Obamacare architect claims Dems had to rely on the "stupidity of the American voter"

[Rukentuts]

I keep hearing this, never seen so much as a link backing it up.

A simple read on PPACA's wiki page outlines its origins and the debate in fairly plain diction for you.

[petej0]

Are you SERIOUSLY going to sit there and say that there was no information about what was in the bill given to the American people? The problem is that people were claiming stuff that WASN'T in the bill, or that it was going to fail, or whatever. That's what she was addressing.

I remember trying to find what was included, there was no concise list, Some sites had some things, other sites listed other, yet other sites listed the taxes etc..SO...I found the actual bill so I could get it first hand. I couldnt get through it, there was so much mumbo jumbo.

Whereas the aforementioned in section 2 subsection d be amended to say "blah blah"

ugh..it referred to bills, legislation and acts I did not have or could find to amend items. I gave up, i think I got 175 pages in though. At which point I tried to skim it to find the good stuff.

The administration should have held a press conference for the American people to address the ACA and the issues the mainstream had with it.

[Khoranth]

Oh I see. You did not, in fact, know what you're talking about. Wells comment was directed at someone who told Endus to go "choke on a dick" when Endus was explaining Anti-Injunction Act. Wells was clearly being sarcastic regarding the rather out-of-line response from Incredibale. The fact this eluded you, and you decided to turn it into a diatribe against "liberals" is very much amusing, and very much the point.

Even more amusing is your insistence, for pages now, that you weren't the one missing the point.

Tee hee.

Actually you continue to not understand. I know exactly who wells comment was directed at. Wells and other liberals have brought up Palin and her comments previously in the thread, not just there. Apparently you were not aware of that, as you have just made clear.

[Naxere]

/facepalm. I provided these links a few posts back.

Found it.

So, if the Republicans propose a law and the Democrats have input regarding a few parts of it, are you making the argument that the Democrats should vote for it because they had input even if they disagree with the majority of the law?

[petej0]

Uh...who the heck do you think "the press" is? If there is a press conference who is going to attend? The media. Your post makes no sense.

What I meant it talking to the public

And yes, there were press conferences and releases during the Ebola scare.

not a televised one during prime time

[Lenonis]

I remember trying to find what was included, there was no concise list

So I see we've gone from "no information provided" to "information wasn't provided in a format I liked."

Which is entirely different.

- - - Updated - - -

So, if the Republicans propose a law and the Democrats have input regarding a few parts of it, are you making the argument that the Democrats should vote for it because they had input even if they disagree with the majority of the law?

C'mon. Really? I mean...really?

Here is what happened:
Person:"The GOP had NO INPUT! none! It was 100% Dem written and led!"
Me:"Untrue -- here are links why."

Here is what you apparently think happened:
Person:"The GOP had NO INPUT! none! It was 100% Dem written and led!"
Me:"They GOP should have voted in favor of the law because of these links."

So yeah. Not going to let you change the argument on me. I was never once arguing that the GOP should have voted for the law.

[NYC17]

Actually you continue to not understand. I know exactly who wells comment was directed at. Wells and other liberals have brought up Palin and her comments previously in the thread, not just there. Apparently you were not aware of that, as you have just made clear.

And? I asked you very clearly, multiple times, how they were used as a defense of Gruber. Instead of answering you decided to whine about "liberals changing the subject" and when I asked you to answer the very simple question you decided to go on about how "confused" I am and how I "missed your point".

No one with an objective and functional brain can look at this discussion and declare there is confusion on my part. It's a rather pathetic tactic on your part to try and avoid the very simple question.

[Khoranth]

So I see we've gone from "no information provided" to "information wasn't provided in a format I liked."

Which is entirely different.

- - - Updated - - -

C'mon. Really? I mean...really?

Here is what happened:
Person:"The GOP had NO INPUT! none! It was 100% Dem written and led!"
Me:"Untrue -- here are links why."

Here is what you apparently think happened:
Person:"The GOP had NO INPUT! none! It was 100% Dem written and led!"
Me:"They GOP should have voted in favor of the law because of these links."

So yeah. Not going to let you change the argument on me. I was never once arguing that the GOP should have voted for the law.

The amount of GOP input is irrelevant to the fact that this gruber fellow made the bill confusing, on purpose, to get support from stupid people.

- - - Updated - - -

And? I asked you very clearly, multiple times, how they were used as a defense of Gruber. Instead of answering you decided to whine about "liberals changing the subject" and when ia ske dyou to answer the question you decided to go on about how "confused" I am and how I "missed your point".

No one with an objective and functional brain can look at this discussion and declare there is confusion on my part. It's a rather pathetic tactic on your part to try and avoid the very simple question.

So you came into the conversation late, you were out of your element, and now you are lashing out at me, because you were confused. If you hadnt been out of your element, you may have not gotten so confused, not my problem.

[Lenonis]

The amount of GOP input is irrelevant to the fact that this gruber fellow made the bill confusing, on purpose, to get support from stupid people.

True. However that's the beauty of forum conversations. You often discuss more than one thing at a time.

And hey, I'm not the one who was lying in this thread. You can't expect me to not challenge blatantly false statements.

[Naxere]

So yeah. Not going to let you change the argument on me. I was never once arguing that the GOP should have voted for the law.

With insane logic like this, you don't think they should have voted for the law to avoid having 'blood on their hands?'

And since we're going to just be in hyper partisan rhetoric ridiculous mode in this thread -- you can even say that the GOP has killed many thousand people by preventing them access to healthcare through their efforts. They have blood on their hands.

[Lenonis]

Can you please enlighten me as to what parts of the bill that are problematic and causing the majority of Americans to dislike were offered as amendments by the GOP? Since it was bipartisan and all, I'm sure you won't have a problem showing me how the GOP contributions to it were a problem.

Well first of all, your entire question is erroneous as the public doesn't dislike the bill for any real reason other than partisan politics. When the individual components of the bill are put forward they gain overwhelming support.

So...yeah, I'm not going to play a game of "gotcha." But I'm glad you admit you were wrong.

And you've still never addressed the fact that Single Payer wasn't put forth because the Democrats couldn't unite their own party behind it.

Actually I did. Either you didn't read it or you ignored it. Neither of which are my issue to fix.

[Lenonis]

With insane logic like this, you don't think they should have voted for the law to avoid having 'blood on their hands?'

I hope you realize the "blood on their hands" comment was a tongue in cheek statement to highlight the ridiculous partisan nature of the discussion.

Look -- their "no" vote was a political and symbolic one. Just like all the repeal votes are symbolic because they know it won't pass. The GOP KNEW the bill would pass with dem votes alone so they voted no to provide political fodder. Although I think the GOP goes off the rails sometimes they do know how to play the political game.

What you are mixing up, however, is the passing of the law and the implementation of the law. The GOP has been subverting the law in every chance they get because they can't repeal it. We can argue about whether or not that's good politics or good politics, but the harsh reality is that the ways in which they have chosen to oppose the law have had very real and very tragic consequences on people in those states controlled by GOP governors.

- - - Updated - - -

Ahh, so you can't point out the GOP parts of the bill that have made it a problem, got it. It's much easier to just point your fingers at the "enemy" than reassess your blind allegiance. It's cool.

Like I said. I'm not interested in playing gotcha. If you want to address the substance of what I wrote then fine. Otherwise save your games for someone else.

[Khoranth]

Well first of all, your entire question is erroneous as the public doesn't dislike the bill for any real reason other than partisan politics. When the individual components of the bill are put forward they gain overwhelming support.

So...yeah, I'm not going to play a game of "gotcha." But I'm glad you admit you were wrong.

I think the misleading & lying about the bill is what people dislike the most. This Gruber guy is just making it worse. They should have been open and honest about obamacare from the beginning, and we'd be in a much better place today. The main weapon used against obamacare is that they lied about it, not the actual function of bill

[Naxere]

Look -- their "no" vote was a political and symbolic one. Just like all the repeal votes are symbolic because they know it won't pass. The GOP KNEW the bill would pass with dem votes alone so they voted no to provide political fodder. Although I think the GOP goes off the rails sometimes they do know how to play the political game.

What you are mixing up, however, is the passing of the law and the implementation of the law. The GOP has been subverting the law in every chance they get because they can't repeal it. We can argue about whether or not that's good politics or good politics, but the harsh reality is that the ways in which they have chosen to oppose the law have had very real and very tragic consequences on people in those states controlled by GOP governors.

They are doing what they were elected to do.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/...ling-obamacare

[NYC17]

The amount of GOP input is irrelevant to the fact that this gruber fellow made the bill confusing, on purpose, to get support from stupid people.

- - - Updated - - -



So you came into the conversation late, you were out of your element, and now you are lashing out at me, because you were confused. If you hadnt been out of your element, you may have not gotten so confused, not my problem.

Element..haha. Christ, this is pure forum awesomeness now.

Again, no one with an objective and functional brain can come to the conclusion that I'm confused. You have done nothing to support your argument that ai "missed your point" or am "confused". Your inability to answer a basic question is the fundamental problem for you, and your argument.

[Lenonis]

I think the misleading & lying about the bill is what people dislike the most.

I hope you are willing to admit that this occurred on both sides of the spectrum. The GOP made up false things about what was in the bill to gin up opposition. And some of those fake talking points still get repeated.

They should have been open and honest about obamacare from the beginning, and we'd be in a much better place today.

I'm not going to disagree with you on that. But I also think when it came to what the bill DOES the administration was pretty open. Where the obfuscation came into play is the behind the scenes of how the bill would work.

The main weapon used against obamacare is that they lied about it, not the actual function of bill

Which is actually very unfortunate. Legislation should be primarily judged on the outcome, not on how they got there. I'm not excusing the process, but to hate something just because you don't like how it was created without looking at the outcome seems horribly myopic to me.

We can go back and forth about the should have and could haves. One of the things I always say is that if the GOP put half as much energy into fixing the ACA as they did in repealing or torpedoing it we'd have a great program in place.

But, unfortunately, on both sides of the spectrum, politics trumped actually trying to help people and we got a bill that's a half solution. And because of politics people are going to continue to suffer because the Dems won't let it be repealed and replaced and the GOP won't let it work...both for fear of allowing their opponents political points.

[Khoranth]

Element..haha. Christ, this is pure forum awesomeness now.

Again, no one with an objective and functional brain can come to the conclusion that I'm confused. You have done nothing to support your argument that ai "missed your point" or am "confused". Your inability to answer a basic question is the fundamental problem for you, and your argument.

You are out of your element, YOU quoted me, and came after me. I wasnt even talking to you to begin with. If you come into a conversation, OUT OF YOUR ELEMENT, and get confused, i am not going to recap the entire thread for you. You are ridiculous. If you dont want to be confused next time: DONT BE OUT OF YOUR ELEMENT.

[Lenonis]

They are doing what they were elected to do.

That would be true if the public actually knew what the ACA was.

But they don't.

So I don't give a rats ass what they think. The american people sometimes have terrible collective ideas because they don't have the information or the ability to see the entire picture. In those cases it is the duty of the government to do what's best for the people...not what they want.

And you can argue with me on that point all you want -- we'll have to agree to disagree in that case.

[Khoranth]

I hope you are willing to admit that this occurred on both sides of the spectrum. The GOP made up false things about what was in the bill to gin up opposition. And some of those fake talking points still get repeated.

I'm not going to disagree with you on that. But I also think when it came to what the bill DOES the administration was pretty open. Where the obfuscation came into play is the behind the scenes of how the bill would work.

Which is actually very unfortunate. Legislation should be primarily judged on the outcome, not on how they got there. I'm not excusing the process, but to hate something just because you don't like how it was created without looking at the outcome seems horribly myopic to me.

We can go back and forth about the should have and could haves. One of the things I always say is that if the GOP put half as much energy into fixing the ACA as they did in repealing or torpedoing it we'd have a great program in place.

But, unfortunately, on both sides of the spectrum, politics trumped actually trying to help people and we got a bill that's a half solution. And because of politics people are going to continue to suffer because the Dems won't let it be repealed and replaced and the GOP won't let it work...both for fear of allowing their opponents political points.

Firstly: the GOP has put more energy into fixing obamacare than repealing it. Repeals are token in nature, the GOP and Obama have passed alot of fixes for obamacare, it just happens to be in the best interest of both groups, for political reasons, to never talk about that kind of stuff, you may see more openness on cooperation now, but maybe not: 2016 is almost here!

Second: my whole point is that they shouldnt do this shit ever, and we'd all be better off for it.

[NYC17]

You are out of your element, YOU quoted me, and came after me. I wasnt even talking to you to begin with. If you come into a conversation, OUT OF YOUR ELEMENT, and get confused, i am not going to recap the entire thread for you. You are ridiculous. If you dont want to be confused next time: DONT BE OUT OF YOUR ELEMENT.

I quoted you and asked you a very simple, basic question. You've decided to whine for pages about how you were misunderstood and how I'm "confused". You've done nothing to support that argument instead of declaring it so. You have now moved on to "out of my element".

There's no confusion on my part. I have recapped the conversation, explained why your argument is absurd, and have asked you to answer a very simple question that you can't seem to answer. If being in your element means not being able to answer a basic question then no, I am most definitely not in your element, which you seem quite comfortable in.

Element...haha. Awesome.