No, you just must select one from the "exchange".
Obamacare would outlaw individual private coverage.
- Thread starter red states rule
- Start date
No, I read it. But it provides none of the details. You can't just call up the House of Representatives and ask to speak to the Ways and Means Committee and get the Ways and Means Committee on the line.
It seems readily apparent that the authors, in saying they spoke to the "Ways and Means Committee," were being intentionally deceptive and you bought it hook, line and sinker. If they had said "we spoke to a Republican staffer on the Ways and Means Committee" or if they had said "we spoke to Republican Representative _______" it loses that aura of impartial authority that the "Ways and Means Committee" provides.
I'm *shocked* that you fell for it.
Right, which is very very different from the horseshit you were spreading that the only option people would have is "the public option, and you could no longer enroll in the private option as private insurance companies could not sign you up."
As I said, nice fear-mongering horseshit.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
whats this 2.5% tax on those who choose not to get health coverage?
I cannot, but somebody in the press can get a response where I cannot. Interestingly, it reads exactly as to what it intends.
OK. Maybe you don't quite get it or are playing dumb (again). The "Ways and Means Committee" is not a person. It is comprised of 41 representatives and scores of staff. It's not possible to get the "Ways and Means Committee" on the line unless you conference in all 41 of those Representatives.
You can speak to individual members of the Ways and Means Committee or staffers for the Ways and Means Committee, but that's not the "Ways and Means Committee." As I said, claiming to have checked with the "Ways and Means Committee" is an intentionally misleading claim to make people believe something that is just not true. More than likely, the authors checked with an individual (Republican) member of the committee or a (Republican) staffer. But saying that doesn't have the air of authority to dupe the rubes.
And you took it hook, link and sinker.
Yes, just like the "White House" isn't a "person", it is made up of many people working together to run one branch of the government, yet somebody can call up and get an official statement on a purse without even a question from you, but when somebody calls up a committee's staff in a different branch on a wholly more important issue they are to be ignored because you now dislike the answer that was given. I'm beginning to see a pattern.
There is one President. There are 41 members of the Ways and Means Committee. Apples and aardvarks, my friend.
There is no pattern, and I've explained to you why you are wrong (something you implicitly concede) on this issue. It's no wonder you want to pick this side fight rather than talk about the idiocy of your prior statements.
There is a committee staff as well as the regular staff for each of the members. It is silly to pretend that one could call the office of one branch but would be incapable of calling the offices of another.
What is implicit here is the idea that when the answer is disagreeable you start attempting to say it would be impossible to obtain.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
LOLZ
You're quite the dancer.
I guess you can pretend that you are unable to distinguish between the fact that there is one President and there are 41 members of a committee. I suppose when your entire argument rests on the premise that "the Ways and Means Committee says so" you have to engage in the self-delusion, but don't expect me to buy that bullshit.
No, I am however capable of understanding that a Committee at that level generates a staff of its own, while you reject contact with staffers of such an entity because you dislike what was found.
Please read each post previous carefully, it isn't "now" it's been throughout. It isn't difficult to understand what I wrote.
For your ease I'll quote a few of them here.
Yeah, that's when you started the backtracking bullshit. What about these:
When I pointed out to you the idiocy (and duplicity) of saying that they contacted "the Ways and Means committee" you started with talking about the "staffers." Well, even assuming you are correct that "staffers" were contacted (and the original piece that you rely on says nothing of staffers, by the by) why should anonymous likely Republican "staffers" be believed?
And again, I understand why you want to avoid the merits of your argument, but please, enough of this.
Let's just agree that the bill doesn't do what you originally claimed it does and move on.
Inane. I simply pointed out that like saying "they contacted the White House" what they really contacted were staffers and that Committees at that level have their own staff as you tried to play inane, "You don't call a committee because it is more than one person!" silliness.
You are really reaching now. You pretend that you cannot comprehend the simplest of statements because you dislike that what was said was accurate.
Inane. I simply pointed out that like saying "they contacted the White House" what they really contacted were staffers and that Committees at that level have their own staff.
You are really reaching now.
Like I said, if you can't tell the difference between one President (the White House) maintaining one position on things and 41 House members (the "Ways and Means Committee") each with different views and opinions on things, I can't help you.
And there it is, the "inane" drop. I knew it would come sooner or later. What's next, "rubbish?":
Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - White House denies manufacturer's boast that First Lady carried their $5,950 bag
Edit to respond to your edit: It's an "inane" two-fer. A rarity even for you. I know you're really full of shit now. And, on the merits, what was said was not accurate, as you implicitly conceded a long time ago.
Last edited:
Again, if you pretend that staffers cannot answer questions of this type then you might be able to hold that view, close your eyes and wish real hard and people might believe you.
Anyway, I use the terms in answer to your cursing, since I do not myself curse. What is funny is in that thread you can fully understand the concept of a staff, but in this context you pretend you cannot. That is actually essentially the definition of disingenuous. I know you dislike it, but repeating, "OMGzers! There is more than one member!" is really just foolish. The committee has a staff, and one can, like they contact the White House, contact that staff for clarification. Just like the committee can issue official statements, etc. through staff members who deliver it to the appropriate venues.
Pretending you are incapable of understanding my point doesn't change that people in the press, like IBD, often have contacts and can contact staffers for clarification.
No, staffers can answer questions, but let's not pretend that it represents the considered judgment of the Ways and Means Committee as a whole as the authors of the original piece misleadingly claimed (and you initially adopted).
In the end, what we have here is some anonymous staffer giving his or her erroneous reading of the bill. Nothing more. Yet, you keep claiming it is gospel. It isn't.