Why Republicans Refuse to Reconcile Themselves to Obamacare

[iliveonramen]

:lol: :doh Pelosi is "like" the minority leader precisely because she now lacks the numbers. :doh

For legislation where Boehner needs Democratic votes because he can't even get his party in line for even basic measures Pelosi can always deliver.

 

[wbcoleman]

What, that you're too lazy to actually read it? Or perhaps any legislation that requires a 10th grade education to understand it ought to be voted down, regardless of what it says?

The reality is that the ACA was passed fair and square. If you want to talk about "inappropriate" and anti-democratic tactics, look into gerrymandering....

Living as I do in Illinois, I am quite familiar with gerrymandering, which cost the GOP five seats.

Obamacare was not passed "fair and square". Despite their overwhelming majorities it both houses, they had to use every trick in the book to get the monstrosity passed.

 

[Vern]

Living as I do in Illinois, I am quite familiar with gerrymandering, which cost the GOP five seats.

Obamacare was not passed "fair and square". Despite their overwhelming majorities it both houses, they had to use every trick in the book to get the monstrosity passed.

every trick in the book uh? at least they were in the book. anyhoo, dont you have a problem that republicans proposed their own HC reform that covered fewer people and cost more than Obama care. And the mandate was their idea that they supported until President Obama decided to use it.

so instead of working with the President to make it better, they refused to work to make something better they supported. Oh thats right, their agenda wasnt about helping America, it was about helping republicans.

 

[wbcoleman]

every trick in the book uh? at least they were in the book. anyhoo, dont you have a problem that republicans proposed their own HC reform that covered fewer people and cost more than Obama care. And the mandate was their idea that they supported until President Obama decided to use it.

so instead of working with the President to make it better, they refused to work to make something better they supported. Oh thats right, their agenda wasnt about helping America, it was about helping republicans.

The scheme has no political legitimacy whatsoever. There was no public demand for its passage, the idea became increasingly unpopular as the President pushed it, his advocacy failed to create support for it, in the summer of 2009 a whole political opposition movement materialized as a result of it, in early 2010 the people of Massachusetts elected a Republican to Ted Kennedy's seat on a platform of stopping it, no public poll ever showed majority support for it, Democrats in Congress had to be begged, bribed, and cajoled in order to pass it..... and now you guys act surprised that, three plus years later, the public hates it as much now as it did then.

 

[Montecresto]

Yeah yeah..I'm sure you're broken hearted that we don't have a single payer system.

I'm sure Pelosi had no idea what was in the bill :roll:

Pelosi is the one that said, "we have to pass the ACA so that we can know what's in the ACA."

 

[Montecresto]

The scheme has no political legitimacy whatsoever. There was no public demand for its passage, the idea became increasingly unpopular as the President pushed it, his advocacy failed to create support for it, in the summer of 2009 a whole political opposition movement materialized as a result of it, in early 2010 the people of Massachusetts elected a Republican to Ted Kennedy's seat on a platform of stopping it, no public poll ever showed majority support for it, Democrats in Congress had to be begged, bribed, and cajoled in order to pass it..... and now you guys act surprised that, three plus years later, the public hates it as much now as it did then.

Despite the fact what you say is essentially true, there remains plenty of republican initiatives in the ACA.

 

[iliveonramen]

Pelosi is the one that said, "we have to pass the ACA so that we can know what's in the ACA."

She knew what was in the House bill...they were waiting on the senate to pass their version in order to debate and start bringing the two bills into one.

So...out of context quotes may work for those that don't know better but I remember what was happening at the time and why she said that.

 

[Gonzo Rodeo]

They like almost every individual provision. What half the public doesn't like is when you attach the word "Obama" to it.

What are some of the other things people like? Specifically.

That's not part of the law.

It's a direct result of the law. A consequence. And one foretold by detractors before the bill was written.

SCOTUS pretty much came up with that on its own. The administration did not classify it as a tax.

The administration sold it as a fine the entire way up the courts, only to change their tune in front of the Supreme Court by calling it a tax. Seriously, Donald Verrilli called it a tax which is what the USSC used to based their ruling on. The Justices do not make arguments, they listen to them. The dissenting opinion highlighted the fact that the individual mandate was not written as a tax, and therefore should not be accepted precisely because it relies on tax powers under the commerce clause in order to work. You should really research this for yourself. It's a fascinating quagmire of double-speak and outright lying.

You have to buy car insurance, register your car and get it inspected if you want to drive it. If you want to build a home, there are all sorts of requirements about what you can and cannot do.

You only have to buy car insurance if you want to drive a car (legally). You only have to get your car inspected if you want to drive a car in certain states. If you want to build a home, you are choosing to not live in an apartment or rental.

There are options.

Tell me, how can one opt out of the individual mandate? That's right - move out of the country, or die. (Or be an illegal)

I really wish that was the case, as that would suggest the debate focused on policies.

However, it's very clear that most of the opposition is based on wildly incorrect ideas, such as calling it "Socialism," or claiming there would be "death panels," or that it would slash Medicare.

You are operating under the assumption that everyone who disagrees with the precedent behind the ACA is dogmatically opposed to all things Democrat. You are quite mistaken. I, for one, am opposed to half-measures designed to break the system, that cost MORE money, provide LESS overall care (but to more individuals), and tell me I have to spend my money on a specific good that I may or may not want. I also take umbrage at the fact that this tax was billed as not-a-tax until they needed it to be a tax, and then magically turned back into not-a-tax for the talking heads. And I'm really upset that great masses of idiots completely missed this happening.

 

[jaeger19]

The ACA is a train wreck to read. Probably nobody on this board has read it. There are plenty of individuals, groups and societies that have produced summaries of pertinent sections to their interests and agendas but even reading them puts one at the disadvantage of having to trust the authors of such summaries. In the end, for most people, it boils down to, the Obama admin. And democratic leadership tend to say its good, so for the partisan democrat, its good. The GOP says its bad, so for the republican partisan it's bad.

Well.. I've read it. Heck years ago.. its not a hard read at all as bills go. Its online.. simply go to the library of Congress and down load it. What amazes me is that folks speak with such authority about the ACA.. and yet.. haven't bother to read it.

Now how.. as a people are we to remain a free country and keep our politicians honest.. when we have to rely on faith for them to tell us what they did?

 

[Montecresto]

She knew what was in the House bill...they were waiting on the senate to pass their version in order to debate and start bringing the two bills into one.

So...out of context quotes may work for those that don't know better but I remember what was happening at the time and why she said that.

Speaking Tuesday to the 2010 Legislative Conference for the National Association of Counties, Pelosi began the windup of her healthcare pitch by alluding to the controversies over the healthcare bill and the process by which it has reached its current state. Then, just after saying, "It's going to be very, very exciting," Pelosi gaffed, telling the local elected officials assembled that Congress "[has] to pass the bill so you can find out what's in it, away from the fog of controversy."


http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...health-reform-so-you-can-find-out-whats-in-it

 

[jaeger19]

What do you mean, have I read it? I've looked at it, probably at least as hard as Barack Obama has. Nobody other than a legal specialist can profitably "read" the whole thing. We know that not a single representative or senator who voted it into existence has actually "read" it, so what is your point?

Wow? What's the point? I would think that would be obvious. How can you speak intelligently about something that you have not read for yourself? How can you hold your representative.. democrat or republican, responsible for doing their job, when you have absolutely no clue about it other than what your representative tells you.

I read it.. and I am no legal specialist. I really don't see what the big deal is other than its very comprehensive which means its very long. Quite frankly.. if it was too short.. it would probably mean that it either was not comprehensive enough to actually reform the healthcare system, or its was lacking in any detail...

 

[Montecresto]

Well.. I've read it. Heck years ago.. its not a hard read at all as bills go. Its online.. simply go to the library of Congress and down load it. What amazes me is that folks speak with such authority about the ACA.. and yet.. haven't bother to read it.

Now how.. as a people are we to remain a free country and keep our politicians honest.. when we have to rely on faith for them to tell us what they did?

You have read all 2,500-2,700 pages of it along with its links to pre existing law/policy, and understand it all perfectly? Not saying you don't/haven't, just asking.

 

[iliveonramen]

Speaking Tuesday to the 2010 Legislative Conference for the National Association of Counties, Pelosi began the windup of her healthcare pitch by alluding to the controversies over the healthcare bill and the process by which it has reached its current state. Then, just after saying, "It's going to be very, very exciting," Pelosi gaffed, telling the local elected officials assembled that Congress "[has] to pass the bill so you can find out what's in it, away from the fog of controversy."


Pelosi: Pass Health Reform So You Can Find Out What

Thanks for a conservatives opinion.

Here's what Pelosi has said regarding the comment

“In the fall of the year,” Pelosi said today, “the outside groups...were saying ‘it’s about abortion,’ which it never was. ‘It’s about ‘death panels,’’ which it never was. ‘It’s about a job-killer,’ which it creates four million. ‘It’s about increasing the deficit’; well, the main reason to pass it was to decrease the deficit.” Her contention was that the Senate “didn’t have a bill.” And until the Senate produced an actual piece of legislation that could be matched up and debated against what was passed by the House, no one truly knew what would be voted on. “They were still trying to woo the Republicans,” Pelosi said of the Senate leadership and the White House, trying to “get that 60th vote that never was coming. That’s why [there was a] reconciliation [vote]” that required only a simple majority.

“So, that’s why I was saying we have to pass a bill so we can see so that we can show you what it is and what it isn’t,” Pelosi continued. “It is none of these things. It’s not going to be any of these things.” She recognized that her comment was “a good statement to take out of context.” But the minority leader added, “But the fact is, until you have a bill, you can’t really, we can’t really debunk what they’re saying....”

Here's how she started off her spiel that included the out of context quote

You’ve heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other.

 

[wbcoleman]

Despite the fact what you say is essentially true, there remains plenty of republican initiatives in the ACA.

Maybe so, but who cares? Apparently O-care supporters for some reason, but no one else gives a damn.

 

[wbcoleman]

She knew what was in the House bill...they were waiting on the senate to pass their version in order to debate and start bringing the two bills into one.

So...out of context quotes may work for those that don't know better but I remember what was happening at the time and why she said that.

That is not what happened. After Scott Brown was seated, Mrs. Pelosi abandoned the House bill and decided to pass the Senate bill verbatim. Then a second bill was crafted to pass the Senate as budget reconcilation; the House had to pass that one verbatim as well.

 

[wbcoleman]

Wow? What's the point? I would think that would be obvious. How can you speak intelligently about something that you have not read for yourself? How can you hold your representative.. democrat or republican, responsible for doing their job, when you have absolutely no clue about it other than what your representative tells you.

I read it.. and I am no legal specialist. I really don't see what the big deal is other than its very comprehensive which means its very long. Quite frankly.. if it was too short.. it would probably mean that it either was not comprehensive enough to actually reform the healthcare system, or its was lacking in any detail...

The bill is illegible save to legislative specialists. Furthermore, much of the scheme is implemented by the oft-repeated formula, "The Secretary [of HHS] shall," meaning that you need to read tens of thousands of pages of equally inscrutable executive regulations. Basically Congress delegated much of the construction of the scheme to HHS.

 

[Montecresto]

Thanks for a conservatives opinion.

Here's what Pelosi has said regarding the comment





Here's how she started off her spiel that included the out of context quote

But I'm not a conservative.

 

[Montecresto]

The bill is illegible save to legislative specialists. Furthermore, much of the scheme is implemented by the oft-repeated formula, "The Secretary [of HHS] shall," meaning that you need to read tens of thousands of pages of equally inscrutable executive regulations. Basically Congress delegated much of the construction of the scheme to HHS.

That's true wb, and the same could be said of NDAA and the Patriot Act.

 

[Woodman909]

The most troubling thing about this law and it's enforcement, is that congress and the executive branch do not have the stomach to eat their own cooking. They know it is so bad it will make them instantly hurl chunks if they have to sign up. So what should anyone else want it? They keep (unconstitutionally) chipping away at implementing as it was legislated. It''s a pig and it will fail. We can only hope congress has the stones to repeal it before it causes irreversible damage to people(death panels) and the economy (say goodbye to new full time jobs).

 

[Vern]

The scheme has no political legitimacy whatsoever. There was no public demand for its passage, the idea became increasingly unpopular as the President pushed it, his advocacy failed to create support for it, in the summer of 2009 a whole political opposition movement materialized as a result of it, in early 2010 the people of Massachusetts elected a Republican to Ted Kennedy's seat on a platform of stopping it, no public poll ever showed majority support for it, Democrats in Congress had to be begged, bribed, and cajoled in order to pass it..... and now you guys act surprised that, three plus years later, the public hates it as much now as it did then.

I do agree that a whole political movement materialized. They had one for his birth certificate. they had one for the Bush deficits. You name it, republicans lied about it and the weakminded joined the movement.

So did the Obamacare movement start before or after the lies about death panels? there was no movement when republicans supported the mandate. and I wonder what the opinion polls would look like if republicans stopped lying about Obamacare. You remember how they lied about death panels, they lied about costs, literally everything they said was a lie.

For instance, remember, when the CBO said Obamacare lowered the deficit, lying republicans said “ it only reduces the deficit because its 10 years of revenue and 6 years of benefits”. Hey, now its 9 years of benefits and 10 years of taxes. surely they’ve updated the effect on the deficit right? oh yea, that’s right, they were lying. Wb, republicans have to rely on you not remembering what they said. what does that say about their agenda?

 

[wbcoleman]

That's true wb, and the same could be said of NDAA and the Patriot Act.

Absolutely! I'm halfway inclined to support a constitutional limit of 25 pages per bill. :lol:

 

[wbcoleman]

I do agree that a whole political movement materialized. They had one for his birth certificate. they had one for the Bush deficits. You name it, republicans lied about it and the weakminded joined the movement.

So did the Obamacare movement start before or after the lies about death panels? there was no movement when republicans supported the mandate. and I wonder what the opinion polls would look like if republicans stopped lying about Obamacare. You remember how they lied about death panels, they lied about costs, literally everything they said was a lie.

For instance, remember, when the CBO said Obamacare lowered the deficit, lying republicans said “ it only reduces the deficit because its 10 years of revenue and 6 years of benefits”. Hey, now its 9 years of benefits and 10 years of taxes. surely they’ve updated the effect on the deficit right? oh yea, that’s right, they were lying. Wb, republicans have to rely on you not remembering what they said. what does that say about their agenda?

The reaction to Obamacare is nothing like birtherism. You are fooling yourself. Ditto your comment about the CBO estimates, which are, at best, garbage in -- garbage out. Dingy Harry tweaked the bill dozens of times simply to game those estimates. Surely you don't take them seriously!

 

[iliveonramen]

But I'm not a conservative.

The opinion piece you posted was written by a conservative.

 

[Vern]

The reaction to Obamacare is nothing like birtherism. You are fooling yourself. Ditto your comment about the CBO estimates, which are, at best, garbage in -- garbage out. Dingy Harry tweaked the bill dozens of times simply to game those estimates. Surely you don't take them seriously!

no silly, you dont get to wave your hands and magically say you dont have to believe the CBO. And thats why republicans didnt say "garbage in garbage out" in 2010 because they knew that would only work on the dumbest of the dumb. thats why they had to craft a narrative that explained away the CBO estimate as opposed to attacking the CBO.

so I guess you wont be updating the lying narrative for "10 years of revenue and 9 years of benefits". But thanks for the laugh.

 

[Montecresto]

Absolutely! I'm halfway inclined to support a constitutional limit of 25 pages per bill. :lol:

Might be a good idea.