Good news for us re: Obamacare/ACA

[carlfense]

Forbes outlook on ACA:

 

http://www.forbes.co...ng-to-cost-you/

 

What is Forbes? I prefer Wonkblog.

Yeah...Ezra Klein is a joke.

[carlfense]

I was not impressed with how they rammed this bill through and the fact that the people who passed it really had no idea what the hell they were implementing.

 

Please expand on this. I'm curious in what ways you think that the bill was rammed through and how people had no idea what they were implementing. Could you provide examples and sources for this?

You know who she was talking to, right? Or do you think that she was talking to Congress?

[gobiggergoredder]

Forbes outlook on ACA:

 

http://www.forbes.co...ng-to-cost-you/

 

What is Forbes? I prefer Wonkblog.

Don't laugh too hard . . . Ezra Klein is no joke.

Pretty Diverse

Ezra Klein (born May 9, 1984) is an American journalist, blogger and columnist. He is currently a blogger and columnist for The Washington Post, a columnist for Bloomberg, and a contributor to MSNBC. He was formerly an associate editor of The American Prospect political magazine and a political blogger at the same publication.

[JJ Husker]

I was not impressed with how they rammed this bill through and the fact that the people who passed it really had no idea what the hell they were implementing.

 

Please expand on this. I'm curious in what ways you think that the bill was rammed through and how people had no idea what they were implementing. Could you provide examples and sources for this?

 

Were you in a coma when this bill was passed? It did not have bipartisan support (thus rammed through) and it was widely known that most if not all congress persons had not read the bill and really didn't understand much of what they were actually voting for or against. I really don't think examples or links of this situation are necessary. If you can't accept this as common knowledge, I don't want to play your game.

 

I actually read through significantly most of this bill and I would bet dollars for donuts , to this day, I read way more of it than anyone in congress has read of it yet.

[Junior]

I was not impressed with how they rammed this bill through and the fact that the people who passed it really had no idea what the hell they were implementing.

 

Please expand on this. I'm curious in what ways you think that the bill was rammed through and how people had no idea what they were implementing. Could you provide examples and sources for this?

 

Were you in a coma when this bill was passed? It did not have bipartisan support (thus rammed through) and it was widely known that most if not all congress persons had not read the bill and really didn't understand much of what they were actually voting for or against. I really don't think examples or links of this situation are necessary. If you can't accept this as common knowledge, I don't want to play your game.

 

I actually read through significantly most of this bill and I would bet dollars for donuts , to this day, I read way more of it than anyone in congress has read of it yet.

 

So it passed the Senate 60-39. That's a super-majority to avoid the filibuster. Rammed through? Hardly.

 

If you could show me a link where senate and house members say that they had no idea what they were voting on, I guess I'd accept that. Maybe they didn't want to read through it, but the notion that they didn't have time is laughable. Widely accepted by Fox News, maybe. That's fine if you don't want to play the game of "evidence" to support your accusations, it just makes your argument weak.

[strigori]

I was not impressed with how they rammed this bill through and the fact that the people who passed it really had no idea what the hell they were implementing.

 

Please expand on this. I'm curious in what ways you think that the bill was rammed through and how people had no idea what they were implementing. Could you provide examples and sources for this?

 

Were you in a coma when this bill was passed? It did not have bipartisan support (thus rammed through) and it was widely known that most if not all congress persons had not read the bill and really didn't understand much of what they were actually voting for or against. I really don't think examples or links of this situation are necessary. If you can't accept this as common knowledge, I don't want to play your game.

 

I actually read through significantly most of this bill and I would bet dollars for donuts , to this day, I read way more of it than anyone in congress has read of it yet.

How is that different from almost anything that goes through Congress? Too much voting on things because they are told to, and not because they actually read it and thought it was a good or bad idea. Quite frankly we have some members in Congress who would be completely incapable of understanding most of what they vote on.

[Ziggy]

I was not impressed with how they rammed this bill through and the fact that the people who passed it really had no idea what the hell they were implementing.

 

Please expand on this. I'm curious in what ways you think that the bill was rammed through and how people had no idea what they were implementing. Could you provide examples and sources for this?

 

Were you in a coma when this bill was passed? It did not have bipartisan support (thus rammed through) and it was widely known that most if not all congress persons had not read the bill and really didn't understand much of what they were actually voting for or against. I really don't think examples or links of this situation are necessary. If you can't accept this as common knowledge, I don't want to play your game.

 

I actually read through significantly most of this bill and I would bet dollars for donuts , to this day, I read way more of it than anyone in congress has read of it yet.

 

So it passed the Senate 60-39. That's a super-majority to avoid the filibuster. Rammed through? Hardly.

 

If you could show me a link where senate and house members say that they had no idea what they were voting on, I guess I'd accept that. Maybe they didn't want to read through it, but the notion that they didn't have time is laughable. Widely accepted by Fox News, maybe. That's fine if you don't want to play the game of "evidence" to support your accusations, it just makes your argument weak.

 

Do we have such short term memory that we forget the Cornhusker Kick back? Or Nancy Pelosi saying the bill needed to be passed in order for us to know what was in it.

[JJ Husker]

 

Were you in a coma when this bill was passed? It did not have bipartisan support (thus rammed through) and it was widely known that most if not all congress persons had not read the bill and really didn't understand much of what they were actually voting for or against. I really don't think examples or links of this situation are necessary. If you can't accept this as common knowledge, I don't want to play your game.

 

I actually read through significantly most of this bill and I would bet dollars for donuts , to this day, I read way more of it than anyone in congress has read of it yet.

 

So it passed the Senate 60-39. That's a super-majority to avoid the filibuster. Rammed through? Hardly.

 

If you could show me a link where senate and house members say that they had no idea what they were voting on, I guess I'd accept that. Maybe they didn't want to read through it, but the notion that they didn't have time is laughable. Widely accepted by Fox News, maybe. That's fine if you don't want to play the game of "evidence" to support your accusations, it just makes your argument weak.

 

I'm not going to argue semantics. Either they didn't have enough time to read it (which, if I recall correctly, was the case) or they didn't choose to read it. Either way it is a terrible way to legislate or vote on bills.

 

How is that different from almost anything that goes through Congress? Too much voting on things because they are told to, and not because they actually read it and thought it was a good or bad idea. Quite frankly we have some members in Congress who would be completely incapable of understanding most of what they vote on.

 

I would agree and never stated that this bill or issue were any different. However, the thing that makes it stand out in this case is the sheer size and widespread impact of the ACA. One should at least hope that they would try a little harder on a bill of this magnitude and importance.

[Junior]

 

Were you in a coma when this bill was passed? It did not have bipartisan support (thus rammed through) and it was widely known that most if not all congress persons had not read the bill and really didn't understand much of what they were actually voting for or against. I really don't think examples or links of this situation are necessary. If you can't accept this as common knowledge, I don't want to play your game.

 

I actually read through significantly most of this bill and I would bet dollars for donuts , to this day, I read way more of it than anyone in congress has read of it yet.

 

So it passed the Senate 60-39. That's a super-majority to avoid the filibuster. Rammed through? Hardly.

 

If you could show me a link where senate and house members say that they had no idea what they were voting on, I guess I'd accept that. Maybe they didn't want to read through it, but the notion that they didn't have time is laughable. Widely accepted by Fox News, maybe. That's fine if you don't want to play the game of "evidence" to support your accusations, it just makes your argument weak.

 

I'm not going to argue semantics. Either they didn't have enough time to read it (which, if I recall correctly, was the case) or they didn't choose to read it. Either way it is a terrible way to legislate or vote on bills.

 

 

That's not semantics to say they didn't have enough time versus they chose not to. Very different things. I won't argue that it is a terrible way to legislate (not reading bills you are voting on), but how would that be Obama's fault?

[JJ Husker]

Junior- your insecurity is showing. Nowhere in this thread have I stated tthe manner in which this bill was passed was Obama's fault. I will however hold him responsible for how it turns out and if it ends up being a good thing or a bad thing. After all it is the landmark legislation of his presidency. I hope it turns out well but, so far, I have serious doubts.

[carlfense]

So it passed the Senate 60-39. That's a super-majority to avoid the filibuster. Rammed through? Hardly.

Yep. Elections have consequences.

[carlfense]

Pretty Diverse

Ezra Klein (born May 9, 1984) is an American journalist, blogger and columnist. He is currently a blogger and columnist for The Washington Post, a columnist for Bloomberg, and a contributor to MSNBC. He was formerly an associate editor of The American Prospect political magazine and a political blogger at the same publication.

I try to not get too hung up on titles. Judge him by his body of work.

 

Likewise, keep in mind that Forbes has published things like this:

Prediction: Romney Crushes Obama In Presidential Election Blowout

http://www.forbes.com/sites/billfrezza/2012/05/22/romney-crushes-obama-in-presidential-election-blowout/

 

[gobiggergoredder]

Pretty Diverse

Ezra Klein (born May 9, 1984) is an American journalist, blogger and columnist. He is currently a blogger and columnist for The Washington Post, a columnist for Bloomberg, and a contributor to MSNBC. He was formerly an associate editor of The American Prospect political magazine and a political blogger at the same publication.

I try to not get too hung up on titles. Judge him by his body of work.

 

Likewise, keep in mind that Forbes has published things like this:

Prediction: Romney Crushes Obama In Presidential Election Blowout

http://www.forbes.co...ection-blowout/

 

Well played. You have once again changed the scope (I admit I helped a little bit). You are good at that.

 

You have taken it from the discussion of an individual to an organization. You began this thread discussion how Obamacare costs are lower than expected because Ezra Klein says so.

 

It's good that you were able to provide one of, likely thousands of stories in the Forbes library, that was wrong. This definitely proves that Ezra Klein has Obamacare figures correct. You are implying Obamacare costs are less than expected because Ezra Klein says so. It would be equally as sorry for me to post a story that by Ann Coulter saying Obamacare is bad.

 

Judge him by his body of work.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JournoList

http://newsbusters.org/media-and-places/media-scandals/journolist

http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/26/journolist-scandal-proves-media-bias/

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-08-05-maines04_ST_N.htm?csp=34

[carlfense]

Well played. You have once again changed the scope (I admit I helped a little bit). You are good at that.

 

You have taken it from the discussion of an individual to an organization.

What is Forbes? I prefer Wonkblog.

^^^^^

Looks like you did a bit more than helping "a little bit."

 

You began this thread discussion how Obamacare costs are lower than expected because Ezra Klein says so.

That's incorrect.

 

It's good that you were able to provide one of, likely thousands of stories in the Forbes library, that was wrong. This definitely proves that Ezra Klein has Obamacare figures correct.

I'd certainly welcome you to provide the correct figures. You shouldn't take Klein's (or anyone else's) word for it. Go look at the CBO projection from 2009. Compare that number to the actual cost of the medium level plan on California's exchange. You might be surprised at what you find . . . or you could just return to attacking the source since the numbers might cause cognitive dissonance.

 

You are implying Obamacare costs are less than expected because Ezra Klein says so. It would be equally as sorry for me to post a story that by Ann Coulter saying Obamacare is bad.

What?

[gobiggergoredder]

(1)I didn't post the Forbes link. I also didn't present the Forbes link as fact.

(2) Backtrack all you want. This is reminisent of that gem you had about Romney's inability to spell America. If you don't remember that, click HERE.

(3)It has nothing to do with the CBO. Your OP doesn't say anything about the CBO. You posted Ezra Klein's opinion. Ezra is not a member of the extreme left wing media, he is carrying the baton.

(4)You're no idiot I know that. What you are good at is changing the subject. You picked a bad source for an OP. Judge him by his body of work.