Posted on Mar 10, 2017
Pelosi defends her infamous health care remark
10.2K
32
23
9
9
0
Since this quote is so popular lately, I thought I'd share the part that Fox News didn't show you. Everyone really should use news sources across the political spectrum. From the linked article:
Those ten seconds, immortalized by Fox News leave out what Pelosi said in the lead-up to those infamous words:
You’ve heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don’t know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention—it’s about diet, not diabetes. It’s going to be very, very exciting.
The key line is the first one. It’s easy to forget the tumult of that time. There was a lot of frustration with the Senate version of the health care reform bill and consternation over the proposed process to get it through the chamber with minimal Republican votes, reconciliation.
“In the fall of the year,” Pelosi said today, “the outside groups...were saying ‘it’s about abortion,’ which it never was. ‘It’s about ‘death panels,’’ which it never was. ‘It’s about a job-killer,’ which it creates four million. ‘It’s about increasing the deficit’; well, the main reason to pass it was to decrease the deficit.” Her contention was that the Senate “didn’t have a bill.” And until the Senate produced an actual piece of legislation that could be matched up and debated against what was passed by the House, no one truly knew what would be voted on. “They were still trying to woo the Republicans,” Pelosi said of the Senate leadership and the White House, trying to “get that 60th vote that never was coming. That’s why [there was a] reconciliation [vote]” that required only a simple majority.
“So, that’s why I was saying we have to pass a bill so we can see so that we can show you what it is and what it isn’t,” Pelosi continued. “It is none of these things. It’s not going to be any of these things.” She recognized that her comment was “a good statement to take out of context.” But the minority leader added, “But the fact is, until you have a bill, you can’t really, we can’t really debunk what they’re saying....”
Those ten seconds, immortalized by Fox News leave out what Pelosi said in the lead-up to those infamous words:
You’ve heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don’t know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention—it’s about diet, not diabetes. It’s going to be very, very exciting.
The key line is the first one. It’s easy to forget the tumult of that time. There was a lot of frustration with the Senate version of the health care reform bill and consternation over the proposed process to get it through the chamber with minimal Republican votes, reconciliation.
“In the fall of the year,” Pelosi said today, “the outside groups...were saying ‘it’s about abortion,’ which it never was. ‘It’s about ‘death panels,’’ which it never was. ‘It’s about a job-killer,’ which it creates four million. ‘It’s about increasing the deficit’; well, the main reason to pass it was to decrease the deficit.” Her contention was that the Senate “didn’t have a bill.” And until the Senate produced an actual piece of legislation that could be matched up and debated against what was passed by the House, no one truly knew what would be voted on. “They were still trying to woo the Republicans,” Pelosi said of the Senate leadership and the White House, trying to “get that 60th vote that never was coming. That’s why [there was a] reconciliation [vote]” that required only a simple majority.
“So, that’s why I was saying we have to pass a bill so we can see so that we can show you what it is and what it isn’t,” Pelosi continued. “It is none of these things. It’s not going to be any of these things.” She recognized that her comment was “a good statement to take out of context.” But the minority leader added, “But the fact is, until you have a bill, you can’t really, we can’t really debunk what they’re saying....”
Pelosi defends her infamous health care remark
Posted from washingtonpost.com
Democrats
Fox News Channel
Healthcare
Government
Obamacare
Posted 8 y ago
Responses: 11
10
10
0
Your narrative sounds very nice, but Ms. Pelosi's comments were disingenuous. You have placed her words in the context of her speech, but not in the context of the situation. Yes, bill's are subject to change and amendment; so yes, it was going to be difficult to say exactly what was going to be in the final bill that went to the floor for a vote. But what your narrative leaves out is the artificial timeline and the artificial "secrecy" behind the Democrats bill.
With the election of Republican Scott Brown of Massachusetts to the seat formerly held by Democrat Edward Kennedy, the democrats were desperate to get a bill past both houses and on President Obama's desk BEFORE Scott Brown was seated. Because of that single circumstance, the Democrats literally held "all Democrat hands on deck" sessions to seal the deal; with the Republicans literally standing out in the halls of the capital building on the wrong side of locked doors.
This "unseemly" locked door process included single state exclusions and deals for Louisiana, Nebraska, and Michigan. Promises were made, but even Democrats who were on the right side of those locked doors did not have enough time to verify that what was agreed to was actually within the final written product they would vote on. Nor did the Democrats take the time to think about the law of unintended consequences.
Republicans were literally in the dark because they had inadequate time to read and comprehend the bill (more than 2000 pages) before they would have to vote upon it. Republicans did not even have the benefit of being in the room while the plan was discussed. There was wide spread criticism at the time, that should continue today. No legislator should vote for any bill that he or she has not read, has not had their staff analyze, and has not had time to digest. That is why so very many of the laws that we get today come with a rail car full of unintended consequences.
There was plenty of time to let the legislators see the final product before they voted on the bill if the Democrats were not playing "Beat the Clock". The Democrats lacked the confidence that they could put together a bill on which the people's representatives could form a consensus. Absolutely the very reason that the founding fathers formed a system where a lack of a consensus greater than a simple majority would force our representatives to go back to the table and rethink the solution to weighty problems. Thus the Democrats represented the worst of political party interests over the Nations interests. Thus the deep flaws of the "Affordable Care Act". So excuse me if I do not accept your defense of Ms. Pelosi. The abuse she gets for her statement taken out of context is actually, very much less than she deserves.
With the election of Republican Scott Brown of Massachusetts to the seat formerly held by Democrat Edward Kennedy, the democrats were desperate to get a bill past both houses and on President Obama's desk BEFORE Scott Brown was seated. Because of that single circumstance, the Democrats literally held "all Democrat hands on deck" sessions to seal the deal; with the Republicans literally standing out in the halls of the capital building on the wrong side of locked doors.
This "unseemly" locked door process included single state exclusions and deals for Louisiana, Nebraska, and Michigan. Promises were made, but even Democrats who were on the right side of those locked doors did not have enough time to verify that what was agreed to was actually within the final written product they would vote on. Nor did the Democrats take the time to think about the law of unintended consequences.
Republicans were literally in the dark because they had inadequate time to read and comprehend the bill (more than 2000 pages) before they would have to vote upon it. Republicans did not even have the benefit of being in the room while the plan was discussed. There was wide spread criticism at the time, that should continue today. No legislator should vote for any bill that he or she has not read, has not had their staff analyze, and has not had time to digest. That is why so very many of the laws that we get today come with a rail car full of unintended consequences.
There was plenty of time to let the legislators see the final product before they voted on the bill if the Democrats were not playing "Beat the Clock". The Democrats lacked the confidence that they could put together a bill on which the people's representatives could form a consensus. Absolutely the very reason that the founding fathers formed a system where a lack of a consensus greater than a simple majority would force our representatives to go back to the table and rethink the solution to weighty problems. Thus the Democrats represented the worst of political party interests over the Nations interests. Thus the deep flaws of the "Affordable Care Act". So excuse me if I do not accept your defense of Ms. Pelosi. The abuse she gets for her statement taken out of context is actually, very much less than she deserves.
(10)
(0)
SSgt Christopher Brose
Maj John Bell - Thank you for that reminder, sir. I had forgotten about the timing with the Senators and the locked doors.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
Obamacare is collapsing. The transfer of healthcare dollars from the young to the old, from the working responsible to those on assistance is killing it. Even Bill Clinton recognizes it is a mess.
(4)
(0)
LTC David Brown
SFC Shirley Whitfield - when you were young you did not start with expensive and massive student debt etc. Also young people starting out should be "incubated" to reach financial stability. Middle aged more established folks should carry the burden. Those that refuse to work should not be a burden carried by anyone. "Those that refuse to work should not eat". Actually in the Bible in the Epistles of Paul.
(0)
(0)
LTC David Brown
Yes there are options, but burdening families whit egregious health care costs is neither ethical or moral!
(0)
(0)
MAJ Byron Oyler
SSG Michael Hartsfield - It is failing because the for profit insurance companies want more profit. No government should ever force someone to pay for 3rd party health insurance that is set on making a profit off you not getting ill and saying NO to paying someone that is.
(0)
(0)
LTC David Brown
MAJ Byron Oyler - I guess it is unethical to profit from innovation in surgery, in medicine, in treatment etc. Nobody should be allied to profit from others illness or misfortune? I participated in placement of the first automatic internal cardiac defibrillator placed in Augusta. The patient's sternum was opened and the pads were sown directly to heart tissue. Today it is a wire insertion similar to a pace maker. Profit motivated technological advancement. In America Drs stand in line to do total joints on patients. In England patients stand in line for a year to get a total joint. One fellow had a neighbor break his knee with a cricket bat to jump the line.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google