In questioning yesterday at a meeting in Libby, MT concerning Asbestos victims, Kathleen Sibelius and Max Baucus were asked about some particulars in the healthcare bill as they relate to Asbestos victims.
A Nurse Judy Mattot asked if either of them had actually read the bill (you know, the one they claim to have authored). Here is the response reported in the local newspaper.
"I don't think you want me to waste my time to read every page of the health care bill. You know why? It's statutory language," Baucus said. "We hire experts."
This was followed by a collective gasp from the crowd.
Now that's not the funny part. The funny part is that the AP recorded and reported the event but left out Baucus's response in their reporting. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gDSKyUzwUH69quVtPFUdWYYrA0dwD9HPHVS80
Even funnier, the transcript as reported in the local Flathead Beacon is getting so many hits from people and reporters that the server keeps crashing.
http://www.flatheadbeacon.com/articles/article/libby_residents_relate_gains_drawbacks_of_asbestos_aid/19253/
I am sure he just mis-spoke. ;)
Like it or not, our society is quite complicated and we have laws to match.
Quote from: nathanm on August 25, 2010, 09:42:23 AM
Like it or not, our society is quite complicated and we have laws to match.
Correct. The fun thing is that no one seems to know who HAS read the bill. Why don't they just tell us who the "experts" are that wrote the bill, and we can direct questions to them?
Baucus and Sibelius clam to be the architects of the legislation but don't seem to be able to shed much light on it. At least now we know that there are "experts," and that's a relief. Now if we could just ask them a few questions that would be helpful don't you think?
The diagrams just don't do it justice.
(http://pajamasmedia.com/eddriscoll/files/2010/07/Obamacare-Chart-7-28-10.jpg)
Quote from: nathanm on August 25, 2010, 09:42:23 AM
Like it or not, our society is quite complicated and we have laws to match.
Bullshit. There's no need for 2000 page bills. 1980 pages of it is smoke.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 25, 2010, 10:15:14 AM
Bullshit. There's no need for 2000 page bills. 1980 pages of it is smoke.
Over 100 new bureaucracies with hungry mouths to feed. :o
Quote from: Conan71 on August 25, 2010, 10:15:14 AM
Bullshit. There's no need for 2000 page bills. 1980 pages of it is smoke.
I call bullshit on your calling bullshit. Some bills are needlessly complicated, but many are complicated only because the things we do are complicated. Financial regulation, for example, must be complicated because the activities and instruments being regulated are complicated.
When we write simple laws, people find a way around them. I'd rather the world not be that way, but it is.
Quote from: nathanm on August 25, 2010, 11:03:31 AM
When we write simple laws, people find a way around them. I'd rather the world not be that way, but it is.
Oh! I beg to differ. In fact the contrary is true. Complex legislation is disposable, because it requires constant maintenance, interpretation, and adjustment. The more language and provision you pour into a bill, the more change is necessary over time.
Look at our constitution. The basic foundation has remained unchanged, because the language is simple and straightforward. The strongest amendments to the constitution are simple and concise. They speak of the law in broad terms that are very easy for the common man to interpret and difficult for challengers to attack.
Now, take a bill like the healthcare bill or financial reform bill. The language within such bills is meant to be precise and binding, and as such, represents a snap-shot of time. There are pages regulating the transfer of information on electronic devices, and details regulating specific drugs, treatments and diseases. These things won't exist in 10, 20, 50 years.
Legislation like this is designed to be in a constant state of flux, and therefore unstable by design. Because it cannot be interpreted by the public or even understood by the very people who passed it, it cannot stand over time.
Don't relish in complexity, it is weakness. Our very constitution proves that simplicity is strength. It's the old battle between principals and behavior. It's the primary difference between liberal and conservative thought. Liberals attempt to control behavior, and conservatives attempt to control principals.
Simple, clear purpose and principles give rise to complex, intelligent behavior. Complex rules and regulations give rise to simple, stupid behavior. – Dee Hock, Founder and CEO Emeritus of Visa CorpLiberals want the government to be your Mommy. Conservatives want government to be your Daddy. Libertarians want it to treat you like an adult. – Andre Marrou
Quote from: Gaspar on August 25, 2010, 11:31:03 AM
Don't relish in complexity, it is weakness. Our very constitution proves that simplicity is strength. It's the old battle between principals and behavior. It's the primary difference between liberal and conservative thought. Liberals attempt to control behavior, and conservatives attempt to control principals.
Our very Constitution shows quite clearly the opposite. If it were not so simple, there would not be endless argument about what it means. The Second Amendment would have been much more useful had it been spelled out more clearly. It wouldn't have taken until very recently for it to be made clear that it does in fact guarantee a personal right to the ownership of firearms. The Tenth Amendment would actually mean something if it was more specific. Take the commerce clause, the one they regularly drive trucks through. It sure could use some clarification as to what "interstate commerce" actually entails.
And like almost all "liberals are like this, conservatives are like that" tropes, yours is wrong. Liberals attempt to control things related to the economy. Conservatives attempt to control people's personal lives. (mine is an equally useless generalization)
Quote from: nathanm on August 25, 2010, 11:40:35 AM
Our very Constitution shows quite clearly the opposite. If it were not so simple, there would not be endless argument about what it means. The Second Amendment would have been much more useful had it been spelled out more clearly. It wouldn't have taken until very recently for it to be made clear that it does in fact guarantee a personal right to the ownership of firearms. The Tenth Amendment would actually mean something if it was more specific. Take the commerce clause, the one they regularly drive trucks through. It sure could use some clarification as to what "interstate commerce" actually entails.
And like almost all "liberals are like this, conservatives are like that" tropes, yours is wrong. Liberals attempt to control things related to the economy. Conservatives attempt to control people's personal lives. (mine is an equally useless generalization)
We simply view things differently. You speak of the constant volley of attacks on the constitution, yet it survives with very few scars. Both liberals and conservatives are guilty, due to their need to control or regulate. They speak of "the people" as separate from "the law."
I believe that simple legislation is powerful. You long for the complex. We have the most complex piece of legislation ever devised on the books now. Time is the test.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 25, 2010, 11:48:20 AM
I believe that simple legislation is powerful. You long for the complex. We have the most complex piece of legislation ever devised on the books now. Time is the test.
Believe me, I don't
long for complexity. I prefer simplicity whenever possible. As an example, I think we have far too many criminal laws on the books that merely criminalize activity already covered by more general laws. There's no reason for it except having something to point to come election time.
I am sure there are aspects of HCR that are needlessly complicated, but it will out of necessity be a complex bill simply because our health care system as a whole is incredibly complex to begin with. Insurance companies have seen to that. (Medicare's raft of regulations didn't help) If I were to read the entirety of my SO's health insurance contract, I would have nearly 300 pages of 8.5x11" paper with small print to read. It's quite literally a book.
My auto insurance policy is much simpler, but the homeowner's policy is pretty damn big itself (once you add back in the documents incorporated by reference).
Surely you've seen the ridiculously long policy manuals that most large employers have. A small part of that is government mandated, but most is the company itself.
Quote from: nathanm on August 25, 2010, 11:03:31 AM
I call bullshit on your calling bullshit. Some bills are needlessly complicated, but many are complicated only because the things we do are complicated. Financial regulation, for example, must be complicated because the activities and instruments being regulated are complicated.
When we write simple laws, people find a way around them. I'd rather the world not be that way, but it is.
I call bullshit on your calling my bullshit bullshit. ;)
Nathan, have you taken the time to actually try and read one of these 2000 page behemoths? Imagine a Senator or Congressman being given 72 hours to read and make sense of all the legalese, even if it's broken down to ten staff members reading and summarizing various sections.
There is simply no need to cram that much into one bill with one purpose. The practice of sausage stuffing has got to end, it's designed to slide through controversial measures and to allow as little debate as possible.
How could anyone possibly come to the conclusion that legislation should be so complicated that not even a common citizen can tell you what it means, much less your representatives who are voting on making this a part of your life? Saying society is complicated, therefore legislation should be complicated is a cop-out.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 25, 2010, 03:46:27 PM
I call bullshit on your calling my bullshit bullshit. ;)
How could anyone possibly come to the conclusion that legislation should be so complicated that not even a common citizen can tell you what it means
Not that I support all the BS added in but a reason I can think of that there may be alot of language is there will always be people who will sue for any reason no matter how good the idea is...so you have to cover every possibility.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 25, 2010, 03:46:27 PM
I call bullshit on your calling my bullshit bullshit. ;)
Nathan, have you taken the time to actually try and read one of these 2000 page behemoths? Imagine a Senator or Congressman being given 72 hours to read and make sense of all the legalese, even if it's broken down to ten staff members reading and summarizing various sections.
There is simply no need to cram that much into one bill with one purpose. The practice of sausage stuffing has got to end, it's designed to slide through controversial measures and to allow as little debate as possible.
How could anyone possibly come to the conclusion that legislation should be so complicated that not even a common citizen can tell you what it means, much less your representatives who are voting on making this a part of your life? Saying society is complicated, therefore legislation should be complicated is a cop-out.
It's been 5 months and congress is still trying to make heads or tails of what they passed. Every week someone finds another little jewel snuggled securely in the bill.
To this day, no one has been able to give any concise explanation of how the bill works. As a result a cottage-industry of consulting firms has sprung up providing expensive webanars to CPAs and healthcare providers on how the bill "might" affect their business. As all of the new bureaucracies are built, I'm sure things will get even more complex.
Basically we've taken all of the things we love about the IRS and applied them to healthcare. I anticipate a new designation will emerge, CPHC (Certified Public Healthcare Consultant), to help guide consumers through the maze in the same way a CPA helps us understand tax code.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2738/4456726717_bd825468bb.jpg)
Solutions are simple, trickery is complicated.
Quote from: YoungTulsan on August 25, 2010, 04:36:34 PM
Solutions are simple, trickery is complicated.
Now you've done it!
If we do not halt this steady process of building commissions and regulatory bodies and the special legislation like huge inverted pyramids over every one of the simple constitutional provisions, we shall soon be spending many billions of dollars more. – Franklin D. Roosevelt
"To this day, no one has been able to give any concise explanation of how the bill works. As a result a cottage-industry of consulting firms has sprung up providing expensive webanars to CPAs and healthcare providers on how the bill "might" affect their business. As all of the new bureaucracies are built, I'm sure things will get even more complex."
Does this explain where the 3.3 million jobs were created by the stimulus package?
Quote from: Conan71 on August 25, 2010, 03:46:27 PM
I call bullshit on your calling my bullshit bullshit. ;)
Nathan, have you taken the time to actually try and read one of these 2000 page behemoths? Imagine a Senator or Congressman being given 72 hours to read and make sense of all the legalese, even if it's broken down to ten staff members reading and summarizing various sections.
There is simply no need to cram that much into one bill with one purpose. The practice of sausage stuffing has got to end, it's designed to slide through controversial measures and to allow as little debate as possible.
How could anyone possibly come to the conclusion that legislation should be so complicated that not even a common citizen can tell you what it means, much less your representatives who are voting on making this a part of your life? Saying society is complicated, therefore legislation should be complicated is a cop-out.
Many bills are difficult to understand because they are amendatory. ("Section foo paragraph 3 is changed to add 'blah blah'" sort of stuff) That's what the US Code publication is for.
Even when they're not, they're still complex because the things they aim to do are complex. We don't live in a Jeffersonian ideal agrarian society.
I fully support a requirement that all bills pertain to only one subject, FWIW. That's one piece of Oklahoma law that I wish were applicable everywhere.
Conan,
At some point even the apologists have to surrender and say "Ok, this is ridiculous."
Otherwise they eventually talk themselves into supporting things that they don't agree with on a fundamental level.
I think we are getting to that point now.
Any legislator who runs on "more transparency" and votes for a 2000 page POS needs to be turned out the next election. There's not one iota of transparency in a bill like that...
Quote from: nathanm on August 25, 2010, 09:42:23 AM
Like it or not, our society is quite complicated and we have laws to match.
I'm confused. Was your remark intended to be satirical or are you serious?
I expect every law maker to read every line of every page of everything they vote on. If they find the process to tedious or difficult, they need to find an easier job.
Voting on something they haven't read is dereliction of duty. Fire them.
Quote from: Smokinokie on August 26, 2010, 10:03:06 AM
I'm confused. Was your remark intended to be satirical or are you serious?
I expect every law maker to read every line of every page of everything they vote on. If they find the process to tedious or difficult, they need to find an easier job.
Voting on something they haven't read is dereliction of duty. Fire them.
I expect them to have had a staff member or other trusted associate read the various provisions and communicate that information to them on large bills. You know, like it's done in the business world.
If we wanted simple legislation, we would have to turn government on its head and prohibit everything by default, and only allow that which was legislatively condoned. Complex legislation is part of the price of living in a society where we are free by default. One where we're free to think up ever more convoluted ways to get around legislation we don't like.
I'd rather have simple laws, but it's simply unworkable in today's society. Perhaps if the peak oil folks turn out to be correct and society ends up collapsing and we return to a primarily agrarian existence we can go back to the simplicity we'd all prefer.
Quote from: nathanm on August 26, 2010, 10:47:38 AM
I expect them to have had a staff member or other trusted associate read the various provisions and communicate that information to them on large bills. You know, like it's done in the business world.
If we wanted simple legislation, we would have to turn government on its head and prohibit everything by default, and only allow that which was legislatively condoned. Complex legislation is part of the price of living in a society where we are free by default. One where we're free to think up ever more convoluted ways to get around legislation we don't like.
I'd rather have simple laws, but it's simply unworkable in today's society. Perhaps if the peak oil folks turn out to be correct and society ends up collapsing and we return to a primarily agrarian existence we can go back to the simplicity we'd all prefer.
You have got to be the most complacent big government apologist I've ever seen. ;)
Quote from: Conan71 on August 26, 2010, 10:50:44 AM
You have got to be the most complacent big government apologist I've ever seen. ;)
Kinda like a government "pet." :D
You know what happens the minute you feed them. . .They never go home.
Here's an editorial which points out some problems with HCR bill. Now, it's from the Washington Examiner, so you will get a little rightie hyperbole. Still, (putrid) food for thought:
Quote» Obamacare won't decrease health care costs for the government. According to Medicare's actuary, it will increase costs. The same is likely to happen for privately funded health care.
» As written, Obamacare covers elective abortions, contrary to Obama's promise that it wouldn't. This means that tax dollars will be used to pay for a procedure millions of Americans across the political spectrum view as immoral. Supposedly, the Department of Health and Human Services will bar abortion coverage with new regulations but these will likely be tied up for years in litigation, and in the end may not survive the court challenge.
» Obamacare won't allow employees or most small businesses to keep the coverage they have and like. By Obama's estimates, as many as 69 percent of employees, 80 percent of small businesses, and 64 percent of large businesses will be forced to change coverage, probably to more expensive plans.
» Obamacare will increase insurance premiums -- in some places, it already has. Insurers, suddenly forced to cover clients' children until age 26, have little choice but to raise premiums, and they attribute to Obamacare's mandates a 1 to 9 percent increase. Obama's only method of preventing massive rate increases so far has been to threaten insurers.
» Obamacare will force seasonal employers -- especially the ski and amusement park industries -- to pay huge fines, cut hours, or lay off employees.
» Obamacare forces states to guarantee not only payment but also treatment for indigent Medicaid patients. With many doctors now refusing to take Medicaid (because they lose money doing so), cash-strapped states could be sued and ordered to increase reimbursement rates beyond their means.
» Obamacare imposes a huge nonmedical tax compliance burden on small business. It will require them to mail IRS 1099 tax forms to every vendor from whom they make purchases of more than $600 in a year, with duplicate forms going to the Internal Revenue Service. Like so much else in the 2,500-page bill, our senators and representatives were apparently unaware of this when they passed the measure.
» Obamacare allows the IRS to confiscate part or all of your tax refund if you do not purchase a qualified insurance plan. The bill funds 16,000 new IRS agents to make sure Americans stay in line.
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/Obamacare-is-even-worse-than-critics-thought-960772-103571664.html#ixzz10OFMJU4h
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/Obamacare-is-even-worse-than-critics-thought-960772-103571664.html
Quote from: guido911 on September 23, 2010, 04:22:07 PM
Here's an editorial which points out some problems with HCR bill. Now, it's from the Washington Examiner, so you will get a little rightie hyperbole. Still, (putrid) food for thought:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/Obamacare-is-even-worse-than-critics-thought-960772-103571664.html
Why aren't we referring to Iraq as "Bushland" and the war in Afghanistan as "Bushwar"?
"The bill funds 16,000 new IRS agents to make sure Americans stay in line."
And that's just at the IRS. That's a lot more salaries and well-paying government pensions. Does anyone have a full count on how many more people get to suck the government tit with a newly-minted job as a result of this legislation?
This is one more area where I fail to see the value in this to the average American. You cannot possibly create an entirely new administrative layer in healthcare or health insurance management and expect the overall cost between premuiums and taxes to be less to the end user.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 23, 2010, 04:34:09 PM
"The bill funds 16,000 new IRS agents to make sure Americans stay in line."
And that's just at the IRS. That's a lot more salaries and well-paying government pensions. Does anyone have a full count on how many more people get to suck the government tit with a newly-minted job as a result of this legislation?
This is one more area where I fail to see the value in this to the average American. You cannot possibly create an entirely new administrative layer in healthcare or health insurance management and expect the overall cost between premuiums and taxes to be less to the end user.
Come on man, it's a jobs bill
for you to pay for.
Quote from: Townsend on September 23, 2010, 04:27:20 PM
Why aren't we referring to Iraq as "Bushland" and the war in Afghanistan as "Bushwar"?
Come on, many on the left do refer to Iraq as Bush's War. Here are some links to support this point:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/09/20/texas_iraq
Quote from: guido911 on September 23, 2010, 05:04:40 PM
Come on, many on the left do refer to Iraq as Bush's War. Here are some links to support this point:
Yeah, they talked about "Bushwar" on Bushnews when Jenna Bush was doing her roving reporter bit for NBC mornings.
I bet Bill is pissed that Clintonville is still governmentless and has pirates attacking ships off its coast.
Carterland's president was just talking about 9/11 in the UN...and he's talkin' crazy.