Now you are telling him he can't criticize people on how they spend their money? How totalitarian of you.
There is a vested interest in this country that wants to see the law fail. They don't have your or my interest at heart.
Him hoping people would choose to spend their money differently is socialist? I don't think you understand what socialism is...
Stating that the (estimated) billion dollars that will be spent by opponents of Obamacare would be better spent in other ways isn't even remotely "socialist." I suggest you curl up with a great book called a "dictionary" until you understand why your statement is beyond asinine.
Pelosi Defies Reality, Claims Obamacare’s Employer Mandate “Was Not Delayed”… Actually, it was. http://weaselzippers.us/2013/07/02/...r-mandate-until-after-2014-midterm-elections/ http://cnsnews.com/news/article/pelosi-employer-mandate-was-not-delayed (CNSNews.com) – During a press conference on Thursday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was asked if she thinks there is “any virtue” in delaying Obamacare’s individual mandate as well as the employer mandate: “No. Absolutely not. I don’t think it’s virtuous at all,” Pelosi said. “In fact, the point is, is that the (business) mandate was not delayed,” Pelosi said. “Certain reporting by businesses that could be perceived as onerous — that reporting requirement was delayed, partially to review how it would work and how it could be better. “It was not a delay of the mandate for the businesses, and there shouldn’t be a delay of the mandate for individuals,” Pelosi insisted. The Obama administration announced last week that businesses with 50 or more full-time employees will be given an extra year to comply with the complex reporting requirements that could trigger penalties if those businesses don’t provide affordable insurance to their full-time employees. http://weaselzippers.us/2013/07/11/...-obamacares-employer-mandate-was-not-delayed/
Who cares what Pelosi says? Instead of spending all your time copying and pasting WZ, why not learn about the law, or learn what "socialist" means, or figure out why reposting every random news article you read goes so wrong for you so often?
Pelosi is one the leaders of this country. Instead of spending all your time worrying about what I do, why not learn something, read a dictionary, or read more news.
And her opinion on the topic is sort of irrelevant. Though, again, if you actually understood the law and HHS's decision, you'd know that she's semantically correct. Because you pollute a forum that I otherwise enjoy with your stupid posts that are more often than not inaccurate. And when that is pointed out to you, you run away from the topic and just repeat the process again. It's just weird that you seem to take pride in being uneducated and posting nonsense, and that you have no interest in actually learning facts.
So it doesn't matter what one of our US legislators thinks about a law that she helped get passed. Please help me understand the law. I would enjoy that. The second part of your post is all opinion, so I will wait for you to present facts instead of posting nonsense.
Part of the law is a mandate. That mandate still exists. What was scrapped is the reporting requirements used to enforce the mandate, so it's impossible to enforce. Thus, Pelosi IS correct - the mandate is still there. The reporting requirements are not. Again, instead of posting random articles that you clearly don't understand, why not spend time learning? Opinion? What happened to all your IRS claims? Or your stupid anti-fraud post last week in this thread that showed ZERO understanding about Obamacare? Or your ignorant use of the word socialism a few posts ago in this very thread? Now you have the Pelosi quote, which is accurate. You continually post stupid stuff that you find on a blog, and then you disappear when it's pointed out to you. And then you just repeat the process in some other thread - this is all a well-established pattern. The idea that you relish being stupid and lack any interest in being educated is just my opinion based on the pattern.
Buyer’s Remorse: Another Union Comes Out Against Obamacare… You will not be surprised to learn the IBEW endorsed Obama for president. Via Daily Caller:http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/11/a...verage/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter Another union is crying foul over what it says is Obamacare’s negative impact on its members’ current healthcare coverage under multi-employer plans. “If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what,” the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) quotes a speech President Obama delivered on July 16, 2009 in new ads running in Roll Call and The Hill. According to the union, the multi-employer plans IBEW has used for over 65 years to provide coverage for their members are at risk, thanks to what it terms “loopholes in the Affordable Care Act. “The ACA threatens the viability of multi-employer health plans in four ways: 1) the high employee threshold of the employer mandate 2) the re-insurance fee, 3) the definition of qualified health plans, and 4) the lack of multi-employer specific administrative guidance. We believe it may be impossible to reverse the damage done to these plans if these issues are not resolved. The IBEW cannot afford to sit on the sidelines at the ACA threatens to harm our members by dismantling multi-employer plans,” the IBEW explains in a statement released Thursday. http://weaselzippers.us/2013/07/11/buyers-remorse-another-union-comes-out-against-obamacare/ http://www.ibew.org/articles/08daily/0806/IBEWObama6-26-08revised2.pdf http://www.acawhitepaper.org/IBEW fullpage fullcolor ad.pdf http://www.acawhitepaper.org/The Affordable Care Act FINAL.pdf
WaPo Fact Checks Pelosi’s Claim Employer Mandate “Was Not Delayed” … Gives Her 3 Pinocchios, Says She’s “Denying Reality”… Which was blatantly obvious from the second she said it. Via WaPo:http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...d9e4394-ea7b-11e2-aa9f-c03a72e2d342_blog.html “The point is, is that the mandate was not delayed. Certain reporting by businesses that could be perceived as onerous, that reporting requirement was delayed, and partially to review how it would work and how it could be better. It was not a delay of the mandate for the businesses, and there shouldn’t be a delay of the mandate for individuals.” — House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), news conference [...] The Pinocchio Test Encouraging employers to provide health insurance is not the same thing as mandating it. We understand Pelosi’s desire to minimize the impact of the decision — and supporters of the law may have a strong case that the employer mandate is not as central to the law as the individual mandate to buy insurance — but that’s not an excuse to deny reality. Yes, reporting requirements were delayed. But, as a consequence of that action, there also was a one-year delay of the actual employer mandate. It’s right there in the announcement. Update: Some readers have asked why this claim did not result in Four Pinocchios. We initially were tempted to award that rating, but decided that Pelosi did describe correctly what Treasury did, which is delay reporting requirements. But she then acted as if there was no consequence, which is incorrect. The difference between a Three and a Four is sometimes narrow, and we ultimately concluded she just missed earning a Four. But it was certainly a close call. http://weaselzippers.us/2013/07/12/...s-her-3-pinocchios-says-shes-denying-reality/ -------------- So even though she described what the Treasury did she still denied the consequences of it.
Yes, as I said - and as Politifact sort of confirmed with their "why 3 instead of 4" statement, is that Pelosi is *technically* correct. For all practical purposes, the mandate is delayed by a year. But from a legal, technical perspective, that's not the case.
He's too deluded to back down but this makes sense to me. Thread.After.Thread. Pelosi is semantically correct despite promoting a dead point. This level of political game is a standard bob can't begin to play.
