Congressional Democrat: Obamacare isn't fair! It costs too much!!!

[techie81]

People have no CLUE how much Obamacare is really going to cost the taxpayers. I would suggest that all of the initial estimates are way off. I too find it funny that they voted for it and are now bitching about the cost.

 

[werepossum]

What do you mean by 'it's his bill'?

I mean this is the bill he wanted introduced.

 

[fskimospy]

I mean this is the bill he wanted introduced.

You believe that the bill passed by Congress was the bill that Obama wanted introduced? You said that he agreed with 100% in it because it is 'his bill'. I'm trying to figure out where you might have gotten that information because it is clearly false.

 

[werepossum]

You believe that the bill passed by Congress was the bill that Obama wanted introduced? You said that he agreed with 100% in it because it is 'his bill'. I'm trying to figure out where you might have gotten that information because it is clearly false.

Yes, I believe the bill passed by Congress was the bill that Obama wanted introduced, even though it clearly does not have everything Obama would have liked to have. Even with this bill, Obama had to resort to unconstitutional bribes and arm-twisting and procedural maneuvering to get it passed, so clearly he got as much as he could get. And he spent a great deal of time championing this bill, not pointing out its shortcomings or promoting another bill.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes, I believe the bill passed by Congress was the bill that Obama wanted introduced, even though it clearly does not have everything Obama would have liked to have. Even with this bill, Obama had to resort to unconstitutional bribes and arm-twisting and procedural maneuvering to get it passed, so clearly he got as much as he could get. And he spent a great deal of time championing this bill, not pointing out its shortcomings or promoting another bill.

I have no desire to get into whatever crazy thing you think was unconstitutional.

So you believe that the bill did not have everything Obama wanted in it, but that he agreed with 100% of the things that were in it? This is extraordinarily unlikely, you realize, right? It is for all intents and purposes a certainty that Obama didn't agree with everything in the bill, but he likely agreed with the overwhelming majority of what was in it. That's basically the case for every piece of legislation a president signs ever though.

 

[werepossum]

I have no desire to get into whatever crazy thing you think was unconstitutional.

So you believe that the bill did not have everything Obama wanted in it, but that he agreed with 100% of the things that were in it? This is extraordinarily unlikely, you realize, right? It is for all intents and purposes a certainty that Obama didn't agree with everything in the bill, but he likely agreed with the overwhelming majority of what was in it. That's basically the case for every piece of legislation a president signs ever though.

It's the bill Obama wanted introduced, and with the exception of Vitter's amendment it is unchanged.

Sorry, I was under the impression that everyone agreed the Cornhusker Kickback was unconstitutional. Sometimes I forget that you reject all limits on government power. Certainly though most people agree that it is unconstitutional to allow one state to be exempt from a law in order to get that state's Senator's vote for it.

 

[fskimospy]

It's the bill Obama wanted introduced, and with the exception of Vitter's amendment it is unchanged.

First, I would like you to provide evidence that this bill was introduced in the exact way Obama wanted it.

Second, what specific amendment are you referring to?

Sorry, I was under the impression that everyone agreed the Cornhusker Kickback was unconstitutional. Sometimes I forget that you reject all limits on government power. Certainly though most people agree that it is unconstitutional to allow one state to be exempt from a law in order to get that state's Senator's vote for it.

Except of course that the Cornhusker Kickback was never enacted. Sometimes I forget that you're so blinded with rage against the demons in your head that you forget to learn what you're talking about.

 

[Patranus]

Funny watching the liberals here talk about how the bill was written.
If you don't like the bill in its entirety then don't vote for it or sign it into law.
Period.
Then again I guess we should expect half assed leadership from those who represent us in government who think it is better to pass something then pass nothing at all just to give the guise that they are doing something in D.C.

 

[piasabird]

You voted for it fool! Just repeal it and be done with it. O-Bammacare has elements in it that just constitute as spying and data collection. It is pure evil and it is all about countrolling you little people.

 

[xBiffx]

Suppose he didn't read it fully. That would only matter if he is now saying he would never have voted for it had he understood the implication of this one provision. I don't see him saying that.

I would also point out that with a law this extensive, it is nigh impossible for any one person to agree with 100% of everything in it. I don't think Obama even agreed with 100% of it when he signed it.

Are you seriously trying to justify when it matters when an elected official does or does not read what they are voting on? Wow.

Sorry, but if they had issues with the bill then they should have brought them up beforehand and voted based on those conditions. Right now it appears that they didn't know what they were voting on or just didn't care and now that they have had time to actually see it, they don't like what they see and want their vote back. Ridiculous.

 

[piasabird]

Dont exempt elected officials from O-Bammacare.

One ring to rule them all!

 

[woolfe9998]

Are you seriously trying to justify when it matters when an elected official does or does not read what they are voting on? Wow.

Sorry, but if they had issues with the bill then they should have brought them up beforehand and voted based on those conditions. Right now it appears that they didn't know what they were voting on or just didn't care and now that they have had time to actually see it, they don't like what they see and want their vote back. Ridiculous.

I'm not saying anything about whether it was justified or unjustified to not have fully read the bill. I'm merely saying that because there is one thing in it he doesn't like is meaningless. It may be he read it fully and didn't like that provision but voted yes anyway because he thought passing the bill was better than not passing it on balance. Or it may be he didn't fully read it and later discovered there was something in it he didn't like, which again, doesn't mean he has changed his mind about the bill overall.

Patranus' original comment was that it was "laughable" for him to be critical of anything in a bill he voted for. My point is that it's hardly laughable because this bill has thousands of provisions and whether he read them all or not, he need not have agreed with 100% of it to consider it appropriate to vote yes on it. Whether or not he was justified in not reading all of it, IF in fact that was the case, is beside the point.

And you don't know that he *didn't* raise any objection about this at the time. Again, an objection to a single provision doesn't mean you don't support a bill to comprehensively reform the entire healthcare system. If that is the standard, then we'll *never* have comprehensive reform because it's impossible to get even one person to agree on 100% of everything - down to the slightest minutia - when the issue is this complex. If you're in Congress, you do what is right for the nation as a whole by voting yes on legislation that is better for the nation as a whole, and voting no when it is not. You do not insist that you must approve of every aspect of it. In process, you may try to bargain for as much as you want in the bill and to jettison what you don't want, but in the end no one gets everything they want and you have to vote on what is best overall.

- wolf

 

[xBiffx]

I'm not saying anything about whether it was justified or unjustified to not have fully read the bill. I'm merely saying that because there is one thing in it he doesn't like is meaningless. It may be he read it fully and didn't like that provision but voted yes anyway because he thought passing the bill was better than not passing it on balance. Or it may be he didn't fully read it and later discovered there was something in it he didn't like, which again, doesn't mean he has changed his mind about the bill overall.

Patranus' original comment was that it was "laughable" for him to be critical of anything in a bill he voted for. My point is that it's hardly laughable because this bill has thousands of provisions and whether he read them all or not, he need not have agreed with 100% of it to consider it appropriate to vote yes on it. Whether or not he was justified in not reading all of it, IF in fact that was the case, is beside the point.

- wolf

All of this may have flown better if the objections were noted ahead of the yes vote. They were not so this is never going to look good. This will not look like anything but regretting voting yes.

 

[woolfe9998]

All of this may have flown better if the objections were noted ahead of the yes vote. They were not so this is never going to look good. This will not look like anything but regretting voting yes.

Are you saying no one objected to the Grassley Amendment, which is how this was introduced into the bill? I for one do not know. The linked Politico article doesn't address the legislative history in that kind of detail.

 

[werepossum]

First, I would like you to provide evidence that this bill was introduced in the exact way Obama wanted it.

Second, what specific amendment are you referring to?



Except of course that the Cornhusker Kickback was never enacted. Sometimes I forget that you're so blinded with rage against the demons in your head that you forget to learn what you're talking about.

Dude, try not to be a complete idiot. The Cornhusker Kickback was written into the bill to get it passed, because otherwise Senator Nelson was not willing to take the political heat for voting for a bill so unpopular with his constituents. It was removed in reconciliation because it was unconstitutional. I specifically said

Even with this bill, Obama had to resort to unconstitutional bribes and arm-twisting and procedural maneuvering to get it passed, so clearly he got as much as he could get.

I never said enacted, I said to get it passed, which is completely accurate and honest.

I can present no evidence that the bill was introduced in the exact way Obama wanted, as you well know, for the bill was crafted behind closed doors and came out only in finished form. If you wish to believe that it merely popped up and Obama was as surprised as anyone, it's still a free country. Unless you're in New York City and want to order a Big Gulp, I mean.

 

[fskimospy]

I can present no evidence that the bill was introduced in the exact way Obama wanted, as you well know, for the bill was crafted behind closed doors and came out only in finished form. If you wish to believe that it merely popped up and Obama was as surprised as anyone, it's still a free country. Unless you're in New York City and want to order a Big Gulp, I mean.

Ahh, so earlier you said that Obama agreed with 100% of everything in it and now you admit that you have no evidence for this belief.

Just checking to see if you were still raging about delusions that popped into your head is all.

 

[werepossum]

Ahh, so earlier you said that Obama agreed with 100% of everything in it and now you admit that you have no evidence for this belief.

Just checking to see if you were still raging about delusions that popped into your head is all.

LOL You got me. I hope the prospect of Obama being unhappy with Obamacare brings you much joy, somehow . . .

 

[unokitty]

Quite laughable. Yeah, they are federal employees. So f-n what? You voted for this shit and now you want special treatment? Nope.

Your tax records?

You are ready for your IRS audit aren't you?

Uno

 

[xBiffx]

Are you saying no one objected to the Grassley Amendment, which is how this was introduced into the bill? I for one do not know. The linked Politico article doesn't address the legislative history in that kind of detail.

No. Just saying there isn't a long list of objections in record that one can refer to when these people start complaining about parts of the bill. If it was such an issue and they didn't like it, perhaps they should have made it known. There are many other issues other than the Grassley Amendment that have be brought up as problematic. The real problem is the objection are being raised now that it is law instead of before it was voted on. In the end, they still voted yes, no questions asked. Perhaps its better for them to actually to their job and vote no until things are change where they can vote yes instead of rubber stamping something for a cause or belief in what is in there. But then, of course, that means knowing what they are voting on to begin with which I still think is the underlying issue here. They didn't have issue with some of these provisions because they honestly didn't know they were in there.

 

[Corn]

LOL You got me. I hope the prospect of Obama being unhappy with Obamacare brings you much joy, somehow . . .

HAH........sometimes its like shooting fish in a barrel. Well played WP.

 

[piasabird]

Go tell the CBO (Congressional Budget Office - Should all be fired). Perhaps you would rather hear about O-Bammacare being revenue neutral? What a joke. The government cant manage the VA how are they going to manage health care? You have got to be kidding me.

You voted for this!

Time to repeal this sucker!

 

[woolfe9998]

No. Just saying there isn't a long list of objections in record that one can refer to when these people start complaining about parts of the bill. If it was such an issue and they didn't like it, perhaps they should have made it known. There are many other issues other than the Grassley Amendment that have be brought up as problematic. The real problem is the objection are being raised now that it is law instead of before it was voted on. In the end, they still voted yes, no questions asked. Perhaps its better for them to actually to their job and vote no until things are change where they can vote yes instead of rubber stamping something for a cause or belief in what is in there. But then, of course, that means knowing what they are voting on to begin with which I still think is the underlying issue here. They didn't have issue with some of these provisions because they honestly didn't know they were in there.

No, I think they knew about the Grassley amendment because even I knew about it. I remember at the time it was introduced to show that Congress would be in the same exchange system as everyone else. While I'm sure there are aspects of the bill that bypassed the understanding of some members of Congress, I doubt that was one of them.

 

[boomerang]

Funny watching the liberals here talk about how the bill was written.
If you don't like the bill in its entirety then don't vote for it or sign it into law.
Period.
Then again I guess we should expect half assed leadership from those who represent us in government who think it is better to pass something then pass nothing at all just to give the guise that they are doing something in D.C.

It's important to remember that libs judge themselves based on the intentions of their actions, not the results. Obamacare will crash and burn this nation and they will still defend it to the end because they felt it was the right thing to do to provide healthcare to everyone within our borders. You a guy that wants to be a girl? You from Nicaragua? No problem. Find a way across the border (we'll even tell you when and where to cross) and we'll pay for that operation and set you up with a place to live and something to eat - oh, and for your whole family too.

On another note, why you guys spend even one second arguing with eskimospy is beyond me. I can only assume you like to argue for the sake or arguing. Somebody make a case that Republicans feel the sky is blue and watch him argue otherwise.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Repeal the whole thing and have those with a clue tackle health care reform. Then the politicians can explain why their way is better.

The Three Stooges could have done as well.