Affordable Health Care Law under review by SCOTUS

[cardboardbox]

Yea, our state assembly thought it best that we figure out how to actually fund it before passing it, what a bunch of morans!

I thought you said CA had plenty of money to pay for this?

[Fresno Bob]

I thought you said CA had plenty of money to pay for this?

We do, and we will. just keep drilling and spilling there Box

[cardboardbox]

We do, and we will. just keep drilling and spilling there Box

Your government cant find the money. Maybe you can help them find it?

[onejayhawk]

Yea, our state assembly thought it best that we figure out how to actually fund it before passing it, what a bunch of morans!

Yep, though Erin used to be cute.

Or, did you mean this?

Politically, yes. You best have that figured out before making an announcement to everybody that you have a plan ready to launch. To their credit, however, they avoided the Pelosi "You'll find out what's in it after it's passed" mistake.

J

[Redbirds Fan]

Politically, yes. You best have that figured out before making an announcement to everybody that you have a plan ready to launch. To their credit, however, they avoided the Pelosi "You'll find out what's in it after it's passed" mistake.

This slight misquote is out of context and it is being used by the right in a misleading manner. Specifically, it is a striking example of false equivalence. The ACA had been public and debated for months before Pelosi told the National Association of Counties that the benefits of the ACA would become manifest upon passage, despite all the controversy over what it would and wouldn't do. On the other hand, the GOP Senate bill is a mystery even to the GOP Senators.

This won't change anyone's feelings about what Pelosi said, or Pelosi in general, but there it is for the record.

[onejayhawk]

That's more than a little disingenuous. The Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009 (H.R. 3590) was submitted on 17 September 2009 and vote on 8 October 2009. At well over 1000 pages, there was barely time to read it, much less vet it. In that context, Rep Pelosi's comments mean very much what chancellor indicated.

J

[baldgriff]

Her actual quote just for clarity sake:

"But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy."

[cardboardbox]

Its too bad CA figured out they cant find the money to pay for their super awesome govt healthcare. I was genuinely interested in seeing how the experiment went.

[Kevin Seitzer]

That's more than a little disingenuous. The Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009 (H.R. 3590) was submitted on 17 September 2009 and vote on 8 October 2009. At well over 1000 pages, there was barely time to read it, much less vet it. In that context, Rep Pelosi's comments mean very much what chancellor indicated.

J

She made her comments on March 9, 2010, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.

http://www.democraticleader.gov/newsroom/pelosi-remarks-2010-legislative-conference-national-association-counties/

[fuhrdog]

She made her comments on March 9, 2010, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.

http://www.democraticleader.gov/news...tion-counties/

Bluto: What? Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!
Otter: Germans?
Boon: Forget it. He's rolling.

[nots]

Its too bad CA figured out they cant find the money to pay for their super awesome govt healthcare. I was genuinely interested in seeing how the experiment went.

On a serious, non snarky note, i was interested in the CA universal health care experiment. I think individual states can be labs for the validity of many diffenent ideas, without exposing the entire country to them. Some may work and some may not (see the job killing $15/hr Seattle minimum wage as an example) but if a state wants to try something outside the box, i woukd look forward to processing the resuts. CA is a big state--its a great lab for universal health care

[Redbirds Fan]

On a serious, non snarky note, i was interested in the CA universal health care experiment. I think individual states can be labs for the validity of many diffenent ideas, without exposing the entire country to them. Some may work and some may not (see the job killing $15/hr Seattle minimum wage as an example) but if a state wants to try something outside the box, i woukd look forward to processing the resuts. CA is a big state--its a great lab for universal health care

Some good points here, but I think it would be better to see it tried in three or four states at one time to get a true measure...maybe add Pennsylvania (hey, they were the first to toy with Obamacare), Wisconsin, and then perhaps a small, poor, red state like Arkansas (which went for medicaid expansion). Then you would have some ideas why it did or didn't work.

[onejayhawk]

She made her comments on March 9, 2010, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.

http://www.democraticleader.gov/news...tion-counties/

That would be the reconciliation bill. Same problem, different day.

J

[Redbirds Fan]

That would be the reconciliation bill. Same problem, different day.

J

The Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009 (H.R. 3590) was submitted on 17 September 2009 and vote on 8 October 2009. At well over 1000 pages, there was barely time to read it, much less vet it.

Even if we were to accept the idea that a whole team of GOP staff lawyers couldn't digest a thousand pages in three weeks, that doesn't explain why the GOP Reps voted for the measure.

[chancellor]

Sometimes making a public announcement that you're going in a direction allows for those with legitimate concerns to present them and those possibly on the fence to get moving in a direction.

One person or one side of the argument doesn't always have all the answers or the perfect one.

We will agree to disagree here. It's one thing to have a framework, and hammer out details in committee. It's another to announce and not even have a framework for how the bill gets funded. Politically, I think that's suicide for a bill. Now, everybody from every political angle will be taking their shots at it, and it'll end up too toxic to pursue. And the Dems, more than likely, will be handed some juicy sound bites from the right, and they'll use those to justify not progressing. So, not pursuing the bill becomes a win-win - Dems don't do anything to piss off any of their core groups, and will almost certainly get political ammo to use against the GOP in the upcoming elections.