jump to last post 1-1 of 1 discussions (17 posts)

Why Aren't the Anti-Obamacare Critics Not Screaming At GOP?

  1. My Esoteric profile image89
    My Esotericposted 9 months ago

    For eight years the Right has been fantacizing about how ACA came about in secret with nobody reading the massive bill.  FALSE, but that is what the GOP is doing this week.

    The facts are that In considering the Affordable Care Act in 2009 and 2010, the House held
    -  79 hearings over the course of a year,
    - heard from 181 witnesses and
    - accepted 121 amendments.

    The Senate adopted the Affordable Care Act only after
    - approximately 100 hearings, roundtables, walkthroughs and other meetings, and 
    - after 25 consecutive days in continuous session debating the bill.

    Also, I knew just by reading the newspaper and listening to the news most of the major parts of ACA

    The CURRENT House leadership hopes to get the repeal and replacement legislation through the House by Friday, so that the CBO won't have time to score to see how much it increases the deficit and how many people will lose their insurance.

    To things moving, the Senate will by-pass committees in order to force it down the throats of America.

    The is exactly the Right accused the Democrats of, even though it never happened that way.

    1. wilderness profile image99
      wildernessposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      Well, aren't they supposed to enact health legislation and THEN read it?  That is, after all, what they were told about Obamacare.

      1. My Esoteric profile image89
        My Esotericposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        Actually all anybody had to do was read the newspaper and listen to news casts to know what was going to be in the bill.  That is what I did and four months before passage, I understood about 70% of all the features it ended up with.

        1. wilderness profile image99
          wildernessposted 9 months agoin reply to this

          Wow.  There are some 33,000 pages (11,588,500 words) of regulations on ObamaCare, and you understood 70% of them (23,100 pages) just from news casts.  You will understand if I don't believe that claim.

    2. GA Anderson profile image82
      GA Andersonposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      Hello MyEsoteric, you have tapped one of my hottest Hot Buttons - How the ACA was passed.

      Considering the readily available information that Nancy Pelosi had to justify legislator's ignorance of what was in the bill by saying it had to be passed to find out what was in it; to the  2010 Legislative Conference for the National Association of Counties, just 12 days before the final vote, and that a Nebraska Senator forced rewrites of some sections in order to get his "yes" vote as late as 3 days before the final vote; it seems skeptical that you knew enough about the bill,. just from reading the papers, to feel comfortable supporting it for its substance - rather than for partisan reasons.

      Your implication that the ACA was amply discussed and understood doesn't stand scrutiny considering my understanding of the chronology of its passage.

      I am not defending Pres. Trump's recent offering, or rebutting your criticism of it, (I don't know what is in this one either), but I think you need a different vehicle to carry your point.

      And then you came along with. "To things moving, the Senate will by-pass committees in order to force it down the throats of America."

      Holy cow! You should have left that broom in the closet. ... Forcing it down the throats of Americans???

      How about the point that more than a few knowledgeable legislative scholars point to the "trickster or tricky move", (their choice of words}, to even get  the process started? The ACA could not get a proposal in the House, which is where it was constitutionally required to originate. So, they gutted a military housing bill, (the original HR3950), and inserted the ACA legislation. Bingo! How's that for forcing something down our throats.

      I also think some consideration of how they got the final votes needed for passage would also fit your 'forcing it down our throats' thought.

      For instance; that same "rewrite" Nebraska Senator got, among other considerations, a guarantee of Federal Medicaid expansion funding - forever, for his state, in exchange for his "yes" vote, while the other states only received up to 6(?) years of Federal Medicaid expansion support.

      Another "for instance" might be that Louisiana Senator that traded her vote for a highly publicized, and highly criticized, additional $300  million in support for her state - in exchange for her "yes" vote - 4 days before the final vote. And to rub some salt into that wound, she later publicly declared the real additional funding number that changed her vote was closer to $600 million.

      I think those are examples of something being forced down our throats - which is why I was so surprised you described the Pres. Trump plan actions as such.

      You could be right. We might have to suffer more of the same from our legislators this time, but I sure would have found a less partisan explanation to make the point. As you can see, your base of support for your point seems so hypocritical as to make serious consideration unlikely by any but other choir members.

      Just say'n

      GA

      1. My Esoteric profile image89
        My Esotericposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        Why Pelosi said such a stupid thing is beyond me.  It wasn't true of course, but she said it and the rest is history.

        Your comment on adding some items in to get to a Yes vote is nothing unusual in Congress, it has been going on Exactly like that for over 200 years.

        What chronology do you have that doesn't include the -  79 hearings over the course of a year,
        - heard from 181 witnesses and
        - accepted 121 amendments.
        - approximately 100 hearings, roundtables, walkthroughs and other meetings, and 
        - after 25 consecutive days in continuous session debating the bill.
        that occurred over 18 months?

        How many hearings, roundtables, walkthroughs, days of debate is the GOP going have on something even more complicated than the original bill.

        What is going to happen, in my view, is that 1) the GOP will partially succeed and throw millions of low income and elderly off the insurance rolls or out of Medicaid or 2) they will fail but have the same results because they have so poisoned the waters that the insurance companies will turn tale and run leaving us with the same failed system that existed before ACA.

        In either case, America is going to be so pissed off at #NoMandateTrump and GOP for destroying their healthcase, the Ds will take over Congress in 2-years and the Presidency in 2 more.

        1. GA Anderson profile image82
          GA Andersonposted 9 months agoin reply to this

          Hey guy, I just can't generate the enthusiasm to dig into a Google search to validate my recall, but, speaking from recollections of the time...

          I distinctly remember news stories about Pro-ACA legislators not being able to answer questions - or challenges - from Republicans, or to public questions about the details of the bill.

          Probably the most recognizable  instance would be Pres. Obama going public to assure citizens that they could keep their doctor. I think that was necessary because the Democrats could not answer based on a lack of knowledge of what was in the bill to confirm their response.

          And considering that when the bill was passed and available for review - Pres. Obama turned out to be  wrong. That seems to imply that he didn't know what was in the bill either.

          I also recall, (I think), announced ACA votes being postponed at the last minute as the Democrats found they were on the short end of the vote count.

          Of course I am aware of political wheeling and dealing, and, that it is an ages-old part of our system. Typically the pay-off would be something like committee assignments, promises to reciprocate on trade-off bills, or other legislative plums. I don't recall any instances as public, or massive, or as obviously 'purchased' votes,  as those two I mentioned.

          One of the articles I found detailing that Nebraska Senator's  price talked about a bunch more 'less obvious' examples of vote buying, but none compared - in scale, to the Nebraska and Louisiana Senator's deals. These were not just political maneuverings - these were bribes and buy-offs using taxpayer money.

          I think the person, Pelosi, and the event, the National Convention of Counties - not a run-of-the-mill supporters gathering, belies your contention that it was a stupid remark because it was unnecessary. I would bet that a full viewing of her convention talk would reveal that the remark was made due to her frustration at being unable to answer ACA questions posed to her. Even after all those hearings, witnesses, and debates you mentioned.

          In other words - she was reduced to just pleading; "Trust me, this is a good thing," because she did not know the answers to their questions.

          Relative to your prediction about what is going to happen, I don't have a clue, and so far you haven't given me any reason to put any faith in your crystal ball.

          GA

          1. My Esoteric profile image89
            My Esotericposted 9 months agoin reply to this

            I did the search for you http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/28/politics/ … -timeline/  And in that time, the Ds held
            79 hearings over the course of a year,
            - heard from 181 witnesses and
            - accepted 121 amendments.
            - approximately 100 hearings, roundtables, walkthroughs and other meetings, and 
            - after 25 consecutive days in continuous session debating the bill.
            that occurred over 18 months? PLUS
            - incorporate over 160 GOP amendments in the Senate.

            An expanded history is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_P … ve_history

            As to Pelosi's poor choice of words and the Rs inability to understand (or purposeful choice to ignore) the context; I will lay it out for everybody.with a concise article I found from https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Nancy-Pel … hats-in-it

            It takes two bodies of Congress to pass a law, the Senate and the House. Nancy Pelosi was Speaker of the House and was discussing the controversy over what was *expected* to be in the final law. She commented that people were expressing outrage that it was going to "legalize abortion", or that it would create "death panels", and so on. There was literally no way for Pelosi to defend against those comments without having a bill passed by the Senate that she could then take to the House and explain to everyone: "Look, here is the bill we are considering, this is what is *actually* in it". So, in a moment she will regret for the rest of her life, she uttered those famous 16 words that said exactly what she meant, but sounded awful. In order to rebut all the negative assumptions about what was in the proposed bill, the Senate would have to pass a bill first to establish that THIS is what we are dealing with.

            Makes perfect sense when you look at the actual context and not just the sound bites.

            As to horse-trading to pass a bill, what they traded is common and has been since the founders created the Constitution - like it or not.

            1. wilderness profile image99
              wildernessposted 9 months agoin reply to this

              Pelosi tells the house that they must vote for a bill so after the Senate passes it the House members can see what's in it and determine how they will vote.

              You can swallow that piece of convoluted reasoning that makes no sense if you wish.

              1. My Esoteric profile image89
                My Esotericposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                When asked about it Pelosi gave the above answer.  Because the your side of the House were Lying about the bills content, e.g. death panels, legalized abortions; and that the bill had not passed the Senate yet, she can't refute the Lies until the bill was passed and everyone could see what the final product looked like.

                If the Right-wing didn't read the drafts of the bill, tell me, How did they know it legalized abortions and had death panels??

                Clearly your side had read something.

                1. wilderness profile image99
                  wildernessposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                  And clearly "your side" hadn't.  Thus the message - the bill must be passed before anyone has time to examine or read it.

                  You can make up dozens of reasons but that is not the same as reporting what Pelosi was thinking when she made the statement.  And no, Pelosi did not give that answer; it came from Robert Perez, a Washington lawyer who was trying to do the same thing you are - to find some reason, any semi-plausible reason, for such a stupid statement.

                  https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Nancy-Pel … hats-in-it

                  1. My Esoteric profile image89
                    My Esotericposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                    Quote "You’ve heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other.  But I don’t know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket.  Prevention, prevention, prevention—it’s about diet, not diabetes. It’s going to be very, very exciting."

                    Quote "“In the fall of the year, the outside groups...were saying ‘it’s about abortion,’ which it never was. ‘It’s about ‘death panels,’’ which it never was. ‘It’s about a job-killer,’ which it creates four million [and it did!-ed]. ‘It’s about increasing the deficit’; well, the main reason to pass it was to decrease the deficit. ...They were still trying to woo the Republicans, [to] get that 60th vote that never was coming. That’s why [there was a] reconciliation [vote]” that required only a simple majority.

                    So, that’s why I was saying we [the Senate] have to pass a bill so we can see so that we can show you what it is and what it isn’t, It is none of these things. It’s not going to be any of these things.” She recognized that her comment was “a good statement to take out of context. But the fact is, until you have  a bill [from the Senate], you can’t really, we can’t really debunk what they’re saying....”

                    The two Washington Post editorial comments included in the above (which I edited out to make her statement flow better) are:
                    1. Her contention was that the Senate “didn’t have a bill.” And until the Senate produced an actual piece of legislation that could be matched up and debated against what was passed by the House, no one truly knew what would be voted on

                    2. She recognized that her comment was “a good statement to take out of context.” But the minority leader added, ...

                    https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/po … d82c890a6f

                    Or do you think Pelosi's words were #Falewords as well and she really didn't mean what she said?

            2. GA Anderson profile image82
              GA Andersonposted 9 months agoin reply to this

              Hello again MyEsoteric, one of us confused, I hope it is not me. Your research, (at least you made the effort), doesn't address my point either.

              Just a note: it isn't necessary to keep repeating the number of meetings, round-tables, debates, etc.. It does nothing to address a point that something is not understood. Repeating an inadequate answer does nothing to create understanding.

              I'm sure you didn't mean to be insulting when you explained what it takes to pass a bill, but I would at least expect the credit for an understanding of that bit of knowledge.

              As you surely know, if the Senate passes a bill from the House - without any changes, it is ready to go to the president to become law. If there are changes, then the bill returns to the House to be voted on again. And then returned to the Senate for another vote.

              Regarding the ACA, there were obvious changes needed to get the votes for passage in the Senate, (like the Nebarska and Louisiana issues).

              The Democrat's plan was a deal to circumvent that process by getting the bill passed, and then, use a separate Reconciliation process - which only required 51 votes - a margin the Democrats safely held.

              Parsing her words, or offering a rationalization such as yours, does nothing to change the fact that she was exhorting Senators to vote on a bill which could not be adequately explained. I do understand that this is not an uncommon situation - some bills contain such technicalities that many legislators must rely on others for answers and evaluation.

              But in the case of the ACA, that choice was not acceptable to some legislators, or many in the public. The bill would have such a national impact, and was such a public issue, that 'trust me' just wasn't good enough for this one,

              So I still believe my perception that she could not defend passage of the bill with factual answers  - because she did not know the answers herself, and had to resort to a 'trust me' plea is correct. The experts and evaluators(sp?) that they needed to rely on just couldn't answer their questions. Neither could Pelosi, the Leader of the House.

              I cannot find any justification in your explanation to alter my perception that she made the plea because questions could not be answered. The legislator's did not understand important details of something they were being asked to vote on. Expecting legislators, (and the public), to accept passage of such a bill with so many unanswered questions can only be a partisan rationalization.

              That you attribute the massive bribes to get Nebraska and Louisiana's votes as "horsetrading' - as in typical, seems incredulous to me. Can you recollect any similar scale of horsetrading used to get a legislator's vote?

              GA

    3. Misfit Chick profile image71
      Misfit Chickposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      I'm really not surprised that the GOP are rushing things - they only have a couple years to put as many kinks into the system as they can; and then the expensive process of bringing things back into balance will begin again. Plus, they have the Koch brothers breathing down their necks, LoL!

      I remember all the fighting to get the ACA passed (it took over a year if not two). It was a policy that GOP had always been adamantly against and they fought it tooth & nail. I am also aware that Dems did quite a bit of pushing to get it through - those last minutes 'concessions' to get some to vote yes was a big one.

      Our politics are always messy and neither major political party respects each other or their constituents (we're leeberals & deplorables, aren't we?) - that is the most maddening thing. Most Americans are just your regular neighbors who want some sort of national healthcare plan - which is why the GOP aren't just repealing but also replacing Obamacare. I guess there is a sliver of acknowledgement of 'the people' by them doing that, LoL!

      I'm assuming the reason why they didn't just 'fix' Obamacare and make it better was because they wanted his name off of it. If this was ancient Egypt, Obama would have been one of the Pharaohs they tried to wipe out of their history - that's how much they hate him; and they hated him before he took office. In all honesty, they would have hated any Dem who won (especially if it had been Hillary in 2008).

      I used to be a diehard conservative - I only voted for GOP because I wanted them to undo Roe v Wade to get rid of abortion like so many well-intended, big-hearted Christians still do. There is no other party that they can vote for because of that one reason. I think if the issue of abortion were off the table, our country would be very different - simply because people who are pro-choice are considered to be 'murderers of babies'; and so we are not people - but animals to be despised & whose valid opinions don't matter.

      I hate the divisions that the parties play off of more than I hate any one policy either side is pushing. Every policy seems to be shoved down our throats; and politicians refuse to work together to create bipartisan policies. I, for one, think that it is the parties, themselves, that need to get gone. Wouldn't it be nice if every nominee that ran for POTUS or Congress was not bound by party mandates - or even thinking about them? And wouldn't it be nice if they took the time to actually analyze information and figure things out based on what would work best for the entire country - instead of rushing things & basing them on their own limited black & white idealogies? And then, wouldn't it be nice if they continued to tweek policies to make them better, as needed?

      Nah, that would just greatly cut down on the cost of things; and dang, we certainly DON'T WANT the majority of Americans (there will always be extremists) to feel like they are ALL part of a semi-unified, patriotic country that is actually all about them - instead of it being the Dem's country for awhile and then the GOP's back & forth. What would a country like that be like? Its hardly imagineable.

      I am not a fan of Bernie's policies, but this is so true:

      https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13440354.png

      https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13440356.jpg

      1. My Esoteric profile image89
        My Esotericposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        Extremely well said, Misfit ... super. 

        What people forget is the GOP and their surrogates spent hundreds of millions of dollars on propaganda to get people to hate Obamacare (that was their name for them as an insult to Obama) and it worked.  Had they accepted defeat or, heaven forbid, even helped craft a law more to their liking, ACA would be the best thing since sliced bread.

        The GOP is pulling a beautiful bait-and-switch on Americans without much income, many of whom are their own supporters.  While ACA offered  -
        -- universal COVERAGE to anyone who wanted it, and even some who didn't (lol), the #GOPcare offers a substantially different thing,
        -- universal ACCESS to those who can afford it.

        1. wilderness profile image99
          wildernessposted 9 months agoin reply to this

          It was too bad, wasn't it, that the ACA offered universal INSURANCE COVERAGE to anyone that wanted it, but universal ACCESS (to actual care) only to those that can afford it.  Of course, it was good for the bottom line of their buddies in the insurance industry...

 
working