"You'll have to pass it to see what's in it" (clarification?)

[evirus]

I'm sure there's some context in which the above quote didn't sound as underhanded as conservatives make it out to be, but I'm having trouble finding the exact context of that remark.

[alc]

1. context helps (a little)

There was lots of misinformation spreading about the bill. She was trying to say that people should ignore what they hear and go directly to the bill. In that context it's not so bad.

There were also lots of Congressmen asking for different things (e.g. needing different bribes to agree to go along with it), and Conyers saying What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?” and Congress in a hurry to pass it. They didn't even know exactly what was or would be in it but they felt the need (or opportunity) to "get something passed". They couldn't afford to lose a vote, so they couldn't afford to let it be fully understood before the vote - a supporter may have found something he/she didn't like, or the pressure over the concessions/bribes that were already known may have caused one of the recipients to switch votes. From that context her quote is bad. If they had taken the time to review it, they may have realized that it only provides subsidies for state-run exchanges, not for the cases where the fed run the exchange if states refuse to (and other problems). But there's a good chance it wouldn't have passed.

[HopeHoops]

2. Usually that involves a vet and dog feces.

[JoePhilly]

3. I'd summerize it this way ... assuming you mean Pelosi and the ACA ...

1) The polls at the time showed a majority "against" the Bill. However, the reason they were against it were split. Conservatives hated it because Obama proposed it, many liberals opposed it because they wanted single payer or medicare for all. When you add those 2 groups together, you get a majority "against" it.

2) What went under reported were polls that looked at specifics of the bill. When you looked at those, the key provisions polled very positively. But the media didn't want to talk about this.

3) Pelosi was asked about point #1. Why are the majority "against" the bill? The framing suggests that those against the bill are against it for the same reason, which was not true. So Pelosi is trying to move to point #2 ... the key provisions are very popular, and if the American people are presented with those, they'll be very happy with it.

The right wing framing of "you have to pass it to see what's in it" was GOP spin. The ACA was on-line long before they voted on it. Anyone could read it. I know, I downloaded the PDF and read it ... and I used it to debate right wingers when they would tell lies about what was in it. The document has many sections and every line is numbered ... which means you can easily ask some one who is lying about it to tell you which section their concern comes from, and which line numbers.

Bottom line ... its was BS.