Pelosi Breaks Pledge to Put Final Health Care Bill Online for 72 Hours Before Vote

[boyntonstu]

Pelosi Breaks Pledge to Put Final Health Care Bill Online for 72 Hours Before Vote


Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office tells THE WEEKLY STANDARD that the speaker will not allow the final language of the health care to be posted online for 72 hours before bringing the bill to a vote on the House floor, despite her September 24 statement that she was "absolutely" committed to doing so.


House members are still negotiating important issues in the bill--whether it will provide taxpayer-funding for abortions, for example. Pelosi is pushing for a Saturday House vote, and a number of big changes will be introduced, likely less than 24 hours before the vote takes place (if in fact it does). The Rules Committee hasn't yet released its resolution, or rule, that must be passed before the bill can move from committee to the floor. The rule will set the terms of debate and determine what amendments are in order.


http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/11/pelosi_breaks_pledge_to_put_he.asp

[Skeptic]

This just in: politician breaks campaign promise. World shocked. Details at 11.

[willhaven]

According to TWS' own previous report that they cite, she never pledged to have it up for 72 hours.

Pelosi: I "Absolutely" Support Putting Health-Care Bill Online for 72 Hours Before Vote

After Speaker Nancy Pelosi's press conference this morning, I asked her if she supports a measure to put the final health-care bill online for 72 hours before the House votes on it. "Absolutely," she replied. "Without question."

Yesterday, Pelosi's Senate Finance Committee Democratic colleagues voted down (http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/23/house-lawmakers-aim-push-back-against-hasty-votes//print/) an amendment to put the bill online for 72 hours before a final vote.

Update: Here's a transcript of the exchange:

TWS: Madam Speaker, do you support the measure to put the final House bill online for 72 hours before it's voted on at the very end?

PELOSI: Absolutely. Without question.

She supported an amendment to ensure it would be up for 72 hours before a vote. The vote on that amendment did not pass. The question TWS asked her was if she supported the amendment, which she said she did. They did not ask her if the bill would be up 72 hours before a vote.

"Do you support the amendment to have it up for 72 hours before a vote?"

VS

"Will the bill be up for 72 hours before a vote?"

TWS can't even get their own language straight when using themselves as a source.

[Skeptic]

You seem to be quite correct, but even if she did lie, it wouldn't exactly be a novel event.

[willhaven]

"B-b-b-but you promised!"

"No. No I didn't."

[drkitten]

Goodness me. Did Boyntonsu post something else that was inflammatory, but completely baseless?

[mhaze]

Pelosi Breaks Pledge to Put Final Health Care Bill Online for 72 Hours Before Vote

....

Naw, Chumps, you ain't reading nothing. Got it, Chumpie boy?

[gtc]

In general, even if a bill like this was up for 72 hours, is that enough time for the politicians and the staff to read it thoroughly?

[Eyeron]

No you are not allowed to change your mind either. once you sau you will do something you will do it or else.

[Upchurch]

In general, even if a bill like this was up for 72 hours, is that enough time for the politicians and the staff to read it thoroughly?
Politicians and their staffs can only access bills if they are online? How did our government run before the internet?


(just because it isn't online doesn't mean it isn't available.)

[cwalner]

I think the point attempting to be made in the OP is not whether or not politicians would have time to review the bill before voting on it, but whether John and Jane Q Public would have that same access.

What the OP hopes this would accomplish, I have no idea, since John and Jane Q Public have no direct vote in the matter (that's why we elected those pesky politicians in the first place).

I find it hard to believe that having the draft posted online will change the demographics of support and opposition to the bill in any major way, and I am certain that every single congressperson is already well aware of what those demographics are in his/her district.

[Upchurch]

What the OP hopes this would accomplish, I have no idea, since John and Jane Q Public have no direct vote in the matter (that's why we elected those pesky politicians in the first place).
Representative Democracies are down right un-American!

[willhaven]

In general, even if a bill like this was up for 72 hours, is that enough time for the politicians and the staff to read it thoroughly?Seeing as they are simply amending it now, they only have to read the amendments as they come in.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Seeing as they are simply amending it now, they only have to read the amendments as they come in.

Yup. As discussed on or another of Boytonstu's threads on this topic, requiring a final language write-up for the hundreds of different possible versions of a bill before it reaches a final state would effectively stop the legislative process.

Also, is anyone here (Boytonstu?) suggesting that the representatives will vote on the bill without knowing (or being able to know) what is in the bill?

In one of his other threads Boytonstu was of the opinion that there is a great conspiracy of silence that is covering up efforts to put pork into the healthcare bill. (That was wrt the Senate Finance Committeee's bill.)

Also mixed in with all this criticism of the legislative process (though admittedly not explicitly stated on this thread) is the idea that any very large and very complex bill with lots of jargon is somehow bad. To that specific point I again ask whether those critics felt the same about large complex bills full of jargon that were passed by Republican controlled congresses in the past?

ETA: For that matter is transparency in the legislative process only something that concerns them when the Democrats have the majority?

[gtc]

Politicians and their staffs can only access bills if they are online?

Can they access them in other ways?


How did our government run before the internet?

I remember reading questions being raised about just how much knowledge politicians have about the bills they are voting on before the internet.


(just because it isn't online doesn't mean it isn't available.)

I made two assumptions. 1) That because the internet would be the easiest way to disseminate bills that this would be the primary method used. 2) That the fuss was about not getting 72 hours to review the text at all not 72 hours to review the text online [which seems like a pretty minor thing to complain about].

Also, is anyone here (Boytonstu?) suggesting that the representatives will vote on the bill without knowing (or being able to know) what is in the bill?

I was asking the question about how they manage to review bills properly in the apparently short time they get.


ETA: For that matter is transparency in the legislative process only something that concerns them when the Democrats have the majority?

No.

[Upchurch]

Can they access them in other ways?
...

Really? You're questioning whether legislators have access to bills they vote on? With a straight face?

Really?

You'd get the laughing dog if the possibility that you actually believe that weren't so sad.

I remember reading questions being raised about just how much knowledge politicians have about the bills they are voting on before the internet.
Whether they read a bill before they vote on it is a different question from whether they have access to it.


I made two assumptions. 1) That because the internet would be the easiest way to disseminate bills that this would be the primary method used. 2) That the fuss was about not getting 72 hours to review the text at all not 72 hours to review the text online [which seems like a pretty minor thing to complain about].
You missed the third assumption: that this review period was directed at members of congress when it was pretty plainly meant for the public.

[daenku32]

If only there was a way to access the bill before..oh wait!

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3962/text

[JoeTheJuggler]

And here:
http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf

ETA: However, these won't satisfy Boyntonstu MHaze because they're not final versions since there's still debate going on about making changes to do with abortion and immigration--you know, the stuff Boyntonstu MHaze considers to be "pork"!

[mhaze]

And here:
http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf

ETA: However, these won't satisfy Boyntonstu because they're not final versions since there's still debate going on about making changes to do with abortion and immigration--you know, the stuff Boyntonstu considers to be "pork"!Good.

Yep, post the absolute, real, final bill online for 72 hours before the vote. So that the last minute pork is all 72 hours old before the vote.

Can't see ANY problems with that.

[JoeTheJuggler]

And here:
http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf

ETA: However, these won't satisfy Boyntonstu because they're not final versions since there's still debate going on about making changes to do with abortion and immigration--you know, the stuff Boyntonstu considers to be "pork"!

Oops! :blush:

My apologies, Boytonstu. I was thinking of Mhaze. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=154914&page=2

[JoeTheJuggler]

Good.

Yep, post the absolute, real, final bill online for 72 hours before the vote. So that the last minute pork is all 72 hours old before the vote.

Can't see ANY problems with that.

And do you have any examples of this "pork"?

Best I can see, the only sticking points being debated compared to the version that's been posted on-line since Oct. 29 is the question of the language surrounding abortion and illegal immigrants.

Yes, the 1,990 pages (they're actually short pages with each line numbered) isn't the final version because the House is still debating these changes.

How terrible!

[mhaze]

And do you have any examples of this "pork"?

Best I can see, the only sticking points being debated compared to the version that's been posted on-line since Oct. 29 is the question of the language surrounding abortion and illegal immigrants.

Yes, the 1,990 pages (they're actually short pages with each line numbered) isn't the final version because the House is still debating these changes.

How terrible!Are you referring to examples of pork yet to be entered into this bill, or pork entered into bills in the past right before a vote on any of a number of bills?

The first is silly, the answers to the second are well known.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Are you referring to examples of pork yet to be entered into this bill, or pork entered into bills in the past right before a vote on any of a number of bills?

The first is silly, the answers to the second are well known.

I'm asking what you mean when you claim that the legislative process as it's been for some time is tantamount to a conspiracy of silence such that lawmakers can slip pork into bills like this one without anyone knowing about it.

Why is the first silly? You keep claiming that this is a secret process (on the other thread) and I keep pointing out to you that I've seen the debate on TV! When do these secret pork amendments get added into the House healthcare bill?

Again, it looks like in the House the only sticking points being discussed are the abortion and illegal immigrant issues. Do you think there's going to be a line item inserted to allocate a million bucks or so for an "overhead projector" at Adler Planetarium (or something similar)?

ETA: I also disagree that examples of this happening in the past are "well known". I know there's pork spending, but it's not being slipped in without legislators' knowledge. In fact, it's usually part of the deal-making process. An opponent of the bill basically swaps his vote in exchange for getting something he wants in. In fact, that's pretty much what will happen with the abortion issue (and eventually with the public option when this bill is blended with whatever the Senate passes). Some representatives right now don't want a bill that has language banning the public insurance plan from paying for abortions, and there are others who want there to be language making just such a ban. For this thing to pass, one or both sides will have to abide by something they don't really agree with.

[Undesired Walrus]

Is this a vote among the entire House of Representatives? Today? If it passes, it then goes to the Senate?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Is this a vote among the entire House of Representatives? Today? If it passes, it then goes to the Senate?

Last I heard the vote was being delayed--primarily over the abortion issue.

ETA: Yes, it seems the reps who don't agree with Roe v. Wade want to consult with Catholic bishops first. . .
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/06/health.care/index.html

Washington (CNN) -- The issue of abortion threatened to derail House Democrats' health care bill Friday unless staunchly anti-abortion Democrats and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops succeeded in their effort to get strict abortion limitations into the measure.
The hotly anticipated vote on the bill by the full House of Representatives may be delayed until Sunday, according to two Democratic sources, although the vote on the nearly $1.1 trillion bill is still planned for Saturday.

[Undesired Walrus]

I just tuned in to watch this debate and saw a Congressman bring a BABY to the stand for one minute to tell the House that this baby didn't want the Government to take over healthcare..

Um.. Does this kind of thing always happen in there?

So if this vote does pass, it then goes to the senate, then back to the Congress, then the President? A fairly important vote then?

[gtc]

...

Really? You're questioning whether legislators have access to bills they vote on? With a straight face?

Really?

You'd get the laughing dog if the possibility that you actually believe that weren't so sad.



Can you read? What does the phrase 'other ways' mean to you? Hint: It doesn't mean 'at all'.


Whether they read a bill before they vote on it is a different question from whether they have access to it.



Yes, yes it is. However, the question I posed about whether they have time enough to read it properly still stands.




You missed the third assumption: that this review period was directed at members of congress when it was pretty plainly meant for the public.

Indeed I did. Do you realise that when you dropped the snarky tone, your comments actually began to make sense?

[Thunder]

I just tuned in to watch this debate and saw a Congressman bring a BABY to the stand for one minute to tell the House that this baby didn't want the Government to take over healthcare..


many Republicans, not all, but many...are very very stupid people.

what's next...claiming that if a public option is passed, 9-11 will surely happen again?

"Al-Qaeda wants a public-option"

:)

[SezMe]

You missed the third assumption: that this review period was directed at members of congress when it was pretty plainly meant for the public lobbyists.
Fixed that for you, Up.

[mhaze]

I'm asking what you mean when you claim that the legislative process as it's been for some time is tantamount to a conspiracy of silence such that lawmakers can slip pork into bills like this one without anyone knowing about it.

Why is the first silly? You keep claiming that this is a secret process (on the other thread) and I keep pointing out to you that I've seen the debate on TV! When do these secret pork amendments get added into the House healthcare bill?

Again, it looks like in the House the only sticking points being discussed are the abortion and illegal immigrant issues. Do you think there's going to be a line item inserted to allocate a million bucks or so for an "overhead projector" at Adler Planetarium (or something similar)?

ETA: I also disagree that examples of this happening in the past are "well known". I know there's pork spending, but it's not being slipped in without legislators' knowledge. In fact, it's usually part of the deal-making process. An opponent of the bill basically swaps his vote in exchange for getting something he wants in. In fact, that's pretty much what will happen with the abortion issue (and eventually with the public option when this bill is blended with whatever the Senate passes). Some representatives right now don't want a bill that has language banning the public insurance plan from paying for abortions, and there are others who want there to be language making just such a ban. For this thing to pass, one or both sides will have to abide by something they don't really agree with.

When the last 1000 page bill was dumped on the legislators at midnight, and they were told the vote would be at 9 am, now how do you know all that quite so precisely?

Obviously, it is not only us that should believe you, but all the Congress, too, since not having time to read the final copy represents the absence of an ability to confirm the lack of pork or other provisions that might change one's opinion on the bill.

So all the representatives and senators should just believe Joe because he said so on an internet forum, eh?

I like the simple idea of posting it for 72 hours.

[JoeTheJuggler]

When the last 1000 page bill was dumped on the legislators at midnight, and they were told the vote would be at 9 am, now how do you know all that quite so precisely?
What?


Obviously, it is not only us that should believe you, but all the Congress, too, since not having time to read the final copy represents the absence of an ability to confirm the lack of pork or other provisions that might change one's opinion on the bill.
What?

So all the representatives and senators should just believe Joe because he said so on an internet forum, eh?
What did I say that you think I expect Congress to believe?

More of that secret pork-adding process is being broadcast live on CNN right this minute:
http://www.cnn.com/ click on "House debates health care reform."

The link I gave earlier has been on the web for more than 72 hours already, and there is no final House vote coming any time very soon. In fact, I don't think they've voted on the abortion amendment to it yet.

The document itself was drafted Oct. 29, and I assume it's been available to the entire House since that date.

Listening to the debate, I don't hear anyone on either side claiming they don't know what's in the bill.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I was wrong--they did get to the final vote tonight.

They passed the anti-abortion amendment. (I guess all the objection to "government" making healthcare decisions fades when government decides that insurance companies in the insurance exchange can't cover abortions.) They did not pass the Bohner amendment.

So again, MHaze, what pork was added? And do you think any member of the House was unable to know what was in the bill?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Naw, Chumps, you ain't reading nothing. Got it, Chumpie boy?

You can keep calling people "chumps" but you still haven't supported your premise that no one can read the bill or that legislators are voting on it without knowing (or being able to know) what's in it.

[SezMe]

They passed the anti-abortion amendment. (I guess all the objection to "government" making healthcare decisions fades when government decides that insurance companies in the insurance exchange can't cover abortions.)

Yeah, that irks me. There have to be a gazillion medical procedures, tests and practices but the damn thumpers have to outlaw just one. So much for keeping government of the back of the populace.

They did not pass the Bohner amendment.
What was that one?

[psychictv]

many Republicans, not all, but many...are very very stupid people.

What an utterly absurd thing to say. Can you provide any evidence that there are Republicans who are not very very stupid? I find that incredibly hard to believe.

[SezMe]

There are, of course, Republicans who are not stupid. But providing evidence of this will not refute parky's assertion. Not that I am asserting it is true, mind you, just that responding to your query will not advance the discussion.

[eeyore1954]

Maybe Pelosi didn't pledge to put the final bill up 72 hours before. but why was it important to vote on the bill late Saturday night instead of giving the bill three days to age like a good cheese.

[Peephole]

Pelosi told the Weekly Standard she would support "the measure" to put the bill online 72 hours in advance. On September 24, McCormack wrote in a blog post that he "asked [Pelosi] if she supports a measure to put the final health-care bill online for 72 hours before the House votes on it." McCormack said that she replied, "Absolutely...Without question."

House measure McCormack asked Pelosi about requires full text and committee reports to be posted 72 hours in advance, but doesn't apply to amendments. McCormack was presumably referring to a measure Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA) introduced in June, H. Res. 554, which would have, according to the Congressional Research Service summary of the resolution, changed the "Rules of the House of Representatives to make it out of order in the House to consider a measure or matter until 72 hours ... after its text (and, if any, the text of all accompanying reports) have been made available to Members, Delegates, the Resident Commissioner (Members), and the general public." The summary also said H.RES. 554 "[r]equires the full text of the legislation and each committee report, without further amendment before floor consideration, to be posted continuously by means of the Internet" for 72 hours before the bill comes to a vote. According to a September 24 The Hill report, a "discharge petition" being circulated at the time would have forced Pelosi to schedule a vote on H. Res. 554, and McCormack "asked Pelosi about a discharge petition at her press conference, to which the speaker responded that she'd 'absolutely' support it."

The text of the bill, the manager's amendment and related committee reports were posted 72 hours in advance. Pelosi's office posted the text of the legislation, HR 3962, online on October 29, and it posted the manager's amendment to the bill online at on Tuesday, November 3. Since the bill is reportedly scheduled for a vote on Saturday, November 7, that means both will have been online at least 72 hours before the vote. The three House committees that voted on HR 3200, the House's original health care reform bill, all posted committee reports online. After the three bills were merged, it became HR 3962, which the House will reportedly consider on Saturday. The Energy & Commerce Committee linked to its report in a July 14 post, a July 15-17 Republican press release for the Education & Labor Committee linked to its report, and the Ways & Means Committee linked to its report in an October 15 post.

http://mediamatters.org/research/200911060016

Just more lies from the right-wingers.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Re: The Boehner amendment to the House bill that was voted down yesterday before the final vote on the bill.

What was that one?
I don't know exactly. All the news article I read said was that it would have replaced language throughout the bill on the subject of insurance reform.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Maybe Pelosi didn't pledge to put the final bill up 72 hours before. but why was it important to vote on the bill late Saturday night instead of giving the bill three days to age like a good cheese.
But why wait? The only thing added in the last few days was the abortion language--and even that wasn't really new or surprising.

It's not cheese.

It's a legislative package whose main points were proposed before the summer break. (ETA: And I'm certain the opposition to the bill is over the major points and not about some hidden detail or MHaze's fictional "pork".) Now it's November. Obama's stated goal was to pass the thing before the end of the year.

From what I read, the biggest parts of the bill like the insurance exchange and the public option, won't go into effect for 4 years.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Surely I'm not the first person to notice the irony in the following:

House measure McCormack asked Pelosi about requires full text and committee reports to be posted 72 hours in advance, but doesn't apply to amendments. McCormack was presumably referring to a measure Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA) introduced in June, H. Res. 554, which would have, according to the Congressional Research Service summary of the resolution, changed the "Rules of the House of Representatives to make it out of order in the House to consider a measure or matter until 72 hours ... after its text (and, if any, the text of all accompanying reports) have been made available to Members, Delegates, the Resident Commissioner (Members), and the general public." The summary also said H.RES. 554 "[r]equires the full text of the legislation and each committee report, without further amendment before floor consideration, to be posted continuously by means of the Internet" for 72 hours before the bill comes to a vote.

[eeyore1954]

But why wait? The only thing added in the last few days was the abortion language--and even that wasn't really new or surprising.

It's not cheese.

It's a legislative package whose main points were proposed before the summer break. (ETA: And I'm certain the opposition to the bill is over the major points and not about some hidden detail or MHaze's fictional "pork".) Now it's November. Obama's stated goal was to pass the thing before the end of the year.

From what I read, the biggest parts of the bill like the insurance exchange and the public option, won't go into effect for 4 years.

you say why wait I say what harm would come from waiting and giving the appearance of transparency especially in light of the last statement.

[mhaze]

Maybe Pelosi didn't pledge to put the final bill up 72 hours before. but why was it important to vote on the bill late Saturday night instead of giving the bill three days to age like a good cheese.Probably because when the bills age, then it is obvious whether the object in question is good aged cheese, or a rotten tomato.

[Upchurch]

Can you read? What does the phrase 'other ways' mean to you? Hint: It doesn't mean 'at all'.
Um, yeah, it kinda does.

Let's review:

Politicians and their staffs can only access bills if they are online?
Can they access them in other ways?
If they can't, as you question, access it 'other ways' it means that you are suggesting that they can't access it 'at all', if they can't view them online.

Unless you know a third option between 'online' and 'other ways'?

Indeed I did. Do you realise that when you dropped the snarky tone, your comments actually began to make sense?
Well, maybe if you took five minutes to think about it before JAQing off in this thread....

[leftysergeant]

but why was it important to vote on the bill late Saturday night instead of giving the bill three days to age like a good cheese.

Delay just gives the insurance company vultures time to concoct another pile of compost smear ad against the whole measure, misquoting, distorting or outrightly lying about what is in it.

It is mostly that snot Boehner who is pushing the idea right now on the floor. It would give him a way of tying up a bill every time an ammendment was added.

(Has anybody told that self-righteous twit yet that his party LOST seats last time around?)

[gtc]

Upchurch, your entire post is nonsense.

[Upchurch]

Upchurch, your entire post is nonsense.
What don't you understand? That there is no third option between "online" and "other ways"? Or that for approximately 90% of this country's history, politicians and their staffs (if they had them) were accessing proposed bills without accessing them on the internet?

Or is your condescending tone not allowing you admit you asked a silly question, instead attacking the messenger as having a snarky tone and talking nonsense?

[gtc]

Your last two posts haven't been related to what I wrote at all.

They have been just a bunch of nonsense followed by a couple of insults and even your insults contradict each other.

You aren't worth reading.

[Whiplash]

I just tuned in to watch this debate and saw a Congressman bring a BABY to the stand for one minute to tell the House that this baby didn't want the Government to take over healthcare..

many Republicans, not all, but many...are very very stupid people.


Ya, it's not like any Democrat party officials used their own children in an Obama town hall to ask why people were being so mean.

[SezMe]

Ya, it's not like any Democrat Repubic party officials used their own children in an Obama Republic town hall to ask why people were being so mean.
See, it works both ways. Oh, BTW, can we stop the silly party name crap.

[gtc]

See, it works both ways.

That was his point.

Oh, BTW, can we stop the silly party name crap.

I've never been able to work out why some people think referring to the Democrat Party is sinister.

Its not like they don't routinely refer to themselves that way.
http://www.dubois-democrats.org/ [website is named Dubois County Democrat Party]

Wabash Democrat Club (http://www.indems.org/page/group/WabashDemocratClub)

Terre-Haute City Council President quoted on the Indiana Democratic Party website (http://www.indems.org/news/-/democrats_show_optimism_during_open_house_for_long _thompson):

I didn’t want the Democrat party message to get diluted..


And on the Texas Democratic Party (http://www.txdemocrats.org/issues/economy/) website

It also forms part of the name of the Liberal Democrat Party (http://www.libdems.org.uk/) in the UK and is the way the Australian Democrat Party (http://www.democrats.org.au) refers to themselves



However, I always try to call the Dems by their proper name - the Demonratic Party.

[SezMe]

However, I always try to call the Dems by their proper name - the Demonratic Party.
You're cute, gtc.

[gtc]

I try to be.

[Upchurch]

Your last two posts haven't been related to what I wrote at all.

They have been just a bunch of nonsense followed by a couple of insults and even your insults contradict each other.

You aren't worth reading.
Pride is a terrible burden.

...and an impediment to learning.

[willhaven]

Ya, it's not like any Democrat party officials used their own children in an Obama town hall to ask why people were being so mean.I wonder who the Democrat and Tea Party nominees will be in 2012.

[JoeTheJuggler]

you say why wait I say what harm would come from waiting and giving the appearance of transparency especially in light of the last statement.

Really, what harm could come of leaving people uninsured? What harm could come from the status quo of people having to decide between an expensive medical procedure (perhaps life-saving) and financial well-being?

Now granted, another couple of days is minor in the grand scheme of things, but as I've said, the debate on this reform is not something that just started a few days ago. We've waited long enough.

ETA: More to the point, this business of publishing the bill in its final language isn't really about making sure the legislators who vote on it know what it's in it. It's also not about their constituencies knowing what's in it. (Most of us rely on summaries anyway.) It's about the minority trying to stall the process any way they possibly can.

[Lurker]

I just tuned in to watch this debate and saw a Congressman bring a BABY to the stand for one minute to tell the House that this baby didn't want the Government to take over healthcare..

My dearest wish would have been for the rest of Congress to point and laugh at the idiot who did that. My guess is almost half applauded.

[Undesired Walrus]

My dearest wish would have been for the rest of Congress to point and laugh at the idiot who did that. My guess is almost half applauded.

They certainly did (applaud).

[Newtons Bit]

ETA: More to the point, this business of publishing the bill in its final language isn't really about making sure the legislators who vote on it know what it's in it. It's also not about their constituencies knowing what's in it. (Most of us rely on summaries anyway.) It's about the minority trying to stall the process any way they possibly can.

Yes, Minority Party members: Nancy Pelosi and Obama are trying to delay things with their promises to post Bills online before respectively voting on or signing said Bills. They're dastardly!

I think I might be missing something here...

[Lurker]

I think having bills online for the populace to read ahead of time is a good idea. Cumbersome, but good. We can wait 72+ hours for a vote.

[mhaze]

I think having bills online for the populace to read ahead of time is a good idea. Cumbersome, but good. We can wait 72+ hours for a vote.Hey, we agree on something!!! Cool...

[Lurker]

I'm all for more transparency in government.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Yes, Minority Party members: Nancy Pelosi and Obama are trying to delay things with their promises to post Bills online before respectively voting on or signing said Bills. They're dastardly!

I think I might be missing something here...

Yes, you're missing the part where Pelosi in fact did not make that promise.

See post number 3 on this thread.

The proposal to require posting bills on-line was made by Republicans in the Senate Finance Committee in an attempt to delay the Baucus Bill.

Pelosi didn't even get to vote for or against that proposal, what with her being the Speaker of the House and not a member of the Senate at all.

[Newtons Bit]

Yes, you're missing the part where Pelosi in fact did not make that promise.

See post number 3 on this thread.

The proposal to require posting bills on-line was made by Republicans in the Senate Finance Committee in an attempt to delay the Baucus Bill.

Pelosi didn't even get to vote for or against that proposal, what with her being the Speaker of the House and not a member of the Senate at all.

I'll check out the primary sources of Pelosi's statement.

I stand by my comment where Obama pledged to wait 5 days before signing. ;)

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'll check out the primary sources of Pelosi's statement.
According to the article cited in the OP, she was asked her opinion on the proposal made by Republicans in the Senate Finance Committee. She said she was in favor of it. The proposal was defeated (in the Senate Finance Committee). Someone construed this situation to be that Pelosi pledged to publish the House bill on the internet for 72 hours before a final House vote on it.

And anyway, the final version of the House bill except for the last-minute anti-abortion amendment was published on-line at least very close to 72 hours before the final vote. I'm not sure when the documented dated Oct. 29th was first put on line.

I stand by my comment where Obama pledged to wait 5 days before signing. ;)
OK. . . so, we're changing the topic to anger at Obama for possibly breaking a campaign promise in the future?

Anyway. . . if the House version of the bill (which has been on-line except for the last-minute anti-abortion amendment for about a week now) ends up being slightly modified and passed in the Senate, does that mean the 5 day clock starts again?

I think opponents of the healthcare reform are just trying to use transparency as a dodge or a delaying tactic. They're people who were OK with the way the legislative process worked when it was in Republican control, and now they're criticizing a much more transparent process as being not transparent enough.

MHaze seems to think it's a big secret process that will result in the addition of pork to the bill, or that maybe legislators are voting on a bill without they or their constituents being allowed to know what's in the bill.

As has been noted repeatedly, most of us have an easier time reading the plain English summaries of these things anyway, and by now we're all familiar with the main points, including the main points of disagreement. No body is trying to pull a fast one and slip through some death panels or something without people being able to know about them. This really isn't an issue about transparency. It's about a minority trying to block a bill they're opposed to by any means possible.

Debate on the content of these bills has been going on for months (at least) now. The Dems held Town Hall meetings that were meant to communicate and discuss the pros and cons of these proposed reforms. Opponents of the bill largely failed to engage in that debate, instead opting to make irrational emotional appeals, spread misinformation, and generally try to disrupt to the process. I think the OP of this thread is another example of this sort of thing.

[Upchurch]

Hey, we agree on something!!! Cool...
And you both agree with Pelosi. Crazy, huh?

[mhaze]

According to the article cited in the OP, she was asked her opinion on the proposal made by Republicans in the Senate Finance Committee. She said she was in favor of it. The proposal was defeated (in the Senate Finance Committee). Someone construed this situation to be that Pelosi pledged to publish the House bill on the internet for 72 hours before a final House vote on it.

And anyway, the final version of the House bill except for the last-minute anti-abortion amendment was published on-line at least very close to 72 hours before the final vote. I'm not sure when the documented dated Oct. 29th was first put on line.


OK. . . so, we're changing the topic to anger at Obama for possibly breaking a campaign promise in the future?

Anyway. . . if the House version of the bill (which has been on-line except for the last-minute anti-abortion amendment for about a week now) ends up being slightly modified and passed in the Senate, does that mean the 5 day clock starts again?

I think opponents of the healthcare reform are just trying to use transparency as a dodge or a delaying tactic. They're people who were OK with the way the legislative process worked when it was in Republican control, and now they're criticizing a much more transparent process as being not transparent enough.

MHaze seems to think it's a big secret process that will result in the addition of pork to the bill, or that maybe legislators are voting on a bill without they or their constituents being allowed to know what's in the bill.

As has been noted repeatedly, most of us have an easier time reading the plain English summaries of these things anyway.....And some of us, who have actually been engaged at numerous points in reading law and it's finer points, and who have found in contracts obscure phrases which reversed the apparent intent of important sections, ...

Well, let's just say that some of us (do not laugh at, but) completely understand the preference of others for the plain English summary. But having understood that preference, relentless insist on the actual contract language to be put on the table for examination.

Essentially, you could say that is not a negotiable point. Further, that it isn't an issue that can be argued, because you are arguing for the making of a contract, without providing the text of the contract.

Thus, you presume that your party on the other side of the table is really dumb, or you yourself do not understand the difference.

In either case I'm sure you see what my point is.

[JoeTheJuggler]

And some of us, who have actually been engaged at numerous points in reading law and it's [sic] finer points, and who have found in contracts obscure phrases which reversed the apparent intent of important sections, ...

Funny, I'm sure I've asked you before if you think the problem is that the plain text summary misrepresents what's in the bill. Apparently you do.

OK, let's hear some examples of this. You say they are "numerous" so let's hear a few.

[mhaze]

Funny, I'm sure I've asked you before if you think the problem is that the plain text summary misrepresents what's in the bill. Apparently you do.

OK, let's hear some examples of this. You say they are "numerous" so let's hear a few.

Okay, for whatever reason, you really don't seem to get it. One last time - it's very common in contracts, to prepare an easy-to-read summary and the real thing. Standard practice in business contracts.

Now you want to go down some road of "sign the actual contract but you only get to read my plain english summary", YOU ARE IN TOTAL LA LA LAND.

Got it now?

This is a fundamental issue in law and contracts.

[SezMe]

Gee, mhaze, I think Joe's request is simple, straightforward and to the point you are trying to make. Your dance around the subject is cute but ultimately unsatisfying. Get some grit and actually respond to the question.

[drkitten]

Okay, for whatever reason, you really don't seem to get it. One last time - it's very common in contracts, to prepare an easy-to-read summary and the real thing. Standard practice in business contracts.

Now you want to go down some road of "sign the actual contract but you only get to read my plain english summary", YOU ARE IN TOTAL LA LA LAND.

The only problem with that is that you're not the one who signs the contract.


Got it now?

Absolutely. You're behaving irrationally again. I got it.

[kallsop]

In general, even if a bill like this was up for 72 hours, is that enough time for the politicians and the staff to read it thoroughly?


I'll bet you a box of donuts that nobody who voted read the entire bill. 72 hours or 72 weeks wouldn't have made a difference there. However, if the public were to get to read the entire bill those with D's after their name would have been given an earful. That's the reason why the bill is more or less a secret until after the vote. Not that the broad implications are unknown, but the devil is in the details, right?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Okay, for whatever reason, you really don't seem to get it. One last time - it's very common in contracts, to prepare an easy-to-read summary and the real thing. Standard practice in business contracts.

Now you want to go down some road of "sign the actual contract but you only get to read my plain english summary", YOU ARE IN TOTAL LA LA LAND.

Got it now?

This is a fundamental issue in law and contracts.

Yes I've "got it now".

This is your way of saying, "No, I don't have even one single example of these numerous cases where the plain English summary mischaracterized the final language. You should just believe me."

It's perfectly clear.

It's a shame you couldn't have just said it that way.

[JoeTheJuggler]

However, if the public were to get to read the entire bill those with D's after their name would have been given an earful. That's the reason why the bill is more or less a secret until after the vote. Not that the broad implications are unknown, but the devil is in the details, right?

You do realize it's been on the web for about a week now (except for the anti-abortion amendment added at the last minute)?

http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf

Can you help us find those devilish details?

There are people who legitimately opposed this bill, but they're not claiming it's because they don't know what's in it (such as hidden pork or "death panels").

Really, the debate on these reforms has been going on for months now. There's no hidden surprises.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Well, let's just say that some of us (do not laugh at, but) completely understand the preference of others for the plain English summary. But having understood that preference, relentless insist on the actual contract language to be put on the table for examination.

And if, in the context of a contract, the plain English representation misrepresents the legal document, you would have a case for fraud. Of course, you'd have to prove that the plain English summary was a misrepresentation.

[SezMe]

I'll bet you a box of donuts that nobody who voted read the entire bill.
I'll bet you're right. I'll also bet the same box of donuts that your point is irrelevant. Congresscritters have staff for that level of detail. And I am sure there are dozens of lobbyists knocking on their doors with specific wording suggestions, analysis, and other commentary. I don't expect my Rep to be a speed reader but I do expect her to get a variety of inputs, especially from staff with related expertise and to listen to her constituents.

Look kallsop, there's plenty about this piece of legislative garbage to discuss. Can we avoid the trivial?

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'll bet you a box of donuts that nobody who voted read the entire bill.

I'll be the people who voted for the Medicare Reform Act of 2003 or the Energy Policy Act of 2005 didn't read the entire text of the final bill either.

This reluctance to support a bill because it's long, complex, and full of jargon seems to be a new phenomenon.

[mhaze]

Gee, mhaze, I think Joe's request is simple, straightforward and to the point you are trying to make. Your dance around the subject is cute but ultimately unsatisfying. Get some grit and actually respond to the question.Does not matter. I didn't say it wasn't straightforward. I've only tried to point out that this is a very simple matter in law, and by no means is the issue limited to votes in congress.

I don't feel obliged to respond to every thing someone tries to direct me to do on the internet. But thanks for the added stupidity you bring to the argument. Here is the problem.

A says: Contract and contract-plain-language are required.
B says: No, only CPL is required. Trust me.
A says: Trust, yeah, but verify. Show contract.
B says: No. Show me where absence of CPL caused a problem.
A says: No deal.

Why? Because absence of CPL creates what is called in economics, "Moral Hazard". And bringing instances of C being equal or not to CPL neither proves or disproves the issue with respect to a particular instance, neither does it provide weight of probability to C being equal to CPL.

Look up "term sheet" in contract law for discussions of how to create plain language summaries.

But the argument that ...

Naw, you don't need that complicated legaleze, chumps. You just gets this here simple stuff that you an me can understand. See, chumps?

Is ridiculous.

[SezMe]

:dc_tongue:

[JoeTheJuggler]

Does not matter. I didn't say it wasn't straightforward. I've only tried to point out that this is a very simple matter in law, and by no means is the issue limited to votes in congress.

I don't feel obliged to respond to every thing someone tries to direct me to do on the internet. But thanks for the added stupidity you bring to the argument. Here is the problem.

A says: Contract and contract-plain-language are required.
B says: No, only CPL is required. Trust me.
A says: Trust, yeah, but verify. Show contract.
B says: No. Show me where absence of CPL caused a problem.
A says: No deal.


Supplying both sides of a dialogue is a pretty good sign that you're arguing against a straw man.

That bit I bolded--has anyone here said that only the plain English summary of the legislation in question is required?

So, still not one solitary single example of where the plain English summary of HR 3962 misrepresents the actual legislation? Aside from the anti-abortion amendment, the text has been on-line for close to a week now.
_______

Seriously, does no one see the irony I pointed out in post number 42?

Boytonstu seems to think Pelosi was breaking a pledge, when, as I pointed out the proposal to require bills to be posted on-line for 72 hours before a vote was made by Republicans in the Senate Finance Committee in an attempt to delay the Baucus bill. That proposal was defeated by committee vote.

The article cited in the OP relied on the summary of that proposal rather than the actual text. :p

[SezMe]

At the risk of a tu quoque sin, I'd also like to point out that the Republicans have never been keen on making their legislation available on line. The most egregious example is probably the TARP bill. Which is worse, a Pelosi bill on line which may not be exactly up to date or a McConnell bill which was never online?

[mhaze]

At the risk of a tu quoque sin, I'd also like to point out that the Republicans have never been keen on making their legislation available on line. The most egregious example is probably the TARP bill. Which is worse, a Pelosi bill on line which may not be exactly up to date or a McConnell bill which was never online?Nope, the arguments for placing the bills online is not partisian. (and I'm not Repubican). Granted, in this particular context the issue was raised by a Republican.

[Beerina]

This just in: politician breaks campaign promise. World shocked. Details at 11.

This just in: House votes along re-election lines, knowing the Old Men will kill it anyway. Details at 11.

[mhaze]

This just in: House votes along re-election lines, knowing the Old Men will kill it anyway. Details at 11.The guilty verdict down here has already been pronounced on a House member who voted for the bill.

2010 - he bites the dust.

Some others, in nicely gerrymandered districts, do not look easy to dislodge.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Nope, the arguments for placing the bills online is not partisian [sic].

The arguments aren't partisan, but the motivation sure is. Which is why the arguments don't line up with the facts. It's also why Republicans in the Senate Finance Committee who proposed this on-line requirement weren't saying anything like this when their party controlled Congress.

[mhaze]

The arguments aren't partisan, but the motivation sure is. Which is why the arguments don't line up with the facts. It's also why Republicans in the Senate Finance Committee who proposed this on-line requirement weren't saying anything like this when their party controlled Congress.It's irrelevant to me whether the motivation in a particular case on this matter may or may not have been partisian. My opinions remain exactly the same, namely that putting the bills online for 72 hours before votes is a serious improvement in transparency and benefits the people of the USA.