Sebelius on the ACA: "We've Made 'Changes in the Way the Law Was Written'"

[theprestige]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs...-made-changes-way-law-was-written_784924.html

We have implemented a number of changes in the way the law was written to ease the transition into the marketplace

That. Is. Awesome.

 

[Emily's Cat]

“We have implemented a number of changes in the way the law was written to ease the transition into the marketplace” for consumers, insurers and employers.

Speaking as an actuary for an insurer, I do not believe that any one of his changes has eased the transition for insurers; they've all been sharpened prickly sticks rammed straight up our nethers unexpectedly.

 

[AlBell]

Sibelius remains in the job since she happily falls on her spear time after time.

 

[Ziggurat]

Speaking as an actuary for an insurer, I do not believe that any one of his changes has eased the transition for insurers; they've all been sharpened prickly sticks rammed straight up our nethers unexpectedly.

There comes a certain point at which you should start to expect sharp sticks up your nethers. That point came a while ago.

As you said, the changes aren't to protect insurers. They also aren't to protect insurance customers. They have all been to protect the 2014 midterm prospects of Democrats.

And even so, it may not be enough.

 

[Brainster]

Speaking as an actuary for an insurer, I do not believe that any one of his changes has eased the transition for insurers; they've all been sharpened prickly sticks rammed straight up our nethers unexpectedly.

It's a feature, not a bug.

 

[DavidJames]

Five posts about changes yet not one specific change mentioned, much less discussed. It's almost like details don't matter.

 

[NoahFence]

Five posts about changes yet not one specific change mentioned, much less discussed. It's almost like details don't matter.

no kidding huh? What if the changes are good?

 

[theprestige]

Five posts about changes yet not one specific change mentioned, much less discussed. It's almost like details don't matter.

The detail I wanted to point out was that the administration is changing a written law. Even if I agreed with every change the president wanted to make, I'd still insist that it's not his job to change a written law. Discuss the changes if you want to, but as far as I'm concerned, this is a question of principle, not policy.

 

[theprestige]

no kidding huh? What if the changes are good?

It's still not the President's job to change the writing of the law. How is this not obviously a problem in your eyes?

 

[NoahFence]

It's still not the President's job to change the writing of the law. How is this not obviously a problem in your eyes?

I see your point now. That's pretty messed up.

 

[maxpower1227]

If it's not the president's job to change the writing of the law, then he should get Congress to amend and fix the law to make it better.

Just kidding, Congress is full of worthless ideologues who are too busy trying to repeal the act for the 50th time, as well as slashing benefits for the worthless moochers and defunding Planned Parenthood to do anything useful.

So what are the changes being made here?

 

[Unabogie]

It's still not the President's job to change the writing of the law. How is this not obviously a problem in your eyes?

Well, start with specifics and then I can tell you if it's warranted?

 

[Spindrift]

A little context, from the BLOG referenced above

In an exchange with Rep. Tom Reed (R-N.Y.) over why the administration had not sent legislation to Congress to alter problematic portions of the law,

She was talking about the legislation they are sending to Congress.

So she's saying they made changes and those changes are going to be sent to Congress for them to vote on.

What exactly is the problem?

 

[ravdin]

I'd say it's a 2 out of 10 on the disturbing scale. The NSA pretending to be Facebook in order to spread malware to the world's computers is more like a 99. Let me know when this is close to being the Obama administration's most egregious overreach and I'll be sure to take an interest!

 

[ehcks]

A little context, from the BLOG referenced above


She was talking about the legislation they are sending to Congress.

So she's saying they made changes and those changes are going to be sent to Congress for them to vote on.

What exactly is the problem?

It does have a link to a Boston Globe article that clarifies this part further. Sebelius is talking about draft legislation that she has not yet sent to congress because she is still editing it.

 

[Unabogie]

It does have a link to a Boston Globe article that clarifies this part further. Sebelius is talking about draft legislation that she has not yet sent to congress because she is still editing it.

That Globe article was really vague and didn't seem to have complete context. Anyone have the full exchange?

 

[SezMe]

As you said, the changes aren't to protect insurers. They also aren't to protect insurance customers. They have all been to protect the 2014 midterm prospects of Democrats.

Ya know, there's a mil waiting for someone who can read minds.

 

[Unabogie]

This outrage sure fizzled fast.

 

[johnny karate]

A little context, from the BLOG referenced above


She was talking about the legislation they are sending to Congress.

So she's saying they made changes and those changes are going to be sent to Congress for them to vote on.

What exactly is the problem?

It does have a link to a Boston Globe article that clarifies this part further. Sebelius is talking about draft legislation that she has not yet sent to congress because she is still editing it.

This outrage sure fizzled fast.

Yeah, apparently it's just easier to start yanking on the pull cord of the Obama Outrage Machine than to check to see if there's any gas in the tank.

What's hilarious is that the perpetrators in this thread are some of the same ones who will chastise you for jumping to conclusions before "all the facts are out" when a white guy shoots an unarmed black kid.

I guess Obama doesn't warrant the same measured response and examination of the facts as killers of black teenagers.

 

[DavidJames]

What's hilarious is that the perpetrators in this thread are some of the same ones who will chastise you for jumping to conclusions before "all the facts are out" when a white guy shoots an unarmed black kid.

In fairness, they don't have as much to work with, hence the hyena's around a carcass approach.