Well, as long as you say so :rolleyes:
Which makes sense. They intended to give Medicaid to the middle class, I guess.
Only a completely uninformed person would think that the bill was unread.
Thought Experiment: If you write a 2000 page novel and change some details in chapter 37, do you have any idea what happened in the novel?
Did you read the article linked to in the Cato report? Could you please describe exactly what type of “middle class” person would be covered by Medicaid, and for how long, and under what circumstances?
For those that don’t want to read it - it’s those that earn up to $64k largely from Social Security who have chosen to retire early. They have the option of being on Medicare (which they now qualify for because most SS earnings don’t count toward the income limits) for the three years prior to when Medicare starts (i.e. from early-retirement 62 until 65). The estimate is that this could affect ~3 million people.
Frankly, I don’t see the outrage. This is exactly a type of person (those that can’t afford to retire solely because of medical insurance costs) that currently go uncovered (or retire-in-place just for the insurance). The new rules were intentional, not an oversight - the fact that Richard Foster has his panties in a bunch over it doesn’t make it wrong.
We’ve been discussing universal health care ever since Teddy Roosevelt proposed it in 1912, and debating it seriously since President Truman first submitted a bill to do it. There was no “rush”, just a lot of footdragging.
There are still fewer words in the bill than in Sarah Palin’s "auto"biography. Anybody who didn’t bother to read it during the* year and a half* Congress was debating it has no excuse.
Jas, if this were as per the plan, then why would Obama be calling for a fix?
And Marley, when you say
Do you actually have evidence of that? There’s plenty of evidence to the contrary out there. (If you don’t want to read this - after all it’s not Daily Kos or HuffPo - the primary reason is that all government spending, certainly in our case, is borrowed in the first place, sucking it out of the private economy.)
Likewise, a $2 trillion dollar healthcare bill will turn the US into Greece, financially.
I don’t see that in your cite. The only references to the Obama Administration (not Obama himself) are:
and
All of the other quotes are from Republicans or from the auditor, a long-time opponent of the health-care bill.
In my mind, the key line is the last one: “The actuary’s office acknowledged its $64,000 example would represent an unusual case, but nonetheless the hypothetical couple would still qualify for Medicaid.”
It’s yet another trumped-up issue (like the waivers one) that highlight marginal cases that will never exist in the real world and use it to attack the law. Let me know when large numbers of people start retiring early, fall in that exact window, and choose to be on Medicaid rather than buy a plan off the exchanges. It’s just not going to happen.
I should add that this quote makes me chuckle:
Well no shit, Sherlock.
Am I supposed to be marveling that you’re making sarcastic comments about Daily Kos and Huffington (I don’t read either one) while citing The Heritage Foundation and The Weekly Standard?
The health care debate was extremely prolonged. I don’t know where you came up with the idea that it was rushed through and nobody read it, and if you quote Pelosi saying “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,” I will know you’re not trying. The ‘ramming the bill down America’s throats’ nonsense was supposed to mean the bill was passing without Republican support, not that it was being rushed through.
I pit Obama for not telling Republicans that they are opposing something they once proposed. How do you expect Republicans to keep track of shit like that?