PDA

View Full Version : Finding out what is in Obamacare.



Sev
03-10-2011, 11:35 AM
Yup. Its getting better and better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwlEfV84FtE&feature=youtu.be

pooltchr
03-10-2011, 11:50 AM
I wonder why nobody who wrote the bill said anything about that $100 billion when they were selling it to us.

Steve

Soflasnapper
03-10-2011, 12:09 PM
I wonder why all its many fierce critics not only missed all the money clauses, but couldn't do the addition so as to arrive at the total figure?

I wonder why those who were reaching for everything including the kitchen sink didn't bother to read the CRS report from last October ('nobody read the CRS report,' according to Bachmann)?

Frankly, neither of these is credible in the least, so my opinion is that Bachmann is confused and incorrect in her assertions.

pooltchr
03-10-2011, 12:14 PM
Maybe it had to do with the fact that they were only given a matter of days to examine the nearly 3000 pages of legaleze.

I'm not an idiot, but I'm not a lawyer. I can tell you it would take me several weeks to try to understand what was in that document. And if you are going to suggest that you could have read and understood the contents of the bill in the timeframe they were given, I will flat out call you a liar.

Steve

Soflasnapper
03-10-2011, 01:22 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Maybe it had to do with the fact that they were only given a matter of days to examine the nearly 3000 pages of legaleze.

I'm not an idiot, but I'm not a lawyer. I can tell you it would take me several weeks to try to understand what was in that document. And if you are going to suggest that you could have read and understood the contents of the bill in the timeframe they were given, I will flat out call you a liar.

Steve </div></div>

When there is a large bill to comprehend in a short amount of time, they split it up to expert staffers, who all get a couple of dozen pages to digest and report on.

There is no chance that each and every funding article wasn't looked at and noticed by both parties. This claim from Bachmann can only mean they didn't bother to add up the total amount, AND that nobody bothered to read the CRS report in October.

Neither is plausible.

Sev
03-10-2011, 01:30 PM
Its also not easy to connect the dots in 3000 pages of babble.

ugotda7
03-10-2011, 01:31 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Maybe it had to do with the fact that they were only given a matter of days to examine the nearly 3000 pages of legaleze.

I'm not an idiot, but I'm not a lawyer. I can tell you it would take me several weeks to try to understand what was in that document. And if you are going to suggest that you could have read and understood the contents of the bill in the timeframe they were given, I will flat out call you a liar.

Steve </div></div>

When there is a large bill to comprehend in a short amount of time, they split it up to expert staffers, who all get a couple of dozen pages to digest and report on.

There is no chance that each and every funding article wasn't looked at and noticed by both parties. This claim from Bachmann can only mean they didn't bother to add up the total amount, AND that nobody bothered to read the CRS report in October.

Neither is plausible. </div></div>


There is plenty of chance...and as a matter of fact it was almost a certainty given the totally shady manner in which the democrats pushed this through - which is the only way they could do it since if it saw the light of day beforehand it would have had a snowball's chance in hell of legitimately passing.

Soflasnapper
03-10-2011, 06:42 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Maybe it had to do with the fact that they were only given a matter of days to examine the nearly 3000 pages of legaleze.

I'm not an idiot, but I'm not a lawyer. I can tell you it would take me several weeks to try to understand what was in that document. And if you are going to suggest that you could have read and understood the contents of the bill in the timeframe they were given, I will flat out call you a liar.

Steve </div></div>

Actually, this whole 2000 page claim is entirely misleading.

Ever see a page of a bill? Very large margins, and about quadruple spacing for the lines.

People have done the word count math, and if this bill had been published using standard book fonts, margins, and line spacing (single-spacing), it was about equivalent to a 400 page regular book.

Moreover, the greatest part of the bill's language was the technical instructions as to how it modifies other law provisions, and it spells out these changes in other laws' language in excruciating detail. (Take paragraph 3.1.22 OUT, insert this language instead, etc.)

So considering that the body of this reform act MAINLY is of a technical nature in that it describes where in existing law this new law makes changes, the actual new content of the bill was a fraction of the total number of pages, and my guess is that the new content to the new law was no more than 50% of the bill's total pages.

So really we're talking about 200 (regular type) pages or LESS in terms of seeing all new parts of the law. This is only a titanic challenge if you are new to reading, or if you give the impression that there were really 2000 pages full of text to wade through.

LWW
03-10-2011, 07:13 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Maybe it had to do with the fact that they were only given a matter of days to examine the nearly 3000 pages of legaleze.

I'm not an idiot, but I'm not a lawyer. I can tell you it would take me several weeks to try to understand what was in that document. And if you are going to suggest that you could have read and understood the contents of the bill in the timeframe they were given, I will flat out call you a liar.

Steve </div></div>

Then why didn't any of the democrooks read it?
Actually, this whole 2000 page claim is entirely misleading.

Ever see a page of a bill? Very large margins, and about quadruple spacing for the lines.

People have done the word count math, and if this bill had been published using standard book fonts, margins, and line spacing (single-spacing), it was about equivalent to a 400 page regular book.

Moreover, the greatest part of the bill's language was the technical instructions as to how it modifies other law provisions, and it spells out these changes in other laws' language in excruciating detail. (Take paragraph 3.1.22 OUT, insert this language instead, etc.)

So considering that the body of this reform act MAINLY is of a technical nature in that it describes where in existing law this new law makes changes, the actual new content of the bill was a fraction of the total number of pages, and my guess is that the new content to the new law was no more than 50% of the bill's total pages.

So really we're talking about 200 (regular type) pages or LESS in terms of seeing all new parts of the law. This is only a titanic challenge if you are new to reading, or if you give the impression that there were really 2000 pages full of text to wade through.

</div></div>

Soflasnapper
03-10-2011, 07:29 PM
Then why didn't any of the democrooks read it?

Objection! Alleged fact not in evidence.

So far, all we have is evidence that Michelle Bachmann and company didn't read it.

pooltchr
03-10-2011, 08:04 PM
So are you suggesting that you could have read, absorbed, and comprehended the entire bill in an afternoon of light reading in your living room?

Steve

LWW
03-11-2011, 04:18 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Then why didn't any of the democrooks read it?

Objection! Alleged fact not in evidence.

So far, all we have is evidence that Michelle Bachmann and company didn't read it. </div></div>

Actually, we have the words of Miss Nancy.

LWW
03-11-2011, 04:24 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Then why didn't any of the democrooks read it?

Objection! Alleged fact not in evidence.

So far, all we have is evidence that Michelle Bachmann and company didn't read it. </div></div>

And John Conyers:

"What good is reading the (health care) bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?"
OH DEAR! (http://rightwingnews.com/2010/11/explaining-why-the-democrats-will-be-obliterated-today-in-7-quotes/)

LWW
03-11-2011, 04:25 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Then why didn't any of the democrooks read it?

Objection! Alleged fact not in evidence.

So far, all we have is evidence that Michelle Bachmann and company didn't read it. </div></div>

And the words of ALCEE HASTINGS: (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/196594/rules-congress/daniel-foster)

“There ain’t no rules here, we’re trying to accomplish something. . . .All this talk about rules. . . .When the deal goes down . . . we make ‘em up as we go along.”

LWW
03-11-2011, 04:26 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So are you suggesting that you could have read, absorbed, and comprehended the entire bill in an afternoon of light reading in your living room?

Steve </div></div>

I think it's more like he's wondering why the observable reality doesn't jive with the "TRUTH" the party spoon fed him?

Qtec
03-11-2011, 04:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yup. Its getting better and better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwlEfV84FtE&feature=youtu.be </div></div>

In her first sentence she talks about the Govt takeover of HC.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 26pt'>PolitiFact's Lie of the Year: '<u>A government takeover of health care</u>'</span> </div></div>

You have just shown that she is just as illinformed as you obviously are.

Q

Soflasnapper
03-11-2011, 01:14 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So are you suggesting that you could have read, absorbed, and comprehended the entire bill in an afternoon of light reading in your living room?

Steve </div></div>

No, I'm suggesting that the entire Congress had ample time and expert resources to accomplish that over several weeks to months time.

Directly after Hannity talked to Bachmann, he talked to Mike Pence, another strong conservative Republican.

Pence denied that there was a surprise, telling Hannity 'tell me something I don't know.'

Mike Pence Hannity interview clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aeig97L0UgU)

Even Bachmann said she was surprised no other Republican was howling over this.

Evidently, it is because they all knew-- only Bachmann was in the dark. Probably a liberal arts major who cannot understand math, is my guess.

Soflasnapper
03-11-2011, 01:16 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Then why didn't any of the democrooks read it?

Objection! Alleged fact not in evidence.

So far, all we have is evidence that Michelle Bachmann and company didn't read it. </div></div>

Actually, we have the words of Miss Nancy. </div></div>

When you're reduced to wholly misrepresenting that remark, it's clear you are scraping bottom.

ugotda7
03-11-2011, 01:18 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So are you suggesting that you could have read, absorbed, and comprehended the entire bill in an afternoon of light reading in your living room?

Steve </div></div>

No, I'm suggesting that the entire Congress had ample time and expert resources to accomplish that over several weeks to months time.

Directly after Hannity talked to Bachmann, he talked to Mike Pence, another strong conservative Republican.

Pence denied that there was a surprise, telling Hannity 'tell me something I don't know.'

Mike Pence Hannity interview clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aeig97L0UgU)

Even Bachmann said she was surprised no other Republican was howling over this.

Evidently, it is because they all knew-- only Bachmann was in the dark. Probably a liberal arts major who cannot understand math, is my guess. </div></div>

Wow, talk about revisionist history.

Here, maybe you should revisit these words -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoE1R-xH5To

pooltchr
03-11-2011, 01:31 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

No, I'm suggesting that the entire Congress had ample time and expert resources to accomplish that over several weeks to months time.

</div></div>

I've got to call BS on that one. Maybe the Dems had access to it, although nobody really knew what the final bill would be until it came out from behind those closed door meetings where only one party was involved.

When the final bill was presented, they did NOT have months to review it, they had a few days.

As for having expert legal advice, I can assure you that lawyers do not move that fast on anything. They would be the slowest ones to comprehend the bill, since they have to pour over every word.

Steve

LWW
03-11-2011, 04:26 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Then why didn't any of the democrooks read it?

Objection! Alleged fact not in evidence.

So far, all we have is evidence that Michelle Bachmann and company didn't read it. </div></div>

Actually, we have the words of Miss Nancy. </div></div>


When you're reduced to wholly misrepresenting that remark, it's clear you are scraping bottom. </div></div>

Then put it in it's proper context for us?

LWW
03-11-2011, 04:28 PM
Please explain Mr Conyers' statement also.

LWW
03-11-2011, 04:28 PM
And Mr Hastings'.

Qtec
03-11-2011, 07:28 PM
A classic piece of Fox impartiality. LOL

Q

ugotda7
03-11-2011, 07:39 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A classic piece of Fox impartiality. LOL

Q </div></div>

You seem to have missed this among other things.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoE1R-xH5To

LWW
03-12-2011, 03:38 AM
Why can't you pay attention. She said what she said and meant what she meant, but didn't say what she meant or mean what she said.

As soon as she provides the far left with the definition of what she actually meant, they will parrot it for us.