Y'all ain't reading this bill neither, Chumps.

mhaze · 25th September 2009, 03:02 PM

The request to put the final language of the Baucus bill online for 72 hours before the committee Senate Finance Committee voted on it...

Baucus pontificates:

"It's too difficult to put health care bill online"
"It would take staffers at least two weeks to put it on line."
"We're voting on it before we've seen the legislative language"

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...-61246377.html

JoeTheJuggler · 25th September 2009, 04:37 PM

Full text of the Baucus bill:

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/11382446...ll---Full-Text

http://finance.senate.gov/sitepages/...Future_Act.pdf

http://documents.nytimes.com/baucus-...ealth-care#p=1

Took about 5 seconds on Google to find these (and many more).

Praktik · 25th September 2009, 04:42 PM

interesting thoughts here on the merits of reading bills

oldhat · 25th September 2009, 04:44 PM

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

Took about 5 seconds on Google to find these (and many more).

LOL, pwned.

JoeTheJuggler · 25th September 2009, 04:50 PM

Originally Posted by Praktik

interesting thoughts here on the merits of reading bills

Plus there was a thread on that topic in this forum not so long ago.

mhaze · 25th September 2009, 04:56 PM

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

Full text of the Baucus bill:

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/11382446...ll---Full-Text

http://finance.senate.gov/sitepages/...Future_Act.pdf

http://documents.nytimes.com/baucus-...ealth-care#p=1

Took about 5 seconds on Google to find these (and many more).

Want to reconsider? Have you found anything related to this thread?

Praktik · 25th September 2009, 04:58 PM

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

Plus there was a thread on that topic in this forum not so long ago.

well crap.

Imma gonna post that over there then. I like that one better.

leftysergeant · 25th September 2009, 06:22 PM

We have read enough of it that only minimal elements of the language that Baucus wanted will go into the final version adopted by the entire Senate.

The chances of Baucus even being back for the next Congress have diminished greatly since he started palying his stupid game. His only campaign contributions in the primaries will probably come from corporate interests in the fianancial sector, to include insurance companies.

MattusMaximus · 25th September 2009, 08:01 PM

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

Full text of the Baucus bill:

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/11382446...ll---Full-Text

http://finance.senate.gov/sitepages/...Future_Act.pdf

http://documents.nytimes.com/baucus-...ealth-care#p=1

Took about 5 seconds on Google to find these (and many more).

Message to Mhaze:

mhaze · 25th September 2009, 08:34 PM

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

....

Your assessment is:

amiss, askew, astray, at fault, awry, bad, counterfactual, defective, erratic, erring, erroneous, fallacious, false, faulty, fluffed, goofed, in error, inaccurate, inexact, miscalculated, misconstrued, misfigured, misguided, mishandled, mistaken, not precise, not right, not working, off-target, on the wrong track, out, out of commission, out of line, out of order, sophistical, specious, spurious, ungrounded, unsatisfactory, unsound, unsubstantial

Go back and read the OP. You will see that it is very specific.

The key phrases are:

final language
legislative language

quixotecoyote · 25th September 2009, 08:40 PM

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

Message to Mhaze:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...553b0d8cb4.jpg

While you are, of course, correct in the main, you are incorrect in the details.

Generally speaking, complex laws are written in relatively plain English at first. When those laws are agreed to, they get re-written in legalese and everyone has their lawyers check it to make sure no one got cute.

What Mhaze is trying to do is suggest that the Republican tactic of trying to reverse the order, to get it rewritten in legalese before it's agreed to in English, is anything other than a delay tactic to let them roll with the socialism/communism/death panel baloney for another few weeks and hope the momemtum for health care reform degrades even further.

Praktik's link upthread has more indepth information on this.

JoeTheJuggler · 25th September 2009, 08:47 PM

Originally Posted by mhaze

The key phrases are:

final language
legislative language

Not an issue. The Senate Finance Committee is currently debating something like 500 amendments to the bill.

There is no such thing as "final language" when the bill is in committee.

See the other thread I cited above for a discussion of the value of reading the legalese version of the proposed bill.

As has been mentioned, the Republican proposal for rule changes were strictly meant to obstruct and delay the process.

JoeTheJuggler · 25th September 2009, 08:57 PM

Originally Posted by quixotecoyote

Generally speaking, complex laws are written in relatively plain English at first. When those laws are agreed to, they get re-written in legalese and everyone has their lawyers check it to make sure no one got cute.

What Mhaze is trying to do is suggest that the Republican tactic of trying to reverse the order, to get it rewritten in legalese before it's agreed to in English, is anything other than a delay tactic to let them roll with the socialism/communism/death panel baloney for another few weeks and hope the momemtum for health care reform degrades even further.

Well said.

If Mhaze, or the author of the opinion column he cited, is suggesting that Baucus or Senate Democrats in general are trying to pull a fast one by having committee members vote on a bill without knowing what's in it (or doing anything out of the ordinary legislative process), he's being as disingenuous as Palin and company talking about "death panels".

My first post shows that the complete text of the proposal is available to committee members, their constituents and anyone with web access.

mhaze · 25th September 2009, 09:00 PM

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

Not an issue. The Senate Finance Committee is currently debating something like 500 amendments to the bill.

There is no such thing as "final language" when the bill is in committee.

See the other thread I cited above for a discussion of the value of reading the legalese version of the proposed bill.

As has been mentioned, the Republican proposal for rule changes were strictly meant to obstruct and delay the process.

Okay, I checked your linky, and read your comments. Not impressed.

Yes, the version that should be posted for a several day period is the final language, with all attachments and "amendments", "legislative wording".

JoeTheJuggler · 25th September 2009, 09:07 PM

Originally Posted by mhaze

Yes, the version that should be posted for a several day period is the final language, with all attachments and "amendments", "legislative wording".

And you realize that that doesn't happen while the bill is in committee, don't you? The version that gets a floor vote isn't what we're talking about.

Do you propose someone spend the absurd number of hours necessary to make some 500 different legalese versions while the thing is in committee? (Actually, it could be much higher than that. The thing could exist with any combination of zero to all 500 proposed changes. What is that, 500! different versions?)

ETA: Do you really think there's a problem with committee members not knowing what's in the bill? (See the links in my first post on this thread.)

Dancing David · 26th September 2009, 06:27 AM

School House Rock did not explain more that the basics of how a bill gets passed. So the lack of knowledge is understandable.

mhaze · 26th September 2009, 08:11 AM

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

And you realize that that doesn't happen while the bill is in committee, don't you? The version that gets a floor vote isn't what we're talking about.

Do you propose someone spend the absurd number of hours necessary to make some 500 different legalese versions while the thing is in committee? (Actually, it could be much higher than that. The thing could exist with any combination of zero to all 500 proposed changes. What is that, 500! different versions?)

ETA: Do you really think there's a problem with committee members not knowing what's in the bill? (See the links in my first post on this thread.)

I'm aware of these points that you have raised. I've read the other thread which you pointed out (and learned nothing I did not already know).

You fail to comprehend in your response the meaning of the statements of the OP. It is very specific. Incidentally, your answer is not an intelligent response, because you are only blurting out what I stated as the initial premise of the OP:

Y'all ain't reading this bill neither, Chumps.

Garrette · 26th September 2009, 08:32 AM

Originally Posted by mhaze

Incidentally, your answer is not an intelligent response, because you are only blurting out what I stated as the initial premise of the OP:

Y'all ain't reading this bill neither, Chumps.

Ah. So your issue isn't with the Baucus Bill but with all bills as they go through this process. You don't like how Congress as a whole does things.

That makes more sense now...

mhaze · 26th September 2009, 10:32 AM

Originally Posted by Garrette

Ah. So your issue isn't with the Baucus Bill but with all bills as they go through this process. You don't like how Congress as a whole does things.

That makes more sense now...

Apologies if I was unclear.

Yeah, I think all bills should be posted in this matter as they emerge from committee onto the floor, with a delay for public access.

Current public access to the english-language summary versions is still a big improvement over say, one or two decades back.

This bill only illustrates the inanity of Baucus trying to make excuses for a temporary perceived gain. The weakness of the excuses is transparent.

I'm not saying that while the bills are being gamed, and a hundred variations are being contemplated, that the hundred variations should be public. That would erroneously incite public opinion because it is defacto certain that stupid things were being discussed (they were not yet rejected as being stupid).

But the final version, with legislative language, is the Real McCoy. That's the one to focus one. It has all the pork added, and it has new phraseology that does not necessarily equal the prior English summary statements.

WildCat · 26th September 2009, 11:15 AM

The Baucas bill is terrible at any rate. Worse than doing nothing IMHO.

mhaze · 26th September 2009, 12:30 PM

You mean, terrible before the 500 prime pieces of pork are added to it? Terrible in the form they let us look at it in? Which is not the form they will vote on?

If by that you mean terrible, gez, I'd hate to see the real thing.

Wait...no I didn't mean that. I'd like to see the real thing. Good comedy.

Peephole · 26th September 2009, 02:44 PM

Originally Posted by WildCat

The Baucas bill is terrible at any rate. Worse than doing nothing IMHO.

Not necessarily, some more financial aid, a public option and a better employer mandate and it'll become a decent bill. It all depends on how it proceeds through the Senate.

Azure · 26th September 2009, 03:18 PM

Originally Posted by Peephole

Not necessarily, some more financial aid, a public option and a better employer mandate and it'll become a decent bill. It all depends on how it proceeds through the Senate.

Public option as in another Medicare?

Yeah, that didn't cost 150x more than it was supposed too.

Peephole · 26th September 2009, 03:34 PM

A public option would mean a move towards a system that's able to save money in every other single country in the world.

But I guess there's always that American exceptionalism.

JoeTheJuggler · 26th September 2009, 04:35 PM

Originally Posted by Garrette

Ah. So your issue isn't with the Baucus Bill but with all bills as they go through this process. You don't like how Congress as a whole does things.

That makes more sense now...

At the same time, the Republicans (and presumably Mhaze) who suggested this rule change (which would make government bigger and far less efficient) are the very ones who complain that government is too big and inefficient.

JoeTheJuggler · 26th September 2009, 04:43 PM

Originally Posted by mhaze

Apologies if I was unclear.

Yeah, I think all bills should be posted in this matter as they emerge from committee onto the floor, with a delay for public access.

Current public access to the english-language summary versions is still a big improvement over say, one or two decades back.

This bill only illustrates the inanity of Baucus trying to make excuses for a temporary perceived gain. The weakness of the excuses is transparent.

What excuses? That it would take an enormous amount of time and energy to translate the working bill (the full text of which has been posted on the web for some time) into final legal version even though it's not a final version, hasn't even made it to the Senate floor yet? On that point, you're wrong. It really will take some time to do that at this stage. And it would be wasted time and effort since the bill hasn't reached a finalized state yet.

Quote:

I'm not saying that while the bills are being gamed, and a hundred variations are being contemplated, that the hundred variations should be public.

You're not? Then what are you saying? That is exactly the issue. The current state of the bill (that is, in committee) is when many variations are being contemplated. In fact, it's even likely to change after it reaches the full Senate.

I don't think you (or the sponsors of this rule change) thought this thing through very thoroughly. It would result in an enormous waste of time and effort for no gain whatsoever.

Again, do you think the members of the Senate Finance Committee are voting on something without knowing what's in it (or, I should say, without being able to know what's in it)? Are you saying that the working version of it (which has been posted the web for some time now) is inaccurate on some point?

How come this wasn't an issue, for example, when the Republican controlled Congress passed the industry-friendly Energy Bill or the industry-friendly Medicare Reform Act (2003)? Are you suggesting that the legislative process is less transparent now than it was then?

ETA: In the interests of disclosure, I'm not in favor of the Baucus Bill.

WildCat · 26th September 2009, 04:47 PM

Originally Posted by Azure

Public option as in another Medicare?

Yeah, that didn't cost 150x more than it was supposed too.

Are you one of those people who think Medicare should have remained at $60 million per year? That would leave $2 and some change for every person older than 65.

"Here's your $2 grandma, now go get that cancer cured!"

WildCat · 26th September 2009, 04:49 PM

Originally Posted by Peephole

Not necessarily, some more financial aid, a public option and a better employer mandate and it'll become a decent bill. It all depends on how it proceeds through the Senate.

I've detailed just one of the glaring problems of the Baucas bill here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=154772

leftysergeant · 26th September 2009, 05:04 PM

Originally Posted by mhaze

You mean, terrible before the 500 prime pieces of pork are added to it? Terrible in the form they let us look at it in? Which is not the form they will vote on?

It sucked from the get-go.

Azure · 26th September 2009, 08:43 PM

Originally Posted by Peephole

A public option would mean a move towards a system that's able to save money in every other single country in the world.

But I guess there's always that American exceptionalism.

You mean like Medicare? A lot of money saving going on with that system.

Azure · 26th September 2009, 08:44 PM

Originally Posted by WildCat

Are you one of those people who think Medicare should have remained at $60 million per year? That would leave $2 and some change for every person older than 65.

"Here's your $2 grandma, now go get that cancer cured!"

No, I'm one of the people that points out that government run health care plans like Medicare usually cost more than originally estimated.

As for what kind of insurance I would want? For the US? Something like the Swiss. For Canada? Something like France.

Azure · 26th September 2009, 08:46 PM

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

It sucked from the get-go.

Pretty much inevitable that a bill of this magnitude would turn into a colossal screwup.

leftysergeant · 26th September 2009, 11:28 PM

Originally Posted by Azure

Pretty much inevitable that a bill of this magnitude would turn into a colossal screwup.

You missed an important fact. Baucus is a Democrat in name only. He's a Blue Dog. (Which, lately, has come to be defined as a Blue Cross Lapdog.)

TriskettheKid · 26th September 2009, 11:45 PM

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

And you realize that that doesn't happen while the bill is in committee, don't you? The version that gets a floor vote isn't what we're talking about.

Do you propose someone spend the absurd number of hours necessary to make some 500 different legalese versions while the thing is in committee? (Actually, it could be much higher than that. The thing could exist with any combination of zero to all 500 proposed changes. What is that, 500! different versions?)

ETA: Do you really think there's a problem with committee members not knowing what's in the bill? (See the links in my first post on this thread.)

Just to give people an idea of that number, it would be (roughly) 1.22x10¹¹³⁴.

As a comparison, I believe there are an estimated 1x10⁸⁰ atoms in the universe.

And for another comparison, taking the age of the universe to be 13.7 billion years, it means 4.32x10¹⁷ seconds have passed since the start.

leftysergeant · 26th September 2009, 11:57 PM

Originally Posted by Azure

Pretty much inevitable that a bill of this magnitude would turn into a colossal screwup.

Bear in mind that I was referring specificly to the Baucus debacle. The other committees turned out bills less obesient to the insurance companies.

Dr Adequate · 27th September 2009, 12:07 AM

Originally Posted by TriskettheKid

Just to give people an idea of that number, it would be (roughly) 1.22x10¹¹³⁴.

As a comparison, I believe there are an estimated 1x10⁸⁰ atoms in the universe.

And for another comparison, taking the age of the universe to be 13.7 billion years, it means 4.32x10¹⁷ seconds have passed since the start.

Surely since each amendment either will or will not be in the bill, it should be 2⁵⁰⁰, not factorial 500 --- that is, a mere 3x10¹⁵⁰.

Peephole · 27th September 2009, 01:24 PM

Originally Posted by Azure

As for what kind of insurance I would want? For the US? Something like the Swiss.

Which is what I though most of the plans were headed towards?

applecorped · 27th September 2009, 01:27 PM

Originally Posted by oldhat

LOL, pwned.

Yes, Baucus was.

JoeTheJuggler · 27th September 2009, 03:41 PM

Originally Posted by TriskettheKid

Just to give people an idea of that number, it would be (roughly) 1.22x10¹¹³⁴.

As a comparison, I believe there are an estimated 1x10⁸⁰ atoms in the universe.

And for another comparison, taking the age of the universe to be 13.7 billion years, it means 4.32x10¹⁷ seconds have passed since the start.

Well done!

To be fair, though, I doubt that the 500 or so amendments being discussed are all actually independent and non-overlapping.

Still--it would probably require a billion dollar or so government expenditure and would probably employ everyone in the country capable of legal writing.

And it would not improve the understanding of the bill by the members of the Senate Finance Committee even a little bit.

JoeTheJuggler · 27th September 2009, 03:45 PM

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

Surely since each amendment either will or will not be in the bill, it should be 2⁵⁰⁰, not factorial 500 --- that is, a mere 3x10¹⁵⁰.

I was offering all the permutations--meaning each different sequence of the included amendments would result in a legally distinct document.

At any rate, I don't think the amendments are all independent anyway, so the number might be only a few hundred versions of the bill that MHaze thinks should be written up in legalese and published.

Still not exactly the most efficient use of time and resources by the government! Especially since that additional cost would result in zero benefit (no one's understanding of the bill would be improved by such a project).

25th September 2009, 03:02 PM	#1
mhaze Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Woo*(+-1.10)^20=AGWwoo Posts: 8,238	Y'all ain't reading this bill neither, Chumps. The request to put the final language of the Baucus bill online for 72 hours before the committee Senate Finance Committee voted on it... Baucus pontificates: "It's too difficult to put health care bill online" "It would take staffers at least two weeks to put it on line." "We're voting on it before we've seen the legislative language" http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...-61246377.html
	__________________ Get your climate widget Climategate - History's Biggest Scam Poptech's List Climate Acronyms Last edited by mhaze; 25th September 2009 at 03:42 PM.

25th September 2009, 04:37 PM	#2
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 10,998	Full text of the Baucus bill: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/11382446...ll---Full-Text http://finance.senate.gov/sitepages/...Future_Act.pdf http://documents.nytimes.com/baucus-...ealth-care#p=1 Took about 5 seconds on Google to find these (and many more).
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons

25th September 2009, 04:42 PM	#3
Praktik Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 2,804	interesting thoughts here on the merits of reading bills
Praktik Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 2,804	__________________ "It must be very strange to be President Bush. A man of extraordinary vision and brilliance approaching to genius, he can't get anyone to notice. He is like a great painter or musician who is ahead of his time, and who unveils one masterpiece after another to a reception that, when not bored, is hostile." - John Hinderaker, Powerline

25th September 2009, 04:44 PM	#4
oldhat Muse Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 993	Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler Took about 5 seconds on Google to find these (and many more). LOL, pwned.
oldhat Muse Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 993	__________________ "I predict a complete rollover in Congress in 2010 to the Republicans. Bank on it. Laugh, but file it away in the back of your mind." -Beerina

25th September 2009, 04:50 PM	#5
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 10,998	Originally Posted by Praktik interesting thoughts here on the merits of reading bills Plus there was a thread on that topic in this forum not so long ago.
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons

25th September 2009, 04:56 PM	#6
mhaze Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Woo*(+-1.10)^20=AGWwoo Posts: 8,238	Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler Full text of the Baucus bill: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/11382446...ll---Full-Text http://finance.senate.gov/sitepages/...Future_Act.pdf http://documents.nytimes.com/baucus-...ealth-care#p=1 Took about 5 seconds on Google to find these (and many more). Want to reconsider? Have you found anything related to this thread?
	__________________ Get your climate widget Climategate - History's Biggest Scam Poptech's List Climate Acronyms

25th September 2009, 04:58 PM	#7
Praktik Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 2,804	Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler Plus there was a thread on that topic in this forum not so long ago. well crap. Imma gonna post that over there then. I like that one better.
Praktik Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 2,804	__________________ "It must be very strange to be President Bush. A man of extraordinary vision and brilliance approaching to genius, he can't get anyone to notice. He is like a great painter or musician who is ahead of his time, and who unveils one masterpiece after another to a reception that, when not bored, is hostile." - John Hinderaker, Powerline

25th September 2009, 06:22 PM	#8
leftysergeant Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Spanaway WA Posts: 6,717	We have read enough of it that only minimal elements of the language that Baucus wanted will go into the final version adopted by the entire Senate. The chances of Baucus even being back for the next Congress have diminished greatly since he started palying his stupid game. His only campaign contributions in the primaries will probably come from corporate interests in the fianancial sector, to include insurance companies.

25th September 2009, 08:01 PM	#9
MattusMaximus Intellectual Gladiator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the midst of a vast, beautiful & uncaring universe Posts: 7,123	Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler Full text of the Baucus bill: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/11382446...ll---Full-Text http://finance.senate.gov/sitepages/...Future_Act.pdf http://documents.nytimes.com/baucus-...ealth-care#p=1 Took about 5 seconds on Google to find these (and many more). Message to Mhaze:
	__________________ Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher Critical Thinking Education Group (CTEG) Chicago's First Skepticamp: Skepchicamp - March 6, 2010 Secular & Skeptic Help for Haiti

25th September 2009, 08:34 PM	#10
mhaze Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Woo*(+-1.10)^20=AGWwoo Posts: 8,238	Originally Posted by MattusMaximus .... Your assessment is: amiss, askew, astray, at fault, awry, bad, counterfactual, defective, erratic, erring, erroneous, fallacious, false, faulty, fluffed, goofed, in error, inaccurate, inexact, miscalculated, misconstrued, misfigured, misguided, mishandled, mistaken, not precise, not right, not working, off-target, on the wrong track, out, out of commission, out of line, out of order, sophistical, specious, spurious, ungrounded, unsatisfactory, unsound, unsubstantial Go back and read the OP. You will see that it is very specific. The key phrases are: final language legislative language
	__________________ Get your climate widget Climategate - History's Biggest Scam Poptech's List Climate Acronyms Last edited by mhaze; 25th September 2009 at 08:38 PM.

25th September 2009, 08:40 PM	#11
quixotecoyote Howling to glory I go Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 6,300	Originally Posted by MattusMaximus Message to Mhaze: http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...553b0d8cb4.jpg While you are, of course, correct in the main, you are incorrect in the details. Generally speaking, complex laws are written in relatively plain English at first. When those laws are agreed to, they get re-written in legalese and everyone has their lawyers check it to make sure no one got cute. What Mhaze is trying to do is suggest that the Republican tactic of trying to reverse the order, to get it rewritten in legalese before it's agreed to in English, is anything other than a delay tactic to let them roll with the socialism/communism/death panel baloney for another few weeks and hope the momemtum for health care reform degrades even further. Praktik's link upthread has more indepth information on this.
	__________________ Ladewig: I'll start worrying about the media's liberal bias the day I hear of labor negotiations described as management demands and union concessions. Thank you for the avatar xkcd.

25th September 2009, 08:47 PM	#12
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 10,998	Originally Posted by mhaze The key phrases are: final language legislative language Not an issue. The Senate Finance Committee is currently debating something like 500 amendments to the bill. There is no such thing as "final language" when the bill is in committee. See the other thread I cited above for a discussion of the value of reading the legalese version of the proposed bill. As has been mentioned, the Republican proposal for rule changes were strictly meant to obstruct and delay the process.
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons Last edited by JoeTheJuggler; 25th September 2009 at 08:49 PM.

25th September 2009, 08:57 PM	#13
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 10,998	Originally Posted by quixotecoyote Generally speaking, complex laws are written in relatively plain English at first. When those laws are agreed to, they get re-written in legalese and everyone has their lawyers check it to make sure no one got cute. What Mhaze is trying to do is suggest that the Republican tactic of trying to reverse the order, to get it rewritten in legalese before it's agreed to in English, is anything other than a delay tactic to let them roll with the socialism/communism/death panel baloney for another few weeks and hope the momemtum for health care reform degrades even further. Well said. If Mhaze, or the author of the opinion column he cited, is suggesting that Baucus or Senate Democrats in general are trying to pull a fast one by having committee members vote on a bill without knowing what's in it (or doing anything out of the ordinary legislative process), he's being as disingenuous as Palin and company talking about "death panels". My first post shows that the complete text of the proposal is available to committee members, their constituents and anyone with web access.
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons

25th September 2009, 09:00 PM	#14
mhaze Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Woo*(+-1.10)^20=AGWwoo Posts: 8,238	Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler Not an issue. The Senate Finance Committee is currently debating something like 500 amendments to the bill. There is no such thing as "final language" when the bill is in committee. See the other thread I cited above for a discussion of the value of reading the legalese version of the proposed bill. As has been mentioned, the Republican proposal for rule changes were strictly meant to obstruct and delay the process. Okay, I checked your linky, and read your comments. Not impressed. Yes, the version that should be posted for a several day period is the final language, with all attachments and "amendments", "legislative wording".
	__________________ Get your climate widget Climategate - History's Biggest Scam Poptech's List Climate Acronyms

25th September 2009, 09:07 PM	#15
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 10,998	Originally Posted by mhaze Yes, the version that should be posted for a several day period is the final language, with all attachments and "amendments", "legislative wording". And you realize that that doesn't happen while the bill is in committee, don't you? The version that gets a floor vote isn't what we're talking about. Do you propose someone spend the absurd number of hours necessary to make some 500 different legalese versions while the thing is in committee? (Actually, it could be much higher than that. The thing could exist with any combination of zero to all 500 proposed changes. What is that, 500! different versions?) ETA: Do you really think there's a problem with committee members not knowing what's in the bill? (See the links in my first post on this thread.)
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons Last edited by JoeTheJuggler; 25th September 2009 at 09:09 PM.

26th September 2009, 06:27 AM	#16
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 18,357	School House Rock did not explain more that the basics of how a bill gets passed. So the lack of knowledge is understandable.
	__________________ Resolve then, that on this very ground, with small flags waving and tinny blast on tiny trumpets, we shall meet the enemy, and not only may he be ours, he may be us.- Walt Kelly wow Mr.Philospher, you need some custard poured over your head mayhaps? -kittynh "Exhibit 1338A as to why the Politics forum is "where rational thought goes to die."-Carlitos

26th September 2009, 08:11 AM	#17
mhaze Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Woo*(+-1.10)^20=AGWwoo Posts: 8,238	Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler And you realize that that doesn't happen while the bill is in committee, don't you? The version that gets a floor vote isn't what we're talking about. Do you propose someone spend the absurd number of hours necessary to make some 500 different legalese versions while the thing is in committee? (Actually, it could be much higher than that. The thing could exist with any combination of zero to all 500 proposed changes. What is that, 500! different versions?) ETA: Do you really think there's a problem with committee members not knowing what's in the bill? (See the links in my first post on this thread.) I'm aware of these points that you have raised. I've read the other thread which you pointed out (and learned nothing I did not already know). You fail to comprehend in your response the meaning of the statements of the OP. It is very specific. Incidentally, your answer is not an intelligent response, because you are only blurting out what I stated as the initial premise of the OP: Y'all ain't reading this bill neither, Chumps.
	__________________ Get your climate widget Climategate - History's Biggest Scam Poptech's List Climate Acronyms

26th September 2009, 08:32 AM	#18
Garrette Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 7,964	Originally Posted by mhaze Incidentally, your answer is not an intelligent response, because you are only blurting out what I stated as the initial premise of the OP: Y'all ain't reading this bill neither, Chumps. Ah. So your issue isn't with the Baucus Bill but with all bills as they go through this process. You don't like how Congress as a whole does things. That makes more sense now...
Garrette Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 7,964	__________________ My kids still love me.

26th September 2009, 10:32 AM	#19
mhaze Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Woo*(+-1.10)^20=AGWwoo Posts: 8,238	Originally Posted by Garrette Ah. So your issue isn't with the Baucus Bill but with all bills as they go through this process. You don't like how Congress as a whole does things. That makes more sense now... Apologies if I was unclear. Yeah, I think all bills should be posted in this matter as they emerge from committee onto the floor, with a delay for public access. Current public access to the english-language summary versions is still a big improvement over say, one or two decades back. This bill only illustrates the inanity of Baucus trying to make excuses for a temporary perceived gain. The weakness of the excuses is transparent. I'm not saying that while the bills are being gamed, and a hundred variations are being contemplated, that the hundred variations should be public. That would erroneously incite public opinion because it is defacto certain that stupid things were being discussed (they were not yet rejected as being stupid). But the final version, with legislative language, is the Real McCoy. That's the one to focus one. It has all the pork added, and it has new phraseology that does not necessarily equal the prior English summary statements.
	__________________ Get your climate widget Climategate - History's Biggest Scam Poptech's List Climate Acronyms

26th September 2009, 11:15 AM	#20
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 24,981	The Baucas bill is terrible at any rate. Worse than doing nothing IMHO.
	__________________ "My opinion is not uninformed there are just many things I have no clue about." -atavisms "Iran DOES have the right and good reason to attack Israel." -parky76

26th September 2009, 12:30 PM	#21
mhaze Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Woo*(+-1.10)^20=AGWwoo Posts: 8,238	You mean, terrible before the 500 prime pieces of pork are added to it? Terrible in the form they let us look at it in? Which is not the form they will vote on? If by that you mean terrible, gez, I'd hate to see the real thing. Wait...no I didn't mean that. I'd like to see the real thing. Good comedy.
	__________________ Get your climate widget Climategate - History's Biggest Scam Poptech's List Climate Acronyms

26th September 2009, 02:44 PM	#22
Peephole Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Belgium Posts: 1,328	Originally Posted by WildCat The Baucas bill is terrible at any rate. Worse than doing nothing IMHO. Not necessarily, some more financial aid, a public option and a better employer mandate and it'll become a decent bill. It all depends on how it proceeds through the Senate.
	__________________ 911science The Field

26th September 2009, 03:18 PM	#23
Azure Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Alberta Posts: 2,538	Originally Posted by Peephole Not necessarily, some more financial aid, a public option and a better employer mandate and it'll become a decent bill. It all depends on how it proceeds through the Senate. Public option as in another Medicare? Yeah, that didn't cost 150x more than it was supposed too.

26th September 2009, 03:34 PM	#24
Peephole Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Belgium Posts: 1,328	A public option would mean a move towards a system that's able to save money in every other single country in the world. But I guess there's always that American exceptionalism.
	__________________ 911science The Field

26th September 2009, 04:35 PM	#25
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 10,998	Originally Posted by Garrette Ah. So your issue isn't with the Baucus Bill but with all bills as they go through this process. You don't like how Congress as a whole does things. That makes more sense now... At the same time, the Republicans (and presumably Mhaze) who suggested this rule change (which would make government bigger and far less efficient) are the very ones who complain that government is too big and inefficient.
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons

26th September 2009, 04:43 PM	#26
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 10,998	Originally Posted by mhaze Apologies if I was unclear. Yeah, I think all bills should be posted in this matter as they emerge from committee onto the floor, with a delay for public access. Current public access to the english-language summary versions is still a big improvement over say, one or two decades back. This bill only illustrates the inanity of Baucus trying to make excuses for a temporary perceived gain. The weakness of the excuses is transparent. What excuses? That it would take an enormous amount of time and energy to translate the working bill (the full text of which has been posted on the web for some time) into final legal version even though it's not a final version, hasn't even made it to the Senate floor yet? On that point, you're wrong. It really will take some time to do that at this stage. And it would be wasted time and effort since the bill hasn't reached a finalized state yet. Quote: I'm not saying that while the bills are being gamed, and a hundred variations are being contemplated, that the hundred variations should be public. You're not? Then what are you saying? That is exactly the issue. The current state of the bill (that is, in committee) is when many variations are being contemplated. In fact, it's even likely to change after it reaches the full Senate. I don't think you (or the sponsors of this rule change) thought this thing through very thoroughly. It would result in an enormous waste of time and effort for no gain whatsoever. Again, do you think the members of the Senate Finance Committee are voting on something without knowing what's in it (or, I should say, without being able to know what's in it)? Are you saying that the working version of it (which has been posted the web for some time now) is inaccurate on some point? How come this wasn't an issue, for example, when the Republican controlled Congress passed the industry-friendly Energy Bill or the industry-friendly Medicare Reform Act (2003)? Are you suggesting that the legislative process is less transparent now than it was then? ETA: In the interests of disclosure, I'm not in favor of the Baucus Bill.
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons Last edited by JoeTheJuggler; 26th September 2009 at 04:45 PM.

26th September 2009, 04:47 PM	#27
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 24,981	Originally Posted by Azure Public option as in another Medicare? Yeah, that didn't cost 150x more than it was supposed too. Are you one of those people who think Medicare should have remained at $60 million per year? That would leave $2 and some change for every person older than 65. "Here's your $2 grandma, now go get that cancer cured!"
	__________________ "My opinion is not uninformed there are just many things I have no clue about." -atavisms "Iran DOES have the right and good reason to attack Israel." -parky76

26th September 2009, 04:49 PM	#28
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 24,981	Originally Posted by Peephole Not necessarily, some more financial aid, a public option and a better employer mandate and it'll become a decent bill. It all depends on how it proceeds through the Senate. I've detailed just one of the glaring problems of the Baucas bill here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=154772
	__________________ "My opinion is not uninformed there are just many things I have no clue about." -atavisms "Iran DOES have the right and good reason to attack Israel." -parky76

26th September 2009, 05:04 PM	#29
leftysergeant Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Spanaway WA Posts: 6,717	Originally Posted by mhaze You mean, terrible before the 500 prime pieces of pork are added to it? Terrible in the form they let us look at it in? Which is not the form they will vote on? It sucked from the get-go.

26th September 2009, 08:43 PM	#30
Azure Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Alberta Posts: 2,538	Originally Posted by Peephole A public option would mean a move towards a system that's able to save money in every other single country in the world. But I guess there's always that American exceptionalism. You mean like Medicare? A lot of money saving going on with that system.

26th September 2009, 08:44 PM	#31
Azure Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Alberta Posts: 2,538	Originally Posted by WildCat Are you one of those people who think Medicare should have remained at $60 million per year? That would leave $2 and some change for every person older than 65. "Here's your $2 grandma, now go get that cancer cured!" No, I'm one of the people that points out that government run health care plans like Medicare usually cost more than originally estimated. As for what kind of insurance I would want? For the US? Something like the Swiss. For Canada? Something like France.

26th September 2009, 08:46 PM	#32
Azure Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Alberta Posts: 2,538	Originally Posted by leftysergeant It sucked from the get-go. Pretty much inevitable that a bill of this magnitude would turn into a colossal screwup.

26th September 2009, 11:28 PM	#33
leftysergeant Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Spanaway WA Posts: 6,717	Originally Posted by Azure Pretty much inevitable that a bill of this magnitude would turn into a colossal screwup. You missed an important fact. Baucus is a Democrat in name only. He's a Blue Dog. (Which, lately, has come to be defined as a Blue Cross Lapdog.)

26th September 2009, 11:45 PM	#34
TriskettheKid Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 1,326	Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler And you realize that that doesn't happen while the bill is in committee, don't you? The version that gets a floor vote isn't what we're talking about. Do you propose someone spend the absurd number of hours necessary to make some 500 different legalese versions while the thing is in committee? (Actually, it could be much higher than that. *The thing could exist with any combination of zero to all 500 proposed changes. What is that, 500! different versions?*) ETA: Do you really think there's a problem with committee members not knowing what's in the bill? (See the links in my first post on this thread.) Just to give people an idea of that number, it would be (roughly) 1.22x10¹¹³⁴. As a comparison, I believe there are an estimated 1x10⁸⁰ atoms in the universe. And for another comparison, taking the age of the universe to be 13.7 billion years, it means 4.32x10¹⁷ seconds have passed since the start.
	Last edited by TriskettheKid; 26th September 2009 at 11:51 PM.

26th September 2009, 11:57 PM	#35
leftysergeant Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Spanaway WA Posts: 6,717	Originally Posted by Azure Pretty much inevitable that a bill of this magnitude would turn into a colossal screwup. Bear in mind that I was referring specificly to the Baucus debacle. The other committees turned out bills less obesient to the insurance companies.