Well, Nancy did say that they had to pass the law in order to see what's in it.

The Democrats might also want to look at the verbiage. The insurance companies are not yet MANDATED to 'sell' to anyone.

This farce will continue. In the courts.

Nancy sold a bill of goods to the Democrats, indicating that once passed, they could move on. Nope, this is going to be re-visited again and again and again.

Does anyone have an actual tally of how many minutes the chain smoking comedian has been at the office because I don't know how he could have read 3 pages of "his" behemoth nightmare.
This is what you get with a knucklehead on tour doing stand up.......at least the ears make me laugh every time if not the joke that he's president.

"Hey, pull my finger and I'll show you how I feel about America."

So now we have the Democrats platform for the next election- Fixing the loopholes in the healthcare reform law.

"no, no, do what we meant, not what we said!"

As an engineer who has to write specifications, and has to imagine every possible misinterpretation that could possibly be made in even the shortest sentence, I have exactly ZERO sympathy for Congress on this one.

Paging Mr. Waxman - if you don't want "unintended consequences", don't rush crap like this through the process!

Nancy's folly will be followed up by Barry's next bungle, immigration reform or "cheat for a repeat", anytime they use the word "reform" watch out! Its code word for government take over and trillions in new scam taxes.

"Congressional Democrats were furious when they learned that some insurers disagreed with their interpretation of the law. they had screwed the pooch yet again."

That sounds a little more realistic.

I do have one alternate thought on this farce. They created a fucked up bill that would soon fall apart so that they could quickly move on to THE NEW AND IMPROVED SINGLE PAYER SYSTEM.

Also known as: "Let's tinker with it every couple of weeks for the next 20 years legislation. After all, everyone wants STABILITY."

"Congressional Democrats were furious when they learned that some insurers disagreed with their interpretation of the law."

If I were the Democrats I'd move on an agriculture bill that would use taxpayer money to manintain a herd of scapegoats to be periodically sacrificed to distract from their ineptitude.

Who actually wrote this bill up??? Obama wanted this pass and he signed it just so his tail could go up and he could say he pull one over us, so he can say he did something regardless if it makes things worst than what they were. But again, who wrote it up????????

The devil's always in the details...

I'm already seeing the argument (at other sites) that the insurance companies should go ahead and follow "do what we meant," instead of what was actually in the law. I've suggested that maybe the Dems should have put this sort of thing in a smaller, less-cumbersome, well-read law and passed it separately (along with most of the rest of the monstrosity), but the refrain is "it has to be done NOW!"

...so we end up with lousy laws, that don't do what was intended...

Who wrote it?

The original bill 'magically appeared' on Nancy's desk. It was then sent to committees for vetting. Remember Barry's EMERGENCY! Got to PASS IT NOW! Later Barry said the bill 'had been improved'.

With the cluster that's going on now, one has to wonder how BAD the original bill was.

My take is that the same clowns who want Single Payer came up with this gem, only to see their gateway 'public option' tossed away.
Nancy probably told them "Not yet, wait."

Another thing the Congress didn't notice was that also hidden within this law are their pink slips which become effective this November.

"Congressional Democrats were furious when they learned that some insurers disagreed with their interpretation of the law."

I'm sure any hour now Rat-face Waxman and Stupak the stupified will haul the insurance execs up to the hill for a condescending sociopath lib spittle fest.

The "funniest" part of all this is that, if they had just put the bill out there a week in advance like they promised, people could have actually read it, articles like this would already have been in the NYT before the vote, the lobbyists would have already pointed out the 'problems', and they could have 'fixed' them in reconciliation before it all went kerblooie.

In other words, if they had just kept their word and let people read it before they voted they could have done all the things they're now kicking themselves for not doing.

There is no truth to the rumor that the entire state of Virginia will be annexed by Kelo law in order to sufficiently house the many new agencies and the thousands of new homes made necessary to house the bureaucrat's families given birth to by Obamacare.(I just love those anti-abortion metaphors)

Though it is possible that a smaller portion of Maryland will be taken in order to house the many firearms training programs needed to bring the IRS up to snuff regarding its ability to enforce the many yet unknown portions of the legislation.

Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to decieve..

Obviously they didn't have time to do it right. It would have pushed the bill into the Easter recess, members would have gone home and either had to face their constituents or hide from the torches and pitchforks, and returned to Washington with a better sense of the public will - which is the last thing Pelosi wanted.

BTW ~ CBS still has their online poll asking us to grade Obama's first year, here: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-6116297-503544.html (in case anyone has an opinion they would like to share).

That CBS poll, looks like Barry's a straight F student. Even affirmative action cant help him now.

But, I've been told, repeatedly, that this was really all Republican ideas, assembled together by Dems, that the GOP then refused to vote in favor of.

If that's the case, it's really the REPUBLICAN's fault that things aren't clear and the bill doesn't do what the Dems said it would do, isn't it?

Therefore, I blame Booosshhh.

Gee, I wonder how our watchdog network news teams will cover this? I bet you'll hear crickets on this issue.....

There's a reason that being deceitful is sometimes referred to as "pulling a fast one".

Er, how would Rockefeller know that the ink isn't even dry on the bill yet? I'd bet a big lunch at Sancoucy's Restaurant in Washington that he hasn't even bothered to read it.

ObamaCare has a few preexisting conditions

How fitting that all of us that pay taxes will be giving it a subsidy to get it taken care of.

So, you righties want exclusion for pre-existing conditions banned, now.... You can take this one up after you're done fighting to save Medicare and Social Security, your new pet causes.

Surprised you hang around with the people you hate jose.

Get fitted with your Brown Shirt, jodhpurs and jack boots yet?

So, you Lefties want to maintain pre-existing conditions , now.... You can take this one up after you're done cutting back Medicare in the out-years, your new legislative commitment.

See how moronic that is, Jose?

Try actual argumentation (which requires the first step of thinking logically), instead of just randomly posting words generated from baseless assumptions.

Jose,

No one wants coverage denied or pre-existing conditions. We are merely mocking the morons on the left who have been trumpeting for the last year that Obamacare would be the immediate solution to all our healthcare problems.

So yes, we are openly mocking you when you get down to it. Try not to take it too hard.

Oh Jeez. The bill is junk...Wait a minute...huh....what did you say....that isn't news?

I thought I was the only one who knew that?

One of the characteristics of socialism, Ron, is that you'll never again be alone.

Ever.

The real question right now is WHAT DO THE REPUBLICANS DO?

The Dimwits who wrote this screwed up. You will now hear the bleating for "IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN". So they'll move forward to vote for the pre-existing coverage to begin now, that's how Barry sold it and they damned well can't back out of that now. You can bank on them bringing forth every kid on crutches, in wheelchairs and hospital beds as they make their pitch.

Do the Republicans continue to vote NO? That's a hard decision to make, considering the attention span of a lot of voters is about 5 minutes between commercials.

One other thought, if this does go into effect NOW, won't this screw up the CBO score? Or did the Dim's also believe insurance companies were going to do this as a 'freebie'?

Yes the GOP continues to vote NO!

This is not about sucking up to the electorate. The electorate doesn't want this POS bill. So the GOP should vote for a provision that will make it MORE expensive? Absolutely not! Vote NO. Vote NO on every fix until we can repeal the mess.

jose - "So, you righties want exclusion for pre-existing conditions banned, now.... You can take this one up after you're done fighting to save Medicare and Social Security, your new pet causes."

Um no troll.

If you had just a bit of reading comprehension you could see it was your LUV interests, the DEMs and obama who rammed thru this bill - advertised it as covering certain things - when in fact they don't

And BTW, Social Security isn't a new pet peeve, its an old one and one Bush addressed but was blocked from doing any damn thing from these very same DEM-ASSHATS!

I doubt you remember that, you were too busy quilting Bush Lied, Bush is hitler t-shirts.

I'm thinking the same thing jim. The Dim's wrote it and passed it, they own it. Let them fix it. As in every other week when they find some new screw-up. And the Republicans should just demand a new CBO score each time.

Nancy thought the worst was passed. Instead, this is going to be the bill 'that keeps on giving'. Right up to November.

Exactly. Rescore it every time until it is repealed. No voting to fix it. Just repeal it.

I'm trying to come up with just one good thing this arrogant administration has done, and I just can't find one. Somewhere in the socialistic minds of these imbiciles there has to be a mistake they made that was good for the country because they would not have done it on purpose.
Madalyn

"Insurers said they would comply with regulations the government issues...."

Even the one's they haven't made up yet.

Now Stevie, you going to PAY for all those pre-existing conditions?

We also have the 'minor problem' that the IRS lacks enforcement powers against those selfish young who refuse to purchase health care insurance in order to cover all those pre-existing conditions and those who can afford just about anything else but health care. This means those EVIL insurance companies will end up bankrupt and we go to ..... TA DA! Government run Single Payer. Which is odd when you come to think of it. Because that's what those who originally wrote this bill wanted in the first place.

Ingenious! A government law passed with the sole purpose of putting a legal business OUT OF BUSINESS.

But not to worry. "The Government" will pay your health care bills AND TELL YOU HOW MUCH YOU WILL PAY THEM.

So what will be the governments 'excuse' when health care costs continue to rise?

Oh, and Stevie, spare the bullshit that costs won't go up.

If you do, I have 4 words. United States Post Office.

"And sick children will benefit from the Democratic Party's efforts."

And once again sorry assed Stevie doesn't answer the question. BECAUSE HE DOESN'T HAVE A CLUE!

Obamacare isn't exactly playing to rave reviews in Flordia. According to a Mason-Dixon poll, only 34 percent of Florida voters support the new law, while 54 percent are against it. Seniors seem somehow not to appreciate seeing Medicare slashed; they oppose Obamacare by a margin of 66-25. Independents are not much more impressed; they oppose it by a margin of 62-34.

One thing you can count on, Stevie. SENIORS VOTE!

Mr. Green, please explain something to me. If "liberals" are so much smarter than conservatives, then why do I have to crank my brain down to half speed to answer posts like yours?

Nobody in this thread was "celebrating the notion that the insurers would deny coverage to children with pre-existing conditions". The point of the original post and the following comments is that an organization composed mostly of lawyers, who employ about 3.5 boatloads of other lawyers who actually write the laws, couldn't get their intentions written out clearly. Language is their stock-in-trade, and they screwed the pooch.

As for the right being morally bankrupt, you might want to use a mirror. You want all children to have health care? You are free to pay for it, or start a foundation to fund your idea and ask for donations. I might even contribute. But don't try to tell me that stealing my money for your pet cause is moral. By your "logic", it's perfectly fine for me to take someone else's money at gunpoint if I can't pay for my own health care. Injecting a third party into the equation to steal for me doesn't make it acceptable.

alanstorm -

You have to understand the reality that the Steve twins (Green and P) inhabit isn't one that actually exists. It's hard to tell if they really believe their cant or if they're just acting out. They HAVE to have an enemy to rage against - and if that enemy isn't cooperative, they've got to make up one. (Witness the 'racism' charges, the accusation that we don't care about children, and general accusations of 'hatred'.)

The point of the original post and the following comments is that an organization composed mostly of lawyers, who employ about 3.5 boatloads of other lawyers who actually write the laws, couldn't get their intentions written out clearly. Language is their stock-in-trade, and they screwed the pooch.

Bingo.

JLawson (may I call you J?):

I do realize that the Greens inhabit an alternate reality; where the existence of any bad situation can be fixed simply by making someone else responsible for solving it. A prime example other than health care: Pseudo-intellectuals (aside: when exactly did "liberal" and "intellectual" become one-word oxymorons?) who whine and cry that "we need green energy NOW!". This is obviously self-contradicting; if they actually wanted it that bad, they would be studying the sciences and engineering required to make it happen, as opposed to demanding that it magically occur somehow.

I am still awaiting a satisfactory answer as to why our "intellectual superiors" on the left so frequently exhibit such an amazing inability to read and comprehend simple phrases.

No, I really don't ever expect to get a satisfactory answer.

"Only this time they got their asses handed to them by the Democrats. And there will be more "cramming down the throats" to follow."

Yes, the sodomizing of America will continue until we castrate the offenders

So, Mr. Green tells me that someone with his head up is a$$ and legs crossed still manages to be smarter than him. Apparently, in liberal-land, this is an insult of some kind.

Mr. Green again demonstrates his ignorance of the use of language. The lack of ability with reason has already been demonstrated - I anxiously await new developments in the field.

Maybe you, personally, have not claimed that liberals were geniuses - but many other liberals do. They run (no-doubt government-funded) studies to bolster this pathetic notion. And then they go and ruin the image by speaking or writing, and the lack of intellect becomes apparent to all.