What's in the "Big Beautiful Bill"? (Page 1/1)
Raydar JUN 28, 10:16 AM
Since nobody asked. All 940 pages. PDF.
Since it's a ".gov" website, I'm guessing that it will be updated as certain points are argued.

https://www.budget.senate.g...autiful_bill_act.pdf

[This message has been edited by Raydar (edited 06-28-2025).]

blackrams JUN 28, 11:12 AM
I wonder if, those we elected will read that bill............................
I doubt I'll ever forget then Speaker Pelosi saying the representatives would have to vote for that pending bill in order to be able to read it.
Based on news reports, my understanding is one of the big hang ups is how the BBB affects rural hospitals but there may be more.

Edited: I got to page 22 when my eyes started crossing and my eyelids were closing. Hope our elected officials have folks up on this.

Rams

[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 06-28-2025).]

Raydar JUN 29, 12:23 PM

quote
Originally posted by blackrams:
...
I got to page 22 when my eyes started crossing and my eyelids were closing.




I just realized that the document is searchable. ("CTRL-F" in your browser.)
That will help to cut through the verbiage, a bit.
NewDustin JUL 01, 11:01 AM

quote
Originally posted by blackrams:
I wonder if, those we elected will read that bill............................
I doubt I'll ever forget then Speaker Pelosi saying the representatives would have to vote for that pending bill in order to be able to read it.



You are either misremembering what she said or remembering having read an inaccurate account of it. While Nancy Pelosi is absolutely a crook and thief who does more damage to her party by existing as the symbol of graft that she is, it's pretty clear what she meant by what she said, even if you don't read her explanation of her own words.

She never said that they would have to pass it before they read it, and actually encourage both Democrats and Republicans to read the bill. She was commenting that there was so much controversy around it, the general public would see for themselves that some of the outlandish claims being made about it (death panels and the such) were untrue once the bill was passed. The entire context of what she said is here:

quote
You've heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. 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.


Importantly, this was not a comment made to her fellow legislators or representatives (as you clearly indicate you believe) but to the National Association of Counties who would not be voting on it at all. The context of "you have to pass it to read it" doesn't even make sense when applied to that circumstance. The ACA, by the way, was openly debated for 8 months. There were complaints that there wasn't enough time to view the reconciliation portion after it passed, because the representatives were only give 7 days. That portion was 153 pages long.

Let's compare that to the Trump administration's current attempt to massively increase federal spending, which is a 943 page bill that the text of was dropped on June 27th, with only 7 days of total time to read it before the bill's July 4th deadline (as opposed to the ACA's more-than-8-months).

Editing to add: Trump has also been actively threatening anyone who does not support the bill, whether or not they have read it.

This is bad faith whataboutism at its absolute worst.



quote
Originally posted by blackrams:

Based on news reports, my understanding is one of the big hang ups is how the BBB affects rural hospitals but there may be more.

Edited: I got to page 22 when my eyes started crossing and my eyelids were closing. Hope our elected officials have folks up on this.

Rams


I think the issues are more with:
The planned $2.8 trillion this will add to the deficit
The shady accounting it legislates to hide its actual costs
The runaway borrowing that feels a lot like Bernie's insane MMT policies
The disproportionate cuts to wealthy non-job-creating entities that don't have any clear benefit to American businesses or consumers

...but that's just from an economic conservative perspective. There's a ton in there my libertarian side has issues with, but most of the MAGA folks are going to see those as big wins, so I don't see any point in bringing them up here

[This message has been edited by NewDustin (edited 07-01-2025).]

82-T/A [At Work] JUL 01, 01:10 PM
There's a lot I'm not thrilled with... especially grouchy that they're bringing back SALT.

I'd like to see big cuts in some things, with a reallocation of funds towards the primary things Trump was elected for...


From what I understand, the GOP won't even eliminate Medicaid funding for illegals from the bill. I guess I shouldn't let that bother me because the Democrats keep telling me that never happened...
NewDustin JUL 01, 01:20 PM

quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
There's a lot I'm not thrilled with... especially grouchy that they're bringing back SALT.


Careful Todd...that kinda language will get you deported to Africa these days
82-T/A [At Work] JUL 01, 01:30 PM

quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:

There's a lot I'm not thrilled with... especially grouchy that they're bringing back SALT.

I'd like to see big cuts in some things, with a reallocation of funds towards the primary things Trump was elected for...


From what I understand, the GOP won't even eliminate Medicaid funding for illegals from the bill. I guess I shouldn't let that bother me because the Democrats keep telling me that never happened...




Wanted to add to the Medicaid comment I made. I heard this from someone, and this was my response after doing a little bit of research:

--- --- ---

Are you sure that’s true (that illegals will get medicaid)? I’m not seeing anything about funding for illegals. Trump issued an executive order that immediately halted all benefits to illegal aliens, including Medicaid.

The only thing I’m seeing is a disagreement on this:

Tillis, who announced on June 29 that he wouldn’t seek reelection in 2026, tied his opposition to the bill’s cuts to Medicaid. In a speech on the Senate floor during the debate on Sunday, he spoke critically of the measure’s changes to Medicaid, saying that Trump had been “misinformed” about the nature of the bill’s cuts to the entitlement program. The current draft of the bill imposes new 80-hour monthly work requirements for able-bodied adults to receive benefits. It also reduces the maximum provider tax states can charge hospitals and doctors to pay for their state Medicaid program. Tillis said that the changes break Trump’s campaign promises to protect Medicaid, comparing it to President Barack Obama’s politically infamous “if you like your health care plan, you can keep it” quote on the Affordable Care Act. Paul, meanwhile, has tied his opposition to the bill’s $5 trillion increase for the debt ceiling, saying often that he would support the package only if this provision were removed and given a separate vote.


Which, honestly… if the complaints have to do with forcing able-bodied adults to work part time to receive benefits… then I really don’t have a problem with it.

The only thing I’m seeing is this: https://www.msn.com/en-us/n...rovision/ar-AA1HINsV

… which says that the parliamentarian stated that blocking illegals was a policy issue, and not a funding issue… which is why she didn’t allow it. In this case, I don’t think it matters because Trump already said he would block Medicaid to illegals via executive order in May: https://www.newsweek.com/tr...ing-medicaid-2077932

So… to suggest that illegals would be getting Medicaid is not correct in this case, it’s only if the Democrats win the White House in 2028 and decide to rescind the executive order.

82-T/A [At Work] JUL 01, 02:13 PM

quote
Originally posted by NewDustin:

Careful Todd...that kinda language will get you deported to Africa these days




Hah... I could do with a vacation, as long as I get to keep my passport and get to come back when I want. Though... it depends on what country in Africa.
blackrams JUL 01, 03:36 PM

quote
Originally posted by NewDustin:

You are either misremembering what she said or remembering having read an inaccurate account of it. While Nancy Pelosi is absolutely a crook and thief who does more damage to her party by existing as the symbol of graft that she is, it's pretty clear what she meant by what she said, even if you don't read her explanation of her own words.



While she did attempt to explain it away, she did say it. Context? OK, maybe but, the point is, it appears too many votes are cast without the "voters" knowing the full content of what they are voting for or against.


quote
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said of the Affordable Care Act, in 2010: "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."




quote
What's True
Nancy Pelosi did utter the words attributed to her about the passage of the Affordable Care Act.

What's False
The infamous soundbite doesn't reflect the full context and meaning of her remarks.




quote
On 21 June 2017, the web site Chicks on the Right reported that Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi had said, of the Affordable Care Act, in 2010 "We [need] to pass the bill in order to find out what [is] in it."

The website contrasted this with Pelosi's tweet, on 20 June 2017, in which she declared that "Americans deserve to know" what was in the Republican health care bill being developed during the summer of 2017:




quote
As can be seen, it's true that Pelosi did utter these words: "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it". However, the article left out important context, including the next few words of Pelosi's statement: "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy."

Like much reporting and commentary surrounding that remark over the next seven years, the Chicks on the Right article also left out the remarks made by Pelosi in the lead-up to the now-infamous soundbite.

Pelosi was speaking at the National Association of Counties' annual Legislative Conference on 9 March 2010, in Washington D.C. A full transcript of her speech can be viewed here, but we've included some relevant context surrounding her comments on the Affordable Care Act:



https://www.snopes.com/fact...o-see-what-is-in-it/

The whole point being, to pass the legislation before they knew the whole package of legislation. Away from the fog of controversy? What a load of

Rams