Quote:
Originally Posted by raymor
Yeah perhaps it should be more clear how broad a waiver can be. Perhaps each waiver needs to list the name or names of the people they want to question, so it's clear they can't get a waiver for "terrorism suspects" or similar.
I hate it when bills are real complex, with lots of cross references, so it's hard to understand. Most, especially at the state level, really aren't that difficult so it surprises me that so many people argue about them without ever reading them. Perhaps they believe Pelosi "we have to pass the bill to see what's in it."
|
Psst... This is a very common 'quote' i see people using. If you took the quote in context and didn't just listen to talking points you'd know that. The clip was edited and cut short. You can view the whole thing here:
Here is the text:
Quote:
You've heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other items. 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.
But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.
|
Convenient that the end of the sentence is always left out when someone quotes it, isn't it?