Prophetess Pelosi

[verytwistedmind]

But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,

-Nancy Pelosi March 2010

It is often said that the new health care law will affect almost every American in some way. And, perhaps fittingly if unintentionally, no one may be more affected than members of Congress themselves.

In a new report, the Congressional Research Service says

Comments

[torpidai]

For example, it says, the law may “remove members of Congress and Congressional staff” from their current coverage, in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, before any alternatives are available

Now if you could sell that to the people as "They'll see how the other 1/2 live" you're surely on to a winner?

I'd suggest that all on health plans like that have a "Personal interest" and should be declared (Should that have come up in the UK HOP anyway, don't your congress peeps have to declare interests?

[torpidai]

They do have to declare interests(*), but as far a I'm aware getting health insurance from a government sponsored plan isn't considered an interest when amending government sponsored health insurance. Wow, it does sound pretty bad when you put it that way, doesn't it... ?

What you mean when you say it 'out loud' and comprehend the realities of the situation? Hell, as "The people" you pay for the decision-makers lifestyle, surely if all knew and ere able to comprehend the full story, "The people" should be in an equal (or better) position than those they pay to make such decisions?

As it stands it seems to me that instead of governance of the people, for the people, we have a body of "Better educated people" feathering nests of family and friends, certainly governments of the UK, nor the USA can really be considerred "the average", if they are, it sure as hell aint the Mode, nor the Mean Average! The Median, however I see as a real possibility, though if this is a reality I sure hope the redistribution of wealth ideal comes sometime

[verytwistedmind]

I have a lot of respect for the4 CBO scoring tricks they pulled to make the Health Care law deficit negative. Sure it's all smoke and mirrors but, as someone who works with numbers I respect anyone who can lie well with numbers. It's an art and a science.

[torpidai]

but, as someone who works with numbers I respect anyone who can lie well with numbers. It's an art and a science.

was called "Statistics" when I was at school.

3 Kinds of lies, Lies, Damned Lies and Government statistics ;)

It can't be that hard, Our Fuckwits will employ anyone with 4 GCSE's, and hell our uneployment rate which in reality must be in the order of 25million, the ONS presently have at well under 5Mill. but then again, when guvmint can choose ad hoc who to count, and those who aint been there for X months, those who will leave ranks in y months, these figures are realy easily manipulated ;) but as I'm sure we've shown you, Stop educating the kids in Math/English and you can sell them whatever you want them to believe ;)

[the_rukh]

Its a pretty convenient trick to just call inconvenient truths lies.

[verytwistedmind]

Schadenfreude

[penguin42]

Ohnos, there was a drafting error in the obamacare bill. THIS MEANS OPPONENTS WERE RIGHT ALL ALONG ABOUT EVERYTHING

[penguin42]

Defense against a drafting error?

[penguin42]

"No one knows what's in this bill" is disingenuous stance at this point. If you wish to inform yourself, there's a really good 66-page section-by-section summary produced by the CRS. You can get it here. There's also a similar review of the reconciliation bill here.

And yes, the section under question here is in the analysis, plain as day, Section 1312:
Requires the offering of only qualified health plans though Exchanges to Members of Congress and their staff.

The problem isn't the section itself, but the fact that when the section goes into effect isn't properly defined, and could be interpreted to go into effect before the exchanges are available. Which makes no sense, but technically it's an error.

Also notable is the "pre-existing condition for children" issue is also in the 66-page analysis, Sec 1255:
Section 10103 ... applies the prohibition on pre-existing condition exclusions with respect to children effective six months after enactment.
The problem here is people getting confused as to what "exclusions" meant

[penguin42]

and here's a copy of the CRS memo if anyone's interested

[sealwhiskers]

Good job man.