 1900's we know a bad thing when we see one.

Livn4life has a good point. The only way one can go along with that mandate is to dismiss the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights as just some old gargage some old dudes a long time ago slapped together that was ok then, but means nothing now. What's troublesome about the Democratic Party is how quick they are to poo poo the US Constitution.

February 5, 2011 at 3:07 p.m.
nucanuck said...


If you start with the premis that US health care has been in a fail mode because of cost and delivery,before and now,how do you see constructing a better system?

Would you go back to pre-1950 when there was none (like the Chinese today)? Would you endorse a system that left millions without access (including eliminating medicare)? What is so evil about the single payer,but private health care such as Canada's system. It's not perfect,but it sure seems less imperfect than the US health care train wreck.

February 5, 2011 at 3:56 p.m.
carlB said...

Reply to whom it might concern

Have all of the "players" in this HC insurance reform been "honest brokers" in putting out truthful information? NO! The opponents of the insurance reform are opponents of Obama and are not concerned about the 40 million people or the people without HC insurance and those who have preexisting conditions. This has be discussed before. When the same misguided editoral opinions continue about HC insurance reform, we have to keep responding, just as the misinformation opinions written about spending and the National Debt.

From one of our Senators:

I wanted to let you know about some of the things I’ve been working on since the 112th Congress began on January 5:

Repealing the new health care law

On February 2nd I voted to repeal the new health care law, which I warned during last year’s health care debate would prove to be an historic mistake. Republicans warned that premiums would go up, the debt would increase, and many Americans would lose their coverage—and all of that is happening. Senate Republicans promised the American people we’d vote to repeal the health care law and then work to replace it with common-sense reforms that lower health care costs so more Americans can afford to buy health insurance.

Click here to watch an interview I did on Fox News about repealing the new health care law.

February 5, 2011 at 5:20 p.m.

I don't have all the answers, obviously. I don't believe it's in a fail mode. It's being repeated so often that it doesn't work that it's taken as fact. I would only change a couple of things. Being allowed to shop for coverage across state lines and maybe a couple more, but that's about it. Once again, the false claim that over 50 million people in this country have no coverage is a lie.

So much of the Democratic Party party agenda has an alarmist tone. So much of their agenda results in loss of freedom and loss of constitutional rights.

I don't know how to construct a better health care system. But I do know having the government step in between me and my doctor is a dumb and dangerous approach. I don't like the way Obama and the Democrats have portrayed Doctors. They seem to think that they know more than they do and can simply boss them around. There's already too many restrictions on Doctors thanks to the government.

Tort reform needs to be done! If you stop the lawsuit avalanche so much pressure will be taken off of everyone. Sad to say that politicians are in bed with trial lawyers. The Democrat Party will not, absolutely will not touch them. If you have strong tort reform, then all costs will go down.

February 5, 2011 at 6:01 p.m.
librul said...

For research on "loss of Constitutional rights" I would refer you to the administration of George W. Bush. NEVER in the history of the United States have more people lost and/or had more of their constitutional rights abused and subverted - NEVER!

February 5, 2011 at 6:13 p.m.
acerigger said...

sizzle,your Faux Newz talking points and especially your use of the term"Democrat Party" raises my TROLL Radar!

February 5, 2011 at 6:48 p.m.
nucanuck said...

sizzle,I have bad news for you...we are a one political party country posing as a two party affair. Compare the big policies under the last four Presidents...same,same,and more same,but sometime dressed a little differently.

February 5, 2011 at 8:03 p.m.
nucanuck said...

sizzle,when I say US health care is in a fail mode,I am saying the cost to GDP numbers are out of line with our worldwide competetors...and growing worse. That is fail mode in my book. Add to that,our overall healthcare results aren't that good and coverage is all over the map.

If you look beyond your coverage and toward what a healthy economy needs to be competitive,I think you will see that we are indeed in fail mode.

February 5, 2011 at 8:27 p.m.
carlB said...

sizzle,I have bad news for you...we are a one political party country posing as a two party affair. Compare the big policies under the last four Presidents...same,same,and more same,but sometime dressed a little differently. Username: nucanuck | On: February 5, 2011 at 8:03 p.m.

Reply to nucanuck: Do not agree with the "one political party" even if some of the back and forth is a "farce" in both houses of Congress. The lobbyist are certainly an equalizing force toward making both parties act as "one."

During the last two administration's if it was not a two party system, then the tactics of the Republicans "roguery" acting out their ideologies and personnal agendas certainly made it look as one of the two parties had a "vendetta" against the Democratic Party.
During, this administration the "vendetta" action is definitely present. There is not any such action as a comprehensive plan of the Republicans to build on any policies the Democrats have put in place whether being good for the country and the people. In the eyes of the Republicans if the Democrats did it, it is bad, period and they do not stop there, they want all the people to be against the Democrats.

February 6, 2011 at midnight
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »


Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.