Congress, Fearing 'Brain Drain,' Seeks to Opt Out of Participating in Obamacare's Exchanges

[brattt]

Democratic Congressman: 'Not Fair' To Subject Congress To Obamacare Just
Like Everyone Else


http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/06/13/democrat-not-fair-to-subject-congress-to-obamacare-just-like-everyone-else/

[TruthSeeker]

Why should we be surprised? Congress routinely exempts itself from the
crap that they impose on the rest of us.




--
TruthSeeker

"On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog."

[Pepe Papon]

On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 16:23:14 -0700, "brattt" <af3...@webnntp.invalid>
wrote:

>Democratic Congressman: 'Not Fair' To Subject Congress To Obamacare Just
>Like Everyone Else
>
>
>http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/06/13/democrat-not-fair-to-subject-congress-to-obamacare-just-like-everyone-else/

If those quotes are accurate, then that Congressman has succeeded in
making himself look like a drooling, hypocritical idiot while also
making Obamacare look very bad.
--

Pepe Papon

[brattt]

This is the politico article - as far as I know that are unbiased

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/obamacare-lawmakers-health-insurance-92691.html

I have read many articles about droves leaving DC, but this was the first
time I had heard this.

[Pepe Papon]

On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 04:10:50 -0700, "brattt" <af3...@webnntp.invalid>
wrote:

That article doesn't make Obamacare sound nearly as horrible as the
Forbes article does. It's just that the poor lawmakers and their
staff are going to lose their subsidized benefits.
--

Pepe Papon

[ChrisRobin]

Congressional "brain drain," lol. Would anyone even notice?

[risky biz]

I can't see how it could be noticed even though I believe there are a
small number of them that do have some brains. They aren't in large enough
numbers to makr any difference even if every one of them did have enough
character to act the way they should.

[brattt]

Obamacare Causing Nearly Half Of Small Businesses To Freeze Hiring: Poll

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/19/obamacare-small-business-hiring_n_3468498.html

[Pepe Papon]

On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 15:47:32 -0700, "brattt" <af3...@webnntp.invalid>
wrote:

So, does this mean that Obamacare is bad or does it mean that the
noise machine has done a good job of scaring people?
--

Pepe Papon

[TruthSeeker]

Yes.

[brattt]

What noise machine are you referring too? Surely you aren't insinuating
that the R's have a monopoly.

And maybe if the government would spell out just what is going to happen
or not on October 1 there wouldn't be any kind (or perhaps more) hysteria.
When they state it in terms that even our elected officials (including
the past speaker of the house) can't understand they are asking for it.

[VegasJerry]

More bull-shit propaganda you've drank. You actually believe a company will intentionally lose money by not hiring employees they need? They've been feeding you this bullshit for years. "Waa! Waa! Don't tax us more or we'll close down. Waa! Waa! We're the job creators and if you don't treat us nice, we'll intentionally lose money - that will show you!"

Have some more cool aid, fool.

[Bill Vanek]

On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 14:07:02 -0700 (PDT), VegasJerry <jer...@cox.net>
wrote:

Why won't you answer the question???????

[Pepe Papon]

On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 04:22:25 -0700, "brattt" <af3...@webnntp.invalid>

wrote:

>On Jun 21 2013 12:41 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 15:47:32 -0700, "brattt" <af3...@webnntp.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Jun 15 2013 6:23 PM, brattt wrote:
>> >
>> >> Democratic Congressman: 'Not Fair' To Subject Congress To Obamacare Just
>> >> Like Everyone Else
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/06/13/democrat-not-fair-to-subject-congress-to-obamacare-just-like-everyone-else/
>> >
>> >Obamacare Causing Nearly Half Of Small Businesses To Freeze Hiring: Poll
>> >
>>
>>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/19/obamacare-small-business-hiring_n_3468498.html
>>
>> So, does this mean that Obamacare is bad or does it mean that the
>> noise machine has done a good job of scaring people?
>> --
>>
>> Pepe Papon
>
>
>What noise machine are you referring too? Surely you aren't insinuating
>that the R's have a monopoly.

I said nothing about a monopoly.

>And maybe if the government would spell out just what is going to happen
>or not on October 1 there wouldn't be any kind (or perhaps more) hysteria.
> When they state it in terms that even our elected officials (including
>the past speaker of the house) can't understand they are asking for it.

What should they spell out that they haven't?
--

Pepe Papon

[brattt]

On Jun 22 2013 1:20 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 04:22:25 -0700, "brattt" <af3...@webnntp.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >On Jun 21 2013 12:41 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 15:47:32 -0700, "brattt" <af3...@webnntp.invalid>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Jun 15 2013 6:23 PM, brattt wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Democratic Congressman: 'Not Fair' To Subject Congress To Obamacare
Just
> >> >> Like Everyone Else
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>
>
>>http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/06/13/democrat-not-fair-to-subject-congress-to-obamacare-just-like-everyone-else/
> >> >
> >> >Obamacare Causing Nearly Half Of Small Businesses To Freeze Hiring: Poll
> >> >
> >>
>
>>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/19/obamacare-small-business-hiring_n_3468498.html
> >>
> >> So, does this mean that Obamacare is bad or does it mean that the
> >> noise machine has done a good job of scaring people?
> >> --
> >>
> >> Pepe Papon
> >
> >
> >What noise machine are you referring too? Surely you aren't insinuating
> >that the R's have a monopoly.
>
> I said nothing about a monopoly.

cool - so the democratic noise machine is murking this as much.

> >And maybe if the government would spell out just what is going to happen
> >or not on October 1 there wouldn't be any kind (or perhaps more) hysteria.
> > When they state it in terms that even our elected officials (including
> >the past speaker of the house) can't understand they are asking for it.
>
> What should they spell out that they haven't?
> --
>
> Pepe Papon

The fact that nobody really understands it except apparently you should be
proof that it has never been thoroughly explained.

[VegasJerry]

.
.> Why won't you answer the question???????

I did; what part didn't you understand?

[VegasJerry]

On Saturday, June 22, 2013 4:30:35 AM UTC-7, brattt wrote:
> On Jun 22 2013 1:20 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 04:22:25 -0700, "brattt" <af3...@webnntp.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >On Jun 21 2013 12:41 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 15:47:32 -0700, "brattt" <af3...@webnntp.invalid>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >On Jun 15 2013 6:23 PM, brattt wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> Democratic Congressman: 'Not Fair' To Subject Congress To Obamacare
> Just
> > >> >> Like Everyone Else
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >>
> >
> >>http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/06/13/democrat-not-fair-to-subject-congress-to-obamacare-just-like-everyone-else/
> > >> >
> > >> >Obamacare Causing Nearly Half Of Small Businesses To Freeze Hiring: Poll
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> >>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/19/obamacare-small-business-hiring_n_3468498.html
> > >>
> > >> So, does this mean that Obamacare is bad or does it mean that the
> > >> noise machine has done a good job of scaring people?
> > >> --
> > >>
> > >> Pepe Papon
> > >
> > >
> > >What noise machine are you referring too? Surely you aren't insinuating
> > >that the R's have a monopoly.
> >
> > I said nothing about a monopoly.

.
.> cool - so the democratic noise machine is murking this as much.

SS making up another position.

> > >And maybe if the government would spell out just what is going to happen
> > >or not on October 1 there wouldn't be any kind (or perhaps more) hysteria.
> > > When they state it in terms that even our elected officials (including
> > >the past speaker of the house) can't understand they are asking for it.
> >
> > What should they spell out that they haven't?
> > --
> >
> > Pepe Papon

.
.> The fact that nobody really understands it except apparently you should

> be proof that it has never been thoroughly explained.

Suzy Q puking up the right wing cool aid that, "Golly gee, we just don't understand this. It's sooo complicated." Give it up, SS, they know exactly what's going on. Why do you think they've voted 47 times, to get rid of it?

[Bill Vanek]

On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 05:29:35 -0700 (PDT), VegasJerry <jer...@cox.net>

The answer part.

[Pepe Papon]

On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 04:30:35 -0700, "brattt" <af3...@webnntp.invalid>
wrote:

>
>

>> >And maybe if the government would spell out just what is going to happen
>> >or not on October 1 there wouldn't be any kind (or perhaps more) hysteria.
>> > When they state it in terms that even our elected officials (including
>> >the past speaker of the house) can't understand they are asking for it.
>>
>> What should they spell out that they haven't?
>> --
>>
>> Pepe Papon
>
>
>The fact that nobody really understands it except apparently you should be
>proof that it has never been thoroughly explained.

Where did I claim expertise? I've studied the law a bit, so I'm
familiar with the basics.

"The fact that nobody understands it" is vague. It's not clear than
any further explanation is necessary. The law is written, and anyone
who is interested has access to it. There are, in addition, many
articles and resources where the law is analyzed and explained.

There's a major change coming to a large, complex, and expensive
system. In such a situation, it's to be expected that there will is
uncertainty about how it will all turn out.

Critics of the law have done an excellent job scaring people. People
are reacting to the fear, which may or may not prove justified.
--

Pepe Papon

[VegasJerry]

And as in any major laws being implemented - such as SS, Medicare, et cetera - it requires fine tuning and minor changes as it goes. Presently, the Democrats are attempting such small changes. But guess what? The Republicans - that keep telling you it's simply too complicated for you - are blocking (as usual) these fine tuning measures.

I, myself, went through the same process when I affected a small change in a California law (almost 50-years ago). The players affected have their politicians whine at committee hearings, "There are too many new rules! It's too complicated! We need fewer rules!"

They know exactly what's in the new Obamacare law because those being affected by it are still bribing (donating to the reelection of) their politicians to try stopping it or any changes.

Jerry 'n Vegas

[TruthSeeker]

On 23/6/13 12:24 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:

> There's a major change coming to a large, complex, and expensive
> system. In such a situation, it's to be expected that there will is
> uncertainty about how it will all turn out.

Yes. Also, unlike the previous such programs as Social Security and
Medicare, it was a purely partisan initiative. I had no bipartisan
support. That itself should have been a red flag.

Partisan supporters of the law will claim that was the Republicans'
fault, that they were unwilling to support any reasonable health-care
reform bill. Such claims are just narrow-minded politics.

> Critics of the law have done an excellent job scaring people. People
> are reacting to the fear, which may or may not prove justified.

Yes they have, and yes they are. I can safely predict that not all of
the fears will prove justified, but that some of them will.

[Clave]

"TruthSeeker" <Truth...@nof-nspam.us> wrote in message
news:_6qdnW1seaZSylrM...@giganews.com...

> On 23/6/13 12:24 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>
>> There's a major change coming to a large, complex, and expensive
>> system. In such a situation, it's to be expected that there will is
>> uncertainty about how it will all turn out.
>
> Yes. Also, unlike the previous such programs as Social Security and

> Medicare, it was a purely partisan initiative...

What an ignorant, pointless, dickheaded remark.

Modern Republicans would oppose a resolution observing that the sun rises in
the east if it were sponsored by a Democrat.

Jim

[Pepe Papon]

On Sun, 23 Jun 2013 14:17:17 -0600, TruthSeeker
<Truth...@nof-nspam.us> wrote:

>On 23/6/13 12:24 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>
>> There's a major change coming to a large, complex, and expensive
>> system. In such a situation, it's to be expected that there will is
>> uncertainty about how it will all turn out.
>
>Yes. Also, unlike the previous such programs as Social Security and
>Medicare, it was a purely partisan initiative. I had no bipartisan
>support. That itself should have been a red flag.
>
>Partisan supporters of the law will claim that was the Republicans'
>fault, that they were unwilling to support any reasonable health-care
>reform bill. Such claims are just narrow-minded politics.

So you say, but with nothing to support such an assertion.
--

Pepe Papon

[Truthseeker]

As expected, you came back with the mantra the Democrats have fed you.
You are so gullible and predictable.



--
Truthseeker

[Truthseeker]

See Clave's response for an example.



--
Truthseeker

[Clave]

"Truthseeker" <truth...@nospam.us> wrote in message
news:s-qdndMnSJ1icFTM...@giganews.com...

Fuck -- another irony meter smoked to hell.

Anyway, the important thing is that I'm right.

Jim

[Clave]

"Truthseeker" <truth...@nospam.us> wrote in message

news:s-qdndInSJ2Uc1TM...@giganews.com...

Another cheap, transparent evasion.

Jim

[brattt]

and you would agree with a resolution saying that the sun sets in the
east if a Democrat sponsored it.

[Clave]

"brattt" <af3...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:gc9p9ax...@news.ezprovider.com...

PDS.

[Pepe Papon]

Clave's response has no relevance whatsoever to whether or not the
party-line vote on Obamacare was the Republicans' fault.
--

Pepe Papon

[TruthSeeker]

It was an example of what I predicted and what you and Clave are doing.
You automatically blame Republicans for partisanship while excusing
Democrats for theirs, while both parties are to blame.

In the case of Obamacare, the Democrats used their temporary majorities
to force through what they wanted -- on a major overhaul of a huge and
complex issue -- without bipartisan support, and we're paying the price.
To blame only Republicans for that is the blindest of partisanship.



--
TruthSeeker

[Pepe Papon]

On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 10:57:17 -0600, TruthSeeker

<Truth...@nof-nspam.us> wrote:

>On 25/6/13 10:47 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Jun 2013 13:22:47 -0600, Truthseeker
>> <truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/24/13 12:35 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 23 Jun 2013 14:17:17 -0600, TruthSeeker
>>>> <Truth...@nof-nspam.us> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 23/6/13 12:24 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> There's a major change coming to a large, complex, and expensive
>>>>>> system. In such a situation, it's to be expected that there will is
>>>>>> uncertainty about how it will all turn out.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes. Also, unlike the previous such programs as Social Security and
>>>>> Medicare, it was a purely partisan initiative. I had no bipartisan
>>>>> support. That itself should have been a red flag.
>>>>>
>>>>> Partisan supporters of the law will claim that was the Republicans'
>>>>> fault, that they were unwilling to support any reasonable health-care
>>>>> reform bill. Such claims are just narrow-minded politics.
>>>>
>>>> So you say, but with nothing to support such an assertion.
>>>
>>> See Clave's response for an example.
>>
>> Clave's response has no relevance whatsoever to whether or not the
>> party-line vote on Obamacare was the Republicans' fault.
>
>It was an example of what I predicted and what you and Clave are doing.
> You automatically blame Republicans for partisanship while excusing
>Democrats for theirs, while both parties are to blame.

Your predictions are irrelevant, and no, I was not doing that in the
post you just replied to. I was doing nothing more than pointing out
the irrelevance of your comment.

>In the case of Obamacare, the Democrats used their temporary majorities
>to force through what they wanted -- on a major overhaul of a huge and
>complex issue -- without bipartisan support, and we're paying the price.
> To blame only Republicans for that is the blindest of partisanship.

That begs the question of why they felt they needed to use their
majorities to force through what they wanted.
--

Pepe Papon

[Truthseeker]

On 6/26/13 11:25 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 10:57:17 -0600, TruthSeeker
> <Truth...@nof-nspam.us> wrote:

...

>>>>>> Partisan supporters of the law will claim that was the Republicans'
>>>>>> fault, that they were unwilling to support any reasonable health-care
>>>>>> reform bill. Such claims are just narrow-minded politics.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you say, but with nothing to support such an assertion.
>>>>
>>>> See Clave's response for an example.
>>>
>>> Clave's response has no relevance whatsoever to whether or not the
>>> party-line vote on Obamacare was the Republicans' fault.
>>
>> It was an example of what I predicted and what you and Clave are doing.
>> You automatically blame Republicans for partisanship while excusing
>> Democrats for theirs, while both parties are to blame.
>
> Your predictions are irrelevant,

So you say, because I was spot on.

> and no, I was not doing that in the
> post you just replied to. I was doing nothing more than pointing out
> the irrelevance of your comment.

Riiiggght.

>> In the case of Obamacare, the Democrats used their temporary majorities
>> to force through what they wanted -- on a major overhaul of a huge and
>> complex issue -- without bipartisan support, and we're paying the price.
>> To blame only Republicans for that is the blindest of partisanship.
>
> That begs the question of why they felt they needed to use their
> majorities to force through what they wanted.

You question why politicians use majorities when they have them to force
through what they want? Republicans are also guilty of that when they
have the majority, you know.

Our history shows us that such tactics usually have poor results, but
that doesn't deter politicians.



--
Truthseeker

[Pepe Papon]

On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 09:48:21 -0600, Truthseeker
<truth...@nospam.us> wrote:

>On 6/26/13 11:25 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>> On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 10:57:17 -0600, TruthSeeker
>> <Truth...@nof-nspam.us> wrote:
>
>...
>>>>>>> Partisan supporters of the law will claim that was the Republicans'
>>>>>>> fault, that they were unwilling to support any reasonable health-care
>>>>>>> reform bill. Such claims are just narrow-minded politics.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you say, but with nothing to support such an assertion.
>>>>>
>>>>> See Clave's response for an example.
>>>>
>>>> Clave's response has no relevance whatsoever to whether or not the
>>>> party-line vote on Obamacare was the Republicans' fault.
>>>
>>> It was an example of what I predicted and what you and Clave are doing.
>>> You automatically blame Republicans for partisanship while excusing
>>> Democrats for theirs, while both parties are to blame.
>>
>> Your predictions are irrelevant,
>
>So you say, because I was spot on.

No, I say so because your prediction is of no relevance whatsoever.

>> and no, I was not doing that in the
>> post you just replied to. I was doing nothing more than pointing out
>> the irrelevance of your comment.
>
>Riiiggght.

Yes, that's right. You can't show otherwise.

>>> In the case of Obamacare, the Democrats used their temporary majorities
>>> to force through what they wanted -- on a major overhaul of a huge and
>>> complex issue -- without bipartisan support, and we're paying the price.
>>> To blame only Republicans for that is the blindest of partisanship.
>>
>> That begs the question of why they felt they needed to use their
>> majorities to force through what they wanted.
>
>You question why politicians use majorities when they have them to force
>through what they want? Republicans are also guilty of that when they
>have the majority, you know.

No, I'm asking you why you believe that, in the case of this specific
legislation, the Democrats felt it necessary to use their majority to

"force through" what they wanted.

--

Pepe Papon

[TruthSeeker]

On 27/6/13 7:17 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 09:48:21 -0600, Truthseeker
> <truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>
>> On 6/26/13 11:25 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:

...

>>> That begs the question of why they felt they needed to use their
>>> majorities to force through what they wanted.

>> You question why politicians use majorities when they have them to force
>> through what they want? Republicans are also guilty of that when they
>> have the majority, you know.

> No, I'm asking you why you believe that, in the case of this specific
> legislation, the Democrats felt it necessary to use their majority to
> "force through" what they wanted.

Oh, all right <goes into explaining to a four-year-old mode>

The Congress was baking a chocolate cake. The Democrats wanted
chocolate icing. The Republicans wanted vanilla icing. Instead of
sharing and having half chocolate and half vanilla icing, the Democrats
forced everyone to have a cake with only chocolate icing.

Because they wanted their cake their way, and only their way, and
wouldn't share.

<turns off explaining to a four-year-old mode>

--
TruthSeeker

[Pepe Papon]

So, you have nothing. Just as I thought.
--

Pepe Papon

[TruthSeeker]

An refusal to understand on your part is not a failing on my part.

[Pepe Papon]

blah blah blah
--

Pepe Papon

[TruthSeeker]

Is that your LAST WORD? :)

[da pickle]

We can hope ... I must post a report today.