WN: Sebelius rejects enrolling in Obamacare exchanges - Washington Ti

[JDavis]

It's not a childish question, no matter how you spin it.  It is no more childish than if I asked a nonbeliever  what would happen if they died tonight without Jesus or if I asked an atheist, "If you were convinced that God was real, would you follow Him?"   Those are what if questions and they are not childish at all.  There is nothing childish about "what if" as long as the question isn't far fetched.  And there is nothing far fetched or childish about asking the head of HHS if she would be willing to live under the very same healthcare law she helped to implement.

 

The fact remains undisputed that she would not commit to the very product she was in charge of building and producing.   Obmacare was her responsibility and while she touts it as good, she is unwilling to commit herself  to it.  The internal inconsistency in it is obvious.

 

She doesn't want to be in Obamacare and who would?   She knows more about it and knows it's a trainwreck.  I don't blame her for not being willing to sign on.  I will not sign on either.  

 

The fact that she doesn't want to sign on to Obamacare for herself isn't really the problem.  That is a just a symptom of a bigger problem and it is that is the incompetency and deceitfulness of this administration.   They have lied to us at every turn.  They have demonstrated what happens to a country when it is run by a bunch of incompetent people (and I am being generous by calling them merely imcompetent).

 

 

you take someone refusing to answer an inane "what if" question to mean they would disobey the law and you accuse me of spinning. 

[Guest shiloh357]

 

It's not a childish question, no matter how you spin it.  It is no more childish than if I asked a nonbeliever  what would happen if they died tonight without Jesus or if I asked an atheist, "If you were convinced that God was real, would you follow Him?"   Those are what if questions and they are not childish at all.  There is nothing childish about "what if" as long as the question isn't far fetched.  And there is nothing far fetched or childish about asking the head of HHS if she would be willing to live under the very same healthcare law she helped to implement.

 

The fact remains undisputed that she would not commit to the very product she was in charge of building and producing.   Obmacare was her responsibility and while she touts it as good, she is unwilling to commit herself  to it.  The internal inconsistency in it is obvious.

 

She doesn't want to be in Obamacare and who would?   She knows more about it and knows it's a trainwreck.  I don't blame her for not being willing to sign on.  I will not sign on either.  

 

The fact that she doesn't want to sign on to Obamacare for herself isn't really the problem.  That is a just a symptom of a bigger problem and it is that is the incompetency and deceitfulness of this administration.   They have lied to us at every turn.  They have demonstrated what happens to a country when it is run by a bunch of incompetent people (and I am being generous by calling them merely imcompetent).

 

 

you take someone refusing to answer an inane "what if" question to mean they would disobey the law and you accuse me of spinning. 

 

LOL,  I am going to make this really, really simple for you J Davis.    Sebelius was not asked if she would illegally sign up for Obamacare.   The question she was asked pertained to her being able to legally sign up.  Because she currently has employer provided insurance, she can't sign up do to the empolyer mandate being suspended for the next 11 or 12 months.

 

The question she was asked was, if the conditions changed to the extent that she was able to enroll for Obamacare (assuming a scenario that made it legal for her) would she sign up.  She refused to answer. 

 

To ask the head of Health and Human Services who is personally tasked with implementing the Obamacare law if she would be willing to live under the law she is responseible for putting into operation (assuming a legal scenario) is not an inane question.  It is a perfectly reasonable question to ask her given that she is enacting the law of the land.

 

You keep calling it an "inane" law, but you can't really suppoort that characterization.