ACA grows to 20,000 pages plus

[Bignugget 0]

DaVinci

Quote

You guys believe Congress operates above the bar as far as things like making sure the I's are dotted etc. go

No, we are not saying they DO. We are saying they SHOULD.

If your client buys a car from you and does not bother to read the details... Who is on the hook? THEM. But if congress does not read the details we ALL are on the hook. Potentially 313M people.

And again, (you didn't answer this before)... When the person buying a car from you finds out that since they didn't ready the fine print... Who is at fault for the higher interest rate? You or them? Who pays for it, you or them?

***Didn't one crazy right winger go on a 22 hour binge speech against the ACA? ....Why didn't he read it out loud for everyone?

You would have to ask him.

But why don't you ask why those who voted FOR it... Didn't bother to read it?

As opposed to those who voted against it and didn't bother to read it?

Solid point.


"And again, (you didn't answer this before)... When the person buying a car from you finds out that since they didn't ready the fine print... Who is at fault for the higher interest rate? You or them? Who pays for it, you or them?"


Rhetorical, but for fun. They do.

In this case "they" is everyone including Congress, they would be screwing everyone, which includes themselves.

[linebckr83 3]

Bignugget

In this case "they" is everyone including Congress, they would be screwing everyone, which includes themselves.

Uhhh...they voted that they are exempt....so no they aren't screwing themselves. Did you miss that part?

"Are you coming to the party?
Oh I'm coming, but I won't be there!"
Flying Hellfish #828
Dudist #52

[turtlespeed 212]

linebckr83

***
In this case "they" is everyone including Congress, they would be screwing everyone, which includes themselves.

Uhhh...they voted that they are exempt....so no they aren't screwing themselves. Did you miss that part?

It's called willful ignorance.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Bignugget 0]

linebckr83

***
In this case "they" is everyone including Congress, they would be screwing everyone, which includes themselves.

Uhhh...they voted that they are exempt....so no they aren't screwing themselves. Did you miss that part?

That is untrue. They still have to carry insurance or pay a fine just like everyone else, so they aren't exempted from anything.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/09/27/is-congress-exempt-from-obamacare/2883635/

"But the provision was silent about who would pay for that insurance, or how those payments would be treated. The exchanges were intended for uninsured people who couldn't get health insurance through their employer or qualify for Medicaid. Those who had access to health benefits meeting minimum coverage levels could still purchase insurance on the exchanges — but without a subsidy and using after-tax income.

INTERACTIVE: Breaking down the Affordable Care Act

Holding members of Congress and their staffs to that standard would have the effect of stripping them of the employer-paid health coverage they currently get, which is the same as any other federal employee. So the Office of Personnel Management issued a proposed rule in August making clear that the government would continue to pay the employer contribution for congressional health benefits at the same rate as if members were still on the federal plan."

Also, do you really think a member of Congress is going to be walking around without health insurance because their premiums are going to rise a bit?

[rushmc 18]

Bignugget

***

Quote

You guys believe Congress operates above the bar as far as things like making sure the I's are dotted etc. go

No, we are not saying they DO. We are saying they SHOULD.

If your client buys a car from you and does not bother to read the details... Who is on the hook? THEM. But if congress does not read the details we ALL are on the hook. Potentially 313M people.

And again, (you didn't answer this before)... When the person buying a car from you finds out that since they didn't ready the fine print... Who is at fault for the higher interest rate? You or them? Who pays for it, you or them?

***Didn't one crazy right winger go on a 22 hour binge speech against the ACA? ....Why didn't he read it out loud for everyone?

You would have to ask him.

But why don't you ask why those who voted FOR it... Didn't bother to read it?

As opposed to those who voted against it and didn't bother to read it?

Solid point.


"And again, (you didn't answer this before)... When the person buying a car from you finds out that since they didn't ready the fine print... Who is at fault for the higher interest rate? You or them? Who pays for it, you or them?"


Rhetorical, but for fun. They do.

In this case "they" is everyone including Congress, they would be screwing everyone, which includes themselves.

First fail is they exempt themselves
Second fail is there were more than one who (claimed) read it and voted against it

As opposed to Queen Pelosi telling us they had to pass it to see what was in it

So they could vote for it, before voting against it

And with Reid and Joking Joe thier leaders, you just cant help but love em

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Bignugget 0]

No.

They didn't.

[rushmc 18]

Bignugget

No.

They didn't.

You have already proven you fail at mind reading


You dont have to prove that fact yet again

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

As opposed to those who voted against it and didn't bother to read it?

Solid point.

How do you know they didn't read it? We had testaments from those who voted FOR it that they didn't read it. Besides, not reading it and not trying to make it law is a lesser evil than just voting for it and not knowing what is inside it.

To put it in car sales speak.... Why should I read all of the loan documents if I AM NOT buying a car?

Who in your opinion should read all the loan documents?
a). The person signing them.
b). A guy NOT buying a car.

Quote

In this case "they" is everyone including Congress, they would be screwing everyone, which includes themselves

FALSE, they are exempt.... Read the bill.

[Bignugget 0]

DaVinci

Quote

As opposed to those who voted against it and didn't bother to read it?

Solid point.

How do you know they didn't read it? We had testaments from those who voted FOR it that they didn't read it. Besides, not reading it and not trying to make it law is a lesser evil than just voting for it and not knowing what is inside it.

To put it in car sales speak.... Why should I read all of the loan documents if I AM NOT buying a car?

Who in your opinion should read all the loan documents?
a). The person signing them.
b). A guy NOT buying a car.

***In this case "they" is everyone including Congress, they would be screwing everyone, which includes themselves

FALSE, they are exempt.... Read the bill.

No, they aren't.

None of you can link anything that says Congress does not have to carry health insurance. Its a blatant lie.

I already linked something that shows quite clearly not only are they not exempt, but they damn near had FEWER options than the rest of America and were nearly forced to leave the plan their employer offers.

[Bignugget 0]

"The verdict:

While there are legitimate concerns about President Obama’s health care law — much of which kicks into gear Oct. 1 — this isn’t one.

Critics of Obamacare want it both ways. When Congress and its staff were treated like workers for any other large employer, the president’s health care plan was deemed faulty because Congress didn’t have to use the plan. So then after a Republican amendment forced Congress to participate, critics still want to call it faulty because … well, because of a flat-out falsehood that Congress really is still exempt.

This is the type of claim that merits the lowest truthmeter rating, signifying willful or malicious disregard for the truth.

Truthmeter: 0 (out of 10)"


Bolded for comedy.


http://www.rgj.com/article/20131001/NEWS1801/131001004/Fact-Checker-Is-Congress-exempted-from-Obamacare-

[champu 1]

Bignugget

***But why don't you ask why those who voted FOR it... Didn't bother to read it?

As opposed to those who voted against it and didn't bother to read it?

A thousand times yes.

I only have to find one unacceptable thing in a contract to not sign it. In order to sign it, I have to ensure it is devoid, in its entirety, of unacceptable things.

That's why my advice on state ballot measures is always "if you didn't even read it, don't vote on it. If you read it and you either disagree or part of it doesn't make any sense to you, vote no. If you read it, understand it, and agree with it, then vote yes."

Now, that said...

turtlespeed

I have read every word of every contract I am involved in, either as the contracto or the contracted.

Given the length and the constantly changing nature of licensing agreements, terms of service, and warranty disclaimers on everything in existence, I highly doubt this. Otherwise, god forbid I ever get stuck behind you in a line for anything anywhere.

The nature of the document and the product/service will dictate the amount of attention you need to give it. I don't care at all about the fine print booklet shoved in the packaging of an HDMI cable or the terms of service on this website. If I'm buying a cell phone, subscribing to cable, or renting a car, I'll scan the whole thing but I'm really just looking for fees. Once you've done it a few times they're pretty easy to sniff out. Buying/refinancing a house, financing a car, buying insurance, hiring a general contractor, taking a job, voting for ballot meausres... these you need to be very particular about because the stakes can be a lot higher if you miss something.

Yes everyone, I put ballot measures in the last group as they are very frequently major purchases. (See Exhibit 1A)

turtlespeed

I wonder if you read your waivers at the DZ.

Waivers at dropzones are an interesting category. My assumption is that they put everything they can possibly think of in there and say they aren't liable no matter what and I'm not even allowed to try suing anyone. And that's fine because you'd have to get so far out into a pathological case where someone who worked for the dropzone actively tried to kill me before I'd bring legal action, and I don't care what the waiver says, it's not going to protect against that. So while the gravity (har har) of the contract is very serious, I usually do more of a skim, making sure they don't squeeze anything weird in there like try to claim ownership of photos or video I shoot while jumping there.

[Bignugget 0]

champu

******But why don't you ask why those who voted FOR it... Didn't bother to read it?

As opposed to those who voted against it and didn't bother to read it?

A thousand times yes.

I only have to find one unacceptable thing in a contract to not sign it. In order to sign it, I have to ensure it is devoid, in its entirety, of unacceptable things.

That's why my advice on state ballot measures is always "if you didn't even read it, don't vote on it. If you read it and you either disagree or part of it doesn't make any sense to you, vote no. If you read it, understand it, and agree with it, then vote yes."

Now, that said...



good point.


I can just read the title and already know I am against it.

No need to read on.

How can I support it by just reading the title?

Impossible. Gotta read all 20,000 pages.

[champu 1]

Bignugget

I can just read the title and already know I am against it.

No need to read on.

How can I support it by just reading the title?

Impossible. Gotta read all 20,000 pages.

The title of pretty much any legislation is the least useful part of it to read. (see: Defense of Marriage Act, Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act, etc.)

[Bignugget 0]

champu

***I can just read the title and already know I am against it.

No need to read on.

How can I support it by just reading the title?

Impossible. Gotta read all 20,000 pages.

The title of pretty much any legislation is the least useful part of it to read. (see: Defense of Marriage Act, Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act, etc.)

but we agree if i dont like the title i can stop right there and vote no.

if i do like the title, i have to read the entire bill word for word to make sure there is nothing i do not like, before it is acceptable to vote yes.

[turtlespeed 212]

Bignugget

******I can just read the title and already know I am against it.

No need to read on.

How can I support it by just reading the title?

Impossible. Gotta read all 20,000 pages.

The title of pretty much any legislation is the least useful part of it to read. (see: Defense of Marriage Act, Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act, etc.)

but we agree if i dont like the title i can stop right there and vote no.

if i do like the title, i have to read the entire bill word for word to make sure there is nothing i do not like, before it is acceptable to vote yes.

Nope, only until you find something that you disagree with and wont vote for.

If that is the last sentence in the bill then I guess you read the whole thing.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Bignugget 0]

Isn't that what I said?

Why did you say nope?

Steps to deciding on whether to vote yes/no:

1) Read bill until you read something you do not like.

2) If you find something you do not like, vote no.

If that is the title, no problem, if its on page 2 no issue, if its the very last sentence, cool beans.

3) If you have read the entire bill word for word and agree with every word of it, vote yes.

[champu 1]

Bignugget

***The title of pretty much any legislation is the least useful part of it to read. (see: Defense of Marriage Act, Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act, etc.)

but we agree if i dont like the title i can stop right there and vote no.

if i do like the title, i have to read the entire bill word for word to make sure there is nothing i do not like, before it is acceptable to vote yes.

In addition to often being misleading, titles are inoperative, so there's never any reason to make a decision based on the bill's title.

In fact, the entire forward/summary you see at the beginning of legislation that supposedly tells you what the bill does is inoperative. It's the team that wrote its sales pitch. It's not until you get down to the part where it starts talking about adding, removing, and changing parts of sections of various legal code that bills start doing anything.

/edited to add side note: I didn't say "one thing I don't like" I said "one thing that is unacceptable"

[turtlespeed 212]

Bignugget

Isn't that what I said?

Why did you say nope?

Steps to deciding on whether to vote yes/no:

1) Read bill until you read something you do not like.

2) If you find something you do not like, vote no.

If that is the title, no problem, if its on page 2 no issue, if its the very last sentence, cool beans.

3) If you have read the entire bill word for word and agree with every word of it, vote yes.

If you are that shallow, then yes.

Most people are more reasonable, but you are who you are.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Bignugget 0]

champu

******The title of pretty much any legislation is the least useful part of it to read. (see: Defense of Marriage Act, Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act, etc.)

but we agree if i dont like the title i can stop right there and vote no.

if i do like the title, i have to read the entire bill word for word to make sure there is nothing i do not like, before it is acceptable to vote yes.

In addition to often being misleading, titles are inoperative, so there's never any reason to make a decision based on the bill's title.

In fact, the entire forward/summary you see at the beginning of legislation that supposedly tells you what the bill does is inoperative. It's the team that wrote its sales pitch. It's not until you get down to the part where it starts talking about adding, removing, and changing parts of sections of various legal code that bills start doing anything.

Gotcha.

But under no circumstances should you start by reading the entire bill, and then form an opinion on its entirety?

Just read until you see something you don't like. But not the title, or the intro, they don't count.

[turtlespeed 212]

Bignugget

*********The title of pretty much any legislation is the least useful part of it to read. (see: Defense of Marriage Act, Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act, etc.)

but we agree if i dont like the title i can stop right there and vote no.

if i do like the title, i have to read the entire bill word for word to make sure there is nothing i do not like, before it is acceptable to vote yes.

In addition to often being misleading, titles are inoperative, so there's never any reason to make a decision based on the bill's title.

In fact, the entire forward/summary you see at the beginning of legislation that supposedly tells you what the bill does is inoperative. It's the team that wrote its sales pitch. It's not until you get down to the part where it starts talking about adding, removing, and changing parts of sections of various legal code that bills start doing anything.

Gotcha.

But under no circumstances should you start by reading the entire bill, and then form an opinion on its entirety?

Just read until you see something you don't like. But not the title, or the intro, they don't count.

Slow learner ain't ya?

He clarified . . . something UNACCEPTABLE not something he didn't like.

unless unacceptable is too large a word for you.
then it makes sense.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Bignugget 0]

turtlespeed

************The title of pretty much any legislation is the least useful part of it to read. (see: Defense of Marriage Act, Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act, etc.)

but we agree if i dont like the title i can stop right there and vote no.

if i do like the title, i have to read the entire bill word for word to make sure there is nothing i do not like, before it is acceptable to vote yes.

In addition to often being misleading, titles are inoperative, so there's never any reason to make a decision based on the bill's title.

In fact, the entire forward/summary you see at the beginning of legislation that supposedly tells you what the bill does is inoperative. It's the team that wrote its sales pitch. It's not until you get down to the part where it starts talking about adding, removing, and changing parts of sections of various legal code that bills start doing anything.

Gotcha.

But under no circumstances should you start by reading the entire bill, and then form an opinion on its entirety?

Just read until you see something you don't like. But not the title, or the intro, they don't count.

Slow learner ain't ya?

He clarified . . . something UNACCEPTABLE not something he didn't like.

unless unacceptable is too large a word for you.
then it makes sense.

ok....


Gotcha.

But under no circumstances should you start by reading the entire bill, and then form an opinion on its entirety?

Just read until you see something you find unacceptable. But not the title, or the intro, they don't count.


There you go.

[champu 1]

Bignugget

But under no circumstances should you start by reading the entire bill, and then form an opinion on its entirety?

Just read until you see something you find unacceptable. But not the title, or the intro, they don't count.

When it comes to a vote? Yeah, that's correct. It's pass/fail. There's no C-, B+, gold star, etc.

The first time you get the bill and you're in the process of negotiations you can read the whole thing, redline out stuff you won't accept, and toss it back. If they go back and screw with it for a month and bring it to a vote and the stuff you struck out is still in there, you don't have to read the whole thing to vote no.

By the time the bill is out of committee and goes to a general vote or the measure is on the ballot, you're not negotiating any more. pass/fail.

[Stumpy 256]

turtlespeed

************The title of pretty much any legislation is the least useful part of it to read. (see: Defense of Marriage Act, Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act, etc.)

but we agree if i dont like the title i can stop right there and vote no.

if i do like the title, i have to read the entire bill word for word to make sure there is nothing i do not like, before it is acceptable to vote yes.

In addition to often being misleading, titles are inoperative, so there's never any reason to make a decision based on the bill's title.

In fact, the entire forward/summary you see at the beginning of legislation that supposedly tells you what the bill does is inoperative. It's the team that wrote its sales pitch. It's not until you get down to the part where it starts talking about adding, removing, and changing parts of sections of various legal code that bills start doing anything.

Gotcha.

But under no circumstances should you start by reading the entire bill, and then form an opinion on its entirety?

Just read until you see something you don't like. But not the title, or the intro, they don't count.

Slow learner ain't ya?

He clarified . . . something UNACCEPTABLE not something he didn't like.

unless unacceptable is too large a word for you.
then it makes sense.

Unacceptable means different things to different people. Its pretty clear that for most of the Republican side of the house, the fact that it's written by the Dems makes it unacceptable.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[turtlespeed 212]

Stumpy

***************The title of pretty much any legislation is the least useful part of it to read. (see: Defense of Marriage Act, Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act, etc.)

but we agree if i dont like the title i can stop right there and vote no.

if i do like the title, i have to read the entire bill word for word to make sure there is nothing i do not like, before it is acceptable to vote yes.

In addition to often being misleading, titles are inoperative, so there's never any reason to make a decision based on the bill's title.

In fact, the entire forward/summary you see at the beginning of legislation that supposedly tells you what the bill does is inoperative. It's the team that wrote its sales pitch. It's not until you get down to the part where it starts talking about adding, removing, and changing parts of sections of various legal code that bills start doing anything.

Gotcha.

But under no circumstances should you start by reading the entire bill, and then form an opinion on its entirety?

Just read until you see something you don't like. But not the title, or the intro, they don't count.

Slow learner ain't ya?

He clarified . . . something UNACCEPTABLE not something he didn't like.

unless unacceptable is too large a word for you.
then it makes sense.

Unacceptable means different things to different people. Its pretty clear that for most of the Republican side of the house, the fact that it's written by the Dems makes it unacceptable.

Ah, and perception is reality, right?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Stumpy 256]

Well when it came from Romney, there didnt seem to be a problem. So no, reality is reality, your perception is something a long way from that.

Never try to eat more than you can lift