Impeding changes to our Health Care system

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

No meltdown, you have just stepped up to the plate and accepted the responsibility of the success of the program. You will also accept the failure. Good on you. I will be here to pat you on the back or stab a knife in it. Most likely you will do as most and just fade to black as it goes down the shitter. Typical Lobbyist.

Yesterday, you blamed me for the failure....and now you want to car bomb me...or stab me in the back.

Man, how am I supposed to sleep tonight?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Yesterday, you blamed me for the failure....and now you want to car bomb me...or stab me in the back.

Man, how am I supposed to sleep tonight?

Wide awake MoFo.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Wide awake MoFo.

Ah....the MoFo comes out.

I knew you couldnt go one day w/o it!

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Ah....the MoFo comes out.

I knew you couldnt go one day w/o it!

Without what?

[Radar]

2/3 of America want health care reform to pass, and want a public option. It will happen no matter how much money the insurance companies throw at it.

[classicman]

That there will be some healthcare reform legislation isn't the issue. I think we all recognize that. The issue is whether it will be a productive and beneficial change, and at what cost.

[classicman]

Finance Committee Democrat Won’t Read Text of Health Bill

Sen. Thomas Carper (D.-Del.), a member of the Senate Finance Committee, told CNSNews.com that he does not “expect” to read the actual legislative language of the committee’s health care bill because it is “confusing” and that anyone who claims they are going to read it and understand it is fooling people.

“I don’t expect to actually read the legislative language because reading the legislative language is among the more confusing things I’ve ever read in my life,” Carper told CNSNews.com.
Carper described the type of language the actual text of the bill would finally be drafted in as "arcane," "confusing," "hard stuff to understand," and "incomprehensible." He likened it to the "gibberish" used in credit card disclosure forms.

Last week, the Finance Committee considered an amendment offered by Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) that would have required the committee to post the full actual language of the proposed legislation online for at least 72 hours before holding a final committee vote on it. The committee defeated the amendment 13-10.

Sometime in the wee hours of this morning, according to the Associated Press, the Finance Committee finished work on its health-care bill. "It was past 2 a.m. in the East--and Obama's top health care adviser, Nancy-Ann DeParle in attendance--when Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., the committee chairman, announced that work had been completed on all sections of the legislation," said the AP.

Thus far, however, the committee has not produced the actual legislative text of the bill. Instead the senators have been working with “conceptual language”—or what some committee members call a “plain English” summary or description of the bill.

Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), who sits on the committee, told CNSNews.com on Thursday that the panel was just following its standard practice in working with a “plain language description” of the bill rather than an actual legislative text.

“It’s not just conceptual, it’s a plain language description of the various provisions of the bill is what the Senate Finance Committee has always done when it passes legislation and that is turned into legislative language which is what is presented to the full Senate for consideration,” said Bingaman.

But Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tx.), who also serves on the committee, said the descriptive language the committee is working with is not good enough because things can get slipped into the legislation unseen.

“The conceptual language is not good enough,” said Cornyn. “We’ve seen that there are side deals that have been cut, for example, with some special interest groups like the hospital association to hold them harmless from certain cuts that would impact how the CBO scores the bill or determines cost. So we need to know not only the conceptual language, we need to know the detailed legislative language, and we need to know what kind of secret deals have been cut on the side which would have an impact on how much this bill is going to cost and how it will affect health care in America.”

Carper said he would "probably" read the "plain English version" of the bill as opposed to the actual text.

Probably??? FFS isn't it his job to read the bill?

Originally Posted by classicman

Finance Committee Democrat Won’t Read Text of Health Bill


Probably??? FFS isn't it his job to read the bill?

I agree with Carper. Members of Congress dont read the actual full text of bills, particularly comprehensive bills like this one. Anyone who says otherwise is probably lying.

Try reading most bills yourself...much of any bill simply points back to amending existing laws and cites sections of the US Code....with language like:

"subsection A(1)x of this new bill replaces USC Title 1, sec 23.xyx"

"insert...."this word or phrase" of the new bill to replace "this word or phrase" of USC V.3 (a)2(b)

Huh?

One would need the entire 20+ volume of the US Code at your side to read many bills.

That is the job of the Committee staff and they prepare a detailed, comprehensive section-by-section summary in "plain English" that is available to every member.

Credit Carper for outing the truth.

[TheMercenary]

I think we all know they can't adequately represent us if they don't have any idea what is in the bills they are voting on. And few of them seem to have any idea what is in the details of the bills. That is a problem. Esp in any Healthcare Reform.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I think we all know they can't adequately represent us if they don't have any idea what is in the bills they are voting on. And few of them seem to have any idea what is in the details of the bills. That is a problem. Esp in any Healthcare Reform.

Since most members dont vote in the committees with jurisdiction over the reform bills, there is no reason for those members to read more than cliff note versions of every iteration of the various bills in question....until such tme that final versions are brought to the floor for full votes.

Then read the "plain English" section-by-section version, which in itself is likely to be a 100+ pages.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Redux

Try reading most bills yourself...much of any bill simply points back to amending existing laws and cites sections of the US Code....with language like: "subsection A(1)x of this new bill replaces USC Title 1, sec 23.xyx"

I work at a law firm. It's been a while because I'm in a managerial position now, but I've had to read the US Code and read laws as passed and go back to the Code to try to piece together what they mean. It's painfully fucking slow and tedious and you are never really sure that you got it right.

In my experience, Redux is correct on this point.

There are a lot of lawyers in congress, and unless you expect every one of them to be a lawyer, you shouldn't expect them to be reading the bills they are voting on.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by glatt

It's painfully fucking slow and tedious and ...

That is their job or at least part of it, right?

Originally Posted by glatt

There are a lot of lawyers in congress, and unless you expect every one of them to be a lawyer, you shouldn't expect them to be reading the bills they are voting on.

You mean they aren't all lawyers??? FFS a lot of them have been there longer than most people have been alive. They probably were involved in much of the original bills as well.

Originally Posted by classicman

That is their job or at least part of it, right?

Their job is to understand what they are voting on...in the same manner as a president understanding intel reports w/o reading every detail of every report.

You mean they aren't all lawyers??? FFS a lot of them have been there longer than most people have been alive. They probably were involved in much of the original bills as well.

Congressional trivia time!

The average length of service for Representatives at the beginning of the 111th Congress is 11.0 years (5.5 terms); for Senators 12.9 years ( 2.2 terms)
(editorial comment - why term limits are not necessary )


A closer look at the prior occupations of Members of the 111th Congress also shows:

• 16 medical doctors (including a psychiatrist), two dentists, three nurses, two veterinarians, a psychologist, an optometrist, a clinical dietician, and a
pharmacist;
• four ministers;
• 38 mayors, 13 state governors, ten lieutenant governors (including two Delegates), two state first ladies (one of whom was also the first lady of the United States), and one territorial first lady;
• three Cabinet secretaries, one Secretary of the Navy, a vice admiral in the Navy, a Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, a Defense Department counter terrorism consultant, an ambassador, three state supreme court justices, and a federal judge;
• 269 (229 in the House, including two Delegates, and 40 in the Senate) state or territorial legislators;
• at least 112 congressional staffers (including 9 congressional pages) 13 White House staffers or fellows, and several executive branch employees;
• a parliamentary aide in the British House of Commons and a foreign service officer;
• five Peace Corps volunteers;
• four sheriffs, a deputy sheriff, four police officers (including a Capitol policeman), two state troopers, two probation officers, a volunteer fireman, an FBI agent, and a former border patrol chief;
• three physicists, one chemist, six engineers including a biomedical engineer, and one microbiologist;
• a radio talk show host, a radio/television broadcaster, a radio broadcaster, a radio newscaster, a television reporter, and a television commentator;
• five accountants;
• an astronaut, a naval aviator, the commander of an aircraft carrier battle group, an instructor at West Point, and a pilot of Marine One (the President’s helicopter);
• two professional musicians, a semi-professional musician, a screenwriter, a documentary film maker, a major league baseball player, and an NFL football
player;
• three organic farmers, three ranchers, two vintners, and a fruit orchard worker;
• a driving instructor, a cosmetic sales woman, a mountain guide, and a ski instructor;
• a casino dealer, a night watchman, and a prison guard; and
• three carpenters, two bank tellers, a furniture salesman, an ironworker, an auto worker, a clothing factory worker, a textile worker, an oil field worker, a mortician, a coroner, a waitress, a teamster member/dairy worker, a paper mill worker, a cement plant worker, a meat cutter, a shellfish specialist, a river boat captain, a taxicab driver, an auctioneer, a toll booth collector, and a hotel clerk.

Membership of 111th Congress - A Profile

End trivia.

[classicman]

lol - very nice! but still no chart and you didn't post any poll data either - you're slippin

[jinx]

Originally Posted by glatt

I work at a law firm. It's been a while because I'm in a managerial position now, but I've had to read the US Code and read laws as passed and go back to the Code to try to piece together what they mean. It's painfully fucking slow and tedious and you are never really sure that you got it right.

In my experience, Redux is correct on this point.

There are a lot of lawyers in congress, and unless you expect every one of them to be a lawyer, you shouldn't expect them to be reading the bills they are voting on.

Then they're doing it wrong. Can't be by the people, for the people, if the average person can't understand it.