Jon Stewart smacks Kathleen Sebelius for lying about Obamacare

[Alyosha]

From the article:
During his interview with Sebelius, Stewart repeatedly sought an answer from the secretary on why big businesses got a delay in their Obamacare mandate (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-02/health-law-employer-mandate-said-to-be-delayed-to-2015.html) to provide affordable health insurance to their employees, while individuals did not get a delay in their Obamacare mandate making them purchase health care or face a penalty.


...


“I still don’t understand why individuals have to sign up and businesses don’t, because if the businesses — if she’s saying, ‘well, they get a delay because that doesn’t matter anyway because they already give health care,’ then you think to yourself, ‘fuck it, then why do they have to sign up at all,’” he said. “And then I think to myself, ‘well, maybe she’s just lying to me.’”


During the interview, Stewart said criticism over the seeming double standard was “very legitimate.”


“But if I’m if an individual I’m wondering — well, an individual who doesn’t want this because there are individuals clearly that want this — but if I’m an individual that doesn’t want it, it would be hard for me to look at big business getting a waiver and not having to do it and me having to because I would think, ‘geez, it looks like because I don’t have a lobbying group,’” he told Sebelius. “I would feel like you are favoring big business because they lobbied you to delay it because they didn’t want to do this year but you are not allowing individuals that same courtesy.”



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/08/jon-stewart-accuses-kathleen-sebelius-of-lying-to-him-about-obamacare/#ixzz2h8Q4d11F


*******************************



Jon Stewart is one of the only fair alleged liberals in media. I'm still not with him 100% but 80%.

[Cigar]

Jon Stewart is one of the only fair alleged liberals in media. I'm still not with him 100% but 80%.



Good .. I'm glad you agree ... because John Stewart had a lot more to say ... not sure if Conservative would ever report it though ...

But I will ........ :wink:

[Common]

I agree with stewart, that its a legitimate complaint that business was given a temporary pass and not indviduals but a reasonable person would realize its alot harder to implement across the board changes to a big corporation that for an individual. Thats not an apology for giving them a pass, I dont think it should have happened.

[Alyosha]

Good .. I'm glad you agree ... because John Stewart had a lot more to say ... not sure if Conservative would ever report it though ...

But I will ........ :wink:


Did you get the part where I said I don't agree with him on everything? I just want to be sure that you understand I'm not a sycophant. I agree with Rand Paul on 80% too.

That's the beauty of having your own free will and thought. You don't have to go along with the crowd.

[bladimz]

Stewart is an amazing source of unbiased information, most of the time.(92%...). Big business usually gets what they want as far as breaks are concerned because they are the ones who fund and control the congress and their legislative activities.

Big business should have to begin implementation on January 1st. They'll just have to provide proof that they are actively working to put the program in place as soon as possible, is all.

[Alyosha]

Stewart is an amazing source of unbiased information, most of the time.(92%...). Big business usually gets what they want as far as breaks are concerned because they are the ones who fund and control the congress and their legislative activities.

Big business should have to begin implementation on January 1st. They'll just have to provide proof that they are actively working to put the program in place as soon as possible, is all.

Many already have. The results are what I expected. Insurance companies and companies are not eating the costs. The premiums are raising for the middle class.

[Green Arrow]

Jon Stewart is the most honest guy in the media these days. Like Alyosha said, I'm not always with him 100%, but hell, I'm maybe only with Rand Paul and Ted Cruz 10%, and I still like them and will defend them, because we may not agree, but like Jon Stewart, I believe they are honorable men with strong character.

[Cigar]

Did you get the part where I said I don't agree with him on everything? I just want to be sure that you understand I'm not a sycophant. I agree with Rand Paul on 80% too.

That's the beauty of having your own free will and thought. You don't have to go along with the crowd.

Talk to your House Leader ... :laugh:

[jillian]

Jon Stewart is the most honest guy in the media these days. Like @Alyosha (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=863) said, I'm not always with him 100%, but hell, I'm maybe only with Rand Paul and Ted Cruz 10%, and I still like them and will defend them, because we may not agree, but like Jon Stewart, I believe they are honorable men with strong character.

still don't understand how a "leftie" would support anti-choice rightwing extremists.

[Agravan]

still don't understand how a "leftie" would support anti-choice rightwing extremists.
anti-choice = anyone that does not approve of slaughtering innocent babies
extremist = anyone that disagrees with jillian

[jillian]

*yawn*


like i said. :rolleyes:

[Agravan]

*yawn*


like i said. :rolleyes:

Over your head again, sweetcheeks?

[Green Arrow]

still don't understand how a "leftie" would support anti-choice rightwing extremists.

The quote/article in my signature should explain things. I'm non-partisan. I don't have to agree with you 100% of the time to think that you're still a good person. I don't let petty politics blind my judgment.

Besides, abortion isn't a right or left issue. There are pro-choice rightists and pro-life leftists. Trying to pretend it is a right/left issue is absurd.

[bladimz]

The quote/article in my signature should explain things. I'm non-partisan. I don't have to agree with you 100% of the time to think that you're still a good person. I don't let petty politics blind my judgment.

Besides, abortion isn't a right or left issue. There are pro-choice rightists and pro-life leftists. Trying to pretend it is a right/left issue is absurd.I agree.
Only the party salesmen like to sell the issue as strictly an ideological one.

[bladimz]

Many already have. The results are what I expected. Insurance companies and companies are not eating the costs. The premiums are raising for the middle class.Absolutely right. Not including single-payer in the ACA is like driving without tires on your car. It'll move, but it's gonna cost you a hell of a lot of money to do it.

[Green Arrow]

I agree.
Only the party salesmen like to sell the issue as strictly an ideological one.

Just curious, but are you pro-life or pro-choice? I, personally, am pro-life, but I also don't think the government should be banning abortion. I much prefer social change, i.e. stopping abortion by convincing people that there is a better way, rather than using the heavy hand of government to force them into submission to my personal beliefs.

[Alyosha]

still don't understand how a "leftie" would support anti-choice rightwing extremists.

First, "anti-choice rightwing extremist" is just a label that means as much as "pro-abortion leftwing extremist". To deny the complicated aspect of abortion and its moral ambiguity is an extremist position.

The only position that I as a libertarian can have in good conscience is to say that no government body should weigh in on the issue at all, pro or against.

Your position is not only to have it made legal, but to actively provide federal monies towards it and to force hospitals to perform them. That's not choice when force is involved.

That is "you have the choice to make a decision that I agree with".

I cannot support your position or their position, but luckily I'm not single issue.

[Alyosha]

I also want to understand how we have reached the conclusion that good people equals perfect people and if you are not perfect you are bad.

When did that happen in America?

[bladimz]

Just curious, but are you pro-life or pro-choice? I, personally, am pro-life, but I also don't think the government should be banning abortion. I much prefer social change, i.e. stopping abortion by convincing people that there is a better way, rather than using the heavy hand of government to force them into submission to my personal beliefs.I'm pro-choice. It's a personal choice; if my daughter wanted one, i would strongly suggest an early-term abortion. I would hope that it would be a decision made after serious consideration. But i would never demand anything of her, and i certainly don't think that the government has any say at all.

I don't advocate abortion, but i do advocate for the freedom to have an abortion.

[bladimz]

I also want to understand how we have reached the conclusion that good people equals perfect people and if you are not perfect you are bad.

When did that happen in America?This has nothing at all to do with the essence of your post, but i just wanted to say that a friend of mine once told me that there is no such thing as "perfect", because that implies infallibility, which is not possible on this earth... the word that is more acceptable is "excellent". He sees a difference there, and i guess i do too.

Ok, back to it...

[Alyosha]

I'm pro-choice. It's a personal choice; if my daughter wanted one, i would strongly suggest an early-term abortion. I would hope that it would be a decision made after serious consideration. But i would never demand anything of her, and i certainly don't think that the government has any say at all.

I don't advocate abortion, but i do advocate for the freedom to have an abortion.
bladimz

if you believed that the fetus had a unique soul and was not just tissue, if you believed it had the capacity to feel pain...would you change your belief?

What many people don't realize is that those people who are anti-abortion believe that it is a unique being with a soul and with feelings, and therefore they feel compelled to "save its life" and as they are "statists" like other statists they wish to use the tools of government to save that life.

I can understand that position.

However, as a lawyer I understand how laws are written and any law that would prevent abortion would have the power to own human beings entirely, and therefore I am glad beyond glad that as a libertarian I can say my position is that government should not be involved in the debate at all.

Government cannot do everything. It is not society's swiss army knife. It can only force and that force grows with caselaw.

[bladimz]

@bladimz (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=7)

if you believed that the fetus had a unique soul and was not just tissue, if you believed it had the capacity to feel pain...would you change your belief?If i sincerely felt that what you said is true, that would make me a totally different person. I would bet that that person's beliefs would be different than mine.

As for the anti-abortionist mindset, all i can say is that i'd like to save the lives of infants who have been born to drunks, crack addicts, unstable and dangerous persons. Do i want a law written for that? I don't think so.

[jillian]

@bladimz (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=7)

if you believed that the fetus had a unique soul and was not just tissue, if you believed it had the capacity to feel pain...would you change your belief?


we don't believe it has a soul until it's born and my beliefs say it's the woman's choice.

so why should someone else's religious beliefs be imposed on me.

look at the people around who make that their cause celebre... most are barely able to make their own moral decisions... they hove no business making them for others.

[Alyosha]

we don't believe it has a soul until it's born and my beliefs say it's the woman's choice.

so why should someone else's religious beliefs be imposed on me.

look at the people around who make that their cause celebre... most are barely able to make their own moral decisions... they hove no business making them for others.

My point jillian was that they do and not all of them are even religious. If someone believes that it is sentient human life, then, by God they should be fighting in whichever way and method they have available.

Why wouldn't you fight for life?

You just don't happen to believe it is life. That's the catch point.

I think it is unique life that will never come again. That the particular genetic imprint, like a snowflake will have passed the earth never to grow into something marvelous. To me it is a high crime against Nature.

But...I don't believe the government can make a mother love her child or want to give it nourishment. I don't believe it is the government's job to force a sacred bond.

I am consistently against government as a tool of social reform and leave this to communities, churches, families, and individuals.

[jillian]

My point @jillian (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=719) was that they do and not all of them are even religious. If someone believes that it is sentient human life, then, by God they should be fighting in whichever way and method they have available.

Why wouldn't you fight for life?

You just don't happen to believe it is life. That's the catch point.

I think it is unique life that will never come again. That the particular genetic imprint, like a snowflake will have passed the earth never to grow into something marvelous. To me it is a high crime against Nature.

But...I don't believe the government can make a mother love her child or want to give it nourishment. I don't believe it is the government's job to force a sacred bond.

I am consistently against government as a tool of social reform and leave this to communities, churches, families, and individuals.

the catchpoint is that there are very different, very strong, both valid PERSONAL beliefs on this subject.

and i'm not the one who wants government to intervene. and people may *WANT* certain things... but they can't have those things when they're imposing their will on others.

i didn't want us to go to iraq... the government felt otherwise. my tax money was used to fund that war.... which i had no desire to pay for.

that's life...

and my point is, they can make whatever choices they want... for themselves.

p.s. ever wonder why anti-choice activists are mostly men?

[jillian]

also, Alyosha, if they really were pro-life and not pro-birth, i might see the point... but they fight against reproductive choice, they fight against birth control, they fight against sex education, they fight against WIC, they fight against education funds, they fight against funding daycare or jobs programs or anything else that would help single mothers. they don't even offer alternatives like expanded adoption services.

and this is why i say most of it is misogynistic... it's about punishing the harlots... which is why it's mostly old men who are the activists.

and no, i don't want them telling me what to do.

[Alyosha]

also, @Alyosha (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=863), if they really were pro-life and not pro-birth, i might see the point... but they fight against reproductive choice, they fight against birth control, they fight against sex education, they fight against WIC, they fight against education funds, they fight against funding daycare or jobs programs or anything else that would help single mothers. they don't even offer alternatives like expanded adoption services.

and this is why i say most of it is misogynistic... it's about punishing the harlots... which is why it's mostly old men who are the activists.

and no, i don't want them telling me what to do.

Some but not all. Some want to fund birth control and only dislike abortion. I'd put birth control in the water if it were up to me and permanently attach condoms to boys 14-18...but luckily I'm not Empress of the world.

The government should not be involved in social issues, period. Not drugs, not who gets married, not who has sex, not abortion, not what we eat, not anything that involves what you do with your body.

It only should regulate how we act towards other people, not precrimes like drug laws are, but actual crimes.

[Alyosha]

the catchpoint is that there are very different, very strong, both valid PERSONAL beliefs on this subject.

and i'm not the one who wants government to intervene. and people may *WANT* certain things... but they can't have those things when they're imposing their will on others.

i didn't want us to go to iraq... the government felt otherwise. my tax money was used to fund that war.... which i had no desire to pay for.

that's life...

and my point is, they can make whatever choices they want... for themselves.

p.s. ever wonder why anti-choice activists are mostly men?

No, I don't wonder. Men are in 98% of all the government positions of the world and own 98% of the world's property. They will always be the majority in any position and why probably the earth is so out of balance and screwed up because they either control "it" or women emulate them to that they can be allowed into the club and help control "it".

[Matty]

anti-choice = anyone that does not approve of slaughtering innocent babies
extremist = anyone that disagrees with jillian


democrats are the BEST at name calling. I love that quality in them. don't you?

[Chris]

Stewart is an amazing source of unbiased information, most of the time.(92%...). Big business usually gets what they want as far as breaks are concerned because they are the ones who fund and control the congress and their legislative activities.

Big business should have to begin implementation on January 1st. They'll just have to provide proof that they are actively working to put the program in place as soon as possible, is all.



Sorry but I just don't get the liberal progressive attitude that government is an innocent in all this hypocrisy and corruption. Government has a monopoly on power, the only way big business gets to control things is through government.

[Chris]

democrats are the BEST at name calling. I love that quality in them. don't you?



It's not just name calling, it's somewhat more subtle choice of emotive words. Like Obama talking about extortion. The word carries a lot of emotional weight, people are naturally averse to it, so using words emotively like that has the intent of shifting those negative feelings to those you associate the word with.

[Chris]

we don't believe it has a soul until it's born and my beliefs say it's the woman's choice.

so why should someone else's religious beliefs be imposed on me.

look at the people around who make that their cause celebre... most are barely able to make their own moral decisions... they hove no business making them for others.

Why should your religious beliefs be imposed on others?

[Chris]

My point jillian was that they do and not all of them are even religious. If someone believes that it is sentient human life, then, by God they should be fighting in whichever way and method they have available.

Why wouldn't you fight for life?

You just don't happen to believe it is life. That's the catch point.

I think it is unique life that will never come again. That the particular genetic imprint, like a snowflake will have passed the earth never to grow into something marvelous. To me it is a high crime against Nature.

But...I don't believe the government can make a mother love her child or want to give it nourishment. I don't believe it is the government's job to force a sacred bond.

I am consistently against government as a tool of social reform and leave this to communities, churches, families, and individuals.



Medical science says from the moment of conception it is a living human being. Liberal progressives will then argue their personhood beliefs.



I am consistently against government as a tool of social reform and leave this to communities, churches, families, and individuals.

Same here. This is a social issue for society to decide, not government.