Anyone on the right want to defend senate Republicans for secret health care bill?

[dphantom]

I did not refer to members of Congress. I read the entire link I provided and obviously we are approaching it from different levels of understanding. I would hope you could go back and read it again.

I would also expect you to be supportive of a democratic process where the voters are fully informed of major legislation affecting their lives in advance of attempting to pass the legislation. Passing and then telling the voters what they are getting just seems a bit statist to me.

Certainly not every single bill but those that are life changing yes. When a person's full time job is downgraded to part time to avoid having to provide healthcare simply because of a law, there is a problem with the law.

 

[dainthomas]

It sucks when you're treated the same way you treat everyone else, huh?

So kicking millions off health insurance, certainly killing thousands of them, to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy is cool because "screw you, liberals!"?

That's pretty messed up, man.

 

[fskimospy]

I did not refer to members of Congress.

Your paraphrase was that Pelosi said 'we will see what is in it when we pass the bill'. I don't know of a way to parse that sentence that would have 'we' be anything but Congress. Can you explain who you meant?

I read the entire link I provided and obviously we are approaching it from different levels of understanding. I would hope you could go back and read it again.

I would also expect you to be supportive of a democratic process where the voters are fully informed of major legislation affecting their lives in advance of attempting to pass the legislation. Passing and then telling the voters what they are getting just seems a bit statist to me.

That would be problematic, I agree. In fact, that's exactly what the GOP is trying to do here. This is in huge contrast to how the ACA was drafted where legislators spent nearly a year informing their constituents what was in the bill. This is at the core of why I thought the 'both sides' argument was so dangerous. You're trying to equate two directly opposite things with one another.

Certainly not every single bill but those that are life changing yes. When a person's full time job is downgraded to part time to avoid having to provide healthcare simply because of a law, there is a problem with the law.

That would be a problem, but thankfully the evidence indicates that's not the case:

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/264841-study-obamacare-not-shifting-workers-to-part-time-jobs

The study, released Tuesday in the journal Health Affairs, examines the claim made by critics of the law that employers will make more people work part-time in order to avoid having to give them health insurance.

The law mandates that employers provide health insurance for people working 30 hours or more per week. This had sparked reports that some employers would cut hours to avoid paying out insurance.

However, the study, which looks at data from the Current Population Survey, does not find evidence to support suggestions the law would have such an effect.

The authors write that their study finds “no evidence consistent with the thesis that the ACA caused an overall increase in part-time employment in the United States.”

I wouldn't be surprised if there were some cases where that happened, but there's not a lot of evidence this is a significant issue. Does that change your evaluation of the ACA in any way?

 

[Meghan54]

I wouldn't be surprised if there were some cases where that happened, but there's not a lot of evidence this is a significant issue. Does that change your evaluation of the ACA in any way?

You really have to ask? The answer would be No, obviously. Of course, I understand the question was, for the most part, rhetorical.