Pelosi knew.
An engineer once told me, the bigger a system is the simpler it has to be to work. A cell phone is really complex, but it’s tiny. A nuclear power plant, is at it’s heart simple as can be. I think the same is true for laws. This one was WAY too complex and positively huge in scope. Laws should be short and simple; “do this, and you get punished, do that and you get rewarded.” Have you seen the diagrammatic of how Obamacare works? Gosh...
BTW, nothing the administration does is for the benefit of the people or even the Democratic party. It’s just a plain and simple communist takeover. Whoever gets hurt, friend or foe, is irrelevant.
First of all, these “fixes” are likely to just make things even worse.
There will certainly be litigation over the capricious waiving of the individual penalty.
In addition, do they really think the public has such short memories?
Maybe they are right, but I hope not.
No, the biggest danger in Obamacare is loss of Constitutional freedom.
What a pack of lies this article is. The problem is having Obama and the democrats meddle in the first place. And despite the lies this article says, its not a “few’ constituents. Its vast majorities of this country and the lies they were told. The law stinks.
Dems don’t care about anything besides 2014. They know the already destroyed the entire heath care industry and if the take back the house in 2014 they will get their single payer government run health industry.
"The cumulative effect is that at least some people — we hope not many — will misunderstand their responsibilities under the law"
Misunderstand their responsibilities under the law? No kidding!
In the first place, I would note that Dear Leader and his minions don't seem to have any responsibilities under the law - they 'change' the law whenever they feel like it without Congressional approval so why should any other people have 'responsibilities under the law'? (And that's even if they could figure out what said responsibilities were, given that said "responsibilities" are arbitrary and subject to change at any given moment.)
That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where arbitrary restrictions, exemptions, and monopolies deny to part of its citizens that free use of their faculties, and free choice of their occupations, which not only constitute their property in the general sense of the word; but are the means of acquiring property strictly so called.
James Madison, Property
29 Mar. 1792Papers 14:266--68