Using mandates to achieve universal coverage seems like quite a cop out to me. Regardless of whether the plan is good or the plan stinks, universal coverage is achieved because the government forces you to join up. In contrast Obama takes on the challenge of offering a plan so good that virtually everyone will want to participate to receive health coverage. . . . In contrast, a self-proclaimed government junkie like Hillary Clinton just can not live with the fact that somewhere, someone decides they do not want her help. Clinton will help them whether they want her to or not.
. . . Some on the far left claim that Democrats lose when these alleged right wing frames about freedom are employed. They got it all wrong. Democrats lose when they concede traditional liberal values such as liberty to the right.
(Emphasis supplied.) Chusid's description of the difference between "liberals" and "progressives" is rather absurd, unless he is referring to 19th Century liberals. Liberals and progressives believe in a government that intervenes when it is good policy to do so. For example, a progressive income tax. Indeed, in Joyner's piece, he cites to a John Judis article that provides a much better and more coherent defense of Obama's campaign position:
Obama’s health care plan, which he announced last week, has been widely criticized by liberals for not making health insurance mandatory. Challenged by Edwards, Obama explained why a mandate is not a cure-all. “If you look at auto insurance, in California there’s mandatory auto insurance,” Obama explained. “Twenty-five percent of the folks don’t have it. The reason is because they can’t afford it. So John and I, we’re not that different in this sense; that I’m committed to starting the process. Everybody who wants it can buy it and it’s affordable.
(Emphasis supplied.) Obama argued for affordability as the lynchpin to health care reform. That is why he stressed a public insruance plan, NOT mandates. The argument contra to Obama's position was that affordability is most effectively achieved with a mandate/autoenrollment COUPLED WITH a robust public option.
Mandates without a robust public option, as you see in the BaucusCare proposal, does not address the affordability issue. It is instead merely a profits protection program for the health insurance industry.
Without a public option, mandates are a very bad idea. Indeed, an unacceptable idea. Because such a plan would not address the affordability issue. Mandates in such a scheme are merely a tax on the poor to enrich the health insurance industry. No "progressive" or "liberal" should support such a plan.
Speaking for me only
