I for one could not possibly care less about these moronic bets and the less said about them, the better.
Does the lawsuit have merit? Don’t know, don’t care. It’s that Republicans are poised to celebrate should millions of people lose their health insurance that disgusts me.
Why doesn’t it disgust you that millions of people are losing a benefit because Democrats rushed a controversial law into existence with major flaws, and responded to criticism of those flaws by advising the country that we had to pass the law first to know what was in the law?
The sense of honor of the American liberal.
Because what you say is factually false. Generally, people aren’t disgusted by things that never happened.
They didn’t rush it into existence. There were months of debate with Democrats giving concession after concession to Republicans until it became clear that Republicans had no intention of providing one vote to what was essentially their own bill from 1993 no matter what the Democrats conceded. And now the right wing salivates at the thought of people losing their insurance coverage and living shorter lives with as much enthusiasm and glee as they had at the thought of George Zimmerman murdering an unarmed black teen.
…and the disgraceful priorities of the American Right. Personified by Bricker getting into a hissy fit over a bet. More upset that someone keeps forgetting display a signature than the fact your country has long had the most screwed up health care system in the Western world.
Although I may not desire to stick my own head in doo-doo, Sir, I shall defend to the death your right to thus insert yours.
Bob, wouldn’t it be nice if Democrats actually read bills they were voting on? If this lawsuit even comes close to winning, maybe legislators will learn something and finally take responsibility.
It’s crazy. Most of them are lawyers, but we don’t even get the benefits of their expertise because they neither draft nor read the damn bills in most cases. What’s the point of having lawyers in Congress if they don’t bring legal expertise to the table?
Banquet Bear’s location reads as New Zealand.
I doubt any congressman reads all bills in their entirety, they have staff that read and summarize for them. What would be nice would be if Republicans had an interest in being a responsible minority party and acting in the public interest rather than focus on trying to steer the ship of state into the reef so that they can control the wreckage.
ACA needed more than summarization. Case in point, the badly written passage on subsidies to state exchanges. Not to mention unworkable ideas within the law that 99% of Congressmen didn’t know about until somewhere deep in the bureaucracy, news bubbled up that there was a problem. Case in point, the CLASS Act. Then there’s the medical device tax, which a few Congressmen knew about, but not enough to remove it before the bill passed, even though a majority wish it wasn’t there. If only they’d read the bill first.
All of it has a kernel of truth, but your version of it is well at odds with reality.
The CLASS Act is a good example of your distortion. In 2009, the CMS actuary said the CLASS program may not be financially viable. So when Congress passed PPACA, leaving to DHS the final design of the program, it built in a requirement of certification of financial viability for 75 years or, by law, it would not be implemented.
That is exactly the opposite of “Congressmen didn’t know about until somewhere deep in the bureaucracy, news bubbled up that there was a problem.” The more coherent objection to CLASS was that it was a budget gimmick that they knew wouldn’t get certified. That may or may not be true, but it is very different from the complaint you’re now making to try to squish it into your narrative of “pass first, read later.”
You’re also wrong on the medical device tax. There’s no evidence at all that a majority of Congressmen didn’t know it was in the bill. That’s complete nonsense.
Technically you’re right about all that. But it is also true that most congresspeople were not fully aware of significant details of the bill.
Of course, this is also true of most other bills. But it’s probably even more true of this one.
And, when it happens, it is not the fault of the bills or their writers.
Forget it, he’s rolling.
I think that’s true. Congresspeople tend to focus on the parts of the bill that matter most to their constituents and funders. So, for example, Senators from Minnesota and Massachusetts were focused on the medical device tax to a greater extent than Senators from Kentucky and Florida.
But I don’t understand this as a coherent criticism of PPACA. Every major policy element of that bill was debated for a decade in Congress. Few bills ever get so much attention from think tanks, staffers, and politicians. While it is true that the final bill was something of a Frankenstein’s monster of draft bills, leading to more than a few head-scratchers and scrivener’s errors, none of the big picture changes came as a surprise to anyone.
You do know that wasn’t what Pelosi said. You are therefore lying.
If you consider the context of the remarks, an act which you are excruciatingly loath to do in any circumstances but one which honest people do routinely, you would know. Pelosi was responding to the stream of lies that the party to which your loyalty is absolute and unquestioning had been, and still is, telling about a law they are desperate to make fail for strictly partisan reasons. Her obvious point was that, once it is in place and people can experience for themselves what it does, they’ll see past your party’s lies and come to support the law. That is, in fact, what is happening.
Your claim that anyone, anyone, including your party’s lying Congresspersons, was ever prevented from reading anything, sometime in the year and a half it took to pass this “rushed” bill (another of your lies), is false. Since you’re smart enough to know that, it’s a lie too.
Tell us more about your definition of this word “disgusting”, you lying prick.
Longer, much longer. The first serious proposal for UHC was in Teddy Roosevelt’s 1912 campaign platform, which was inspired by Bismarck’s even-earlier success with it in Germany. The next one was Truman’s. Then Johnson succeeded with Medicare, despite an actor named Reagan being hired by the AMA to try to scare us about “socialized medicine”. The next serious proposal after that was Hillarycare.
ACA is a pretty timid result of that process, meaning the next one will be expanding Medicare eligibility universally, and the one after that will be, finally, single payer.
I think it’s more than that.
The world is complicated and laws are complicated and this law was very sweeping and more complicated than most. Very few people are even capable of reading through entire bills like this and understanding all the details.
The point of all of which is that people should properly be less enthusiastic and more cynical than they might otherwise be at the prospect of broad new laws being passed of which they only know and understand very brief summaries. Because the devil is in the details and few if any people really know and understand them.
[Your comment about “funders” is correct but only half the story. It’s not just that Congresspeople pay attention to the details that are of interest to their funders. It’s that they don’t pay attention to the details that are of interest to other congresspeople’s funders. One reason special interest groups and lobbyists are as successful as they are is because there are so many details in these buills that no one can pay attention to it all, which makes it so much easier to slip in a clause or two here and there without too many other legislators noticing.]
I don’t think that’s true. For example, a lot of people - including many who signed the law - were surpised to learn that President Obama’s promise that “if you like your current plan you can keep your current plan” was contradicted by the terms of the law itself.
Oh.
Well, then I guess I need to cut down on the hallucinogenic drug use.
It’s weird, though: here is Meet the Press’s host, David Gregory (no conservative, I might add) interviewing Nancy Pelosi, and playing for her a clip of what she said:
Gregory goes to say that the problem highlighted there – that the bill contains lots of stuff that will have unexpected or unintended effects – has come home to roost.
And it has. This is a perfect example. And of course, the liberal solution is, “Our wise super-legislature unelected, lifetime tenure judges can step in and re-write those itsy bitsy errors.”
Unless our wise super-legislature unelected lifetime judges do something we don’t like, those Catholic male bastards.