On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 20:41:22 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On 08/20/2012 07:22 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 11:54:30 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 08/20/2012 10:20 AM, Han wrote:
>>>> What are the "rules" on that, Heybub? Or are there no rules with
>>>> respect to irrelevant addenda?
>>>
>>> The rules are that the elites on both sides of the aisle think they
>>> are better and smarter than we are and they THEY should run things.
>>> They purposely use obfuscatory language and legal fine points to keep
>>> the people in the dark as much as possible. HeyBub's contention may
>>> be true today but it's absurd. There is no reason whatsoever that
>>> the CongressCritters should not be required to read every bill, understand
>>> it, and thereby vote in an informed way. If nothing else, it would
>>> slow down the explosion of new legislation, the majority of which is
>>> either outside the enumerated power of the Federal government or
>>> altogether unnecessary.
>>
>> I wholeheartedly agree, Tim. They should be required to read and
>> understand every bloody word of every bloody bill. These are legal
>> documents. What does every contract you've ever signed have at the
>> bottom? READ EVERY PAGE AND LEAVE NO BLANKS. (or similar)
>>
>
>Then again, we have no one but ourselves to blame. The politicians -
>at the end of the day - are *us*. The end of this gets it right:
>
> http://culturewrench.com/?p=63
I like it! I liked his definition of culture yesterday, too.
I'm not sure I like some definitions of pluralism, though. I'm a
hard-core "melting pot" kind of guy. But he gets there.
His endings are top-notch. (last 3 paras!)
--
The business of America is not business. Neither is it war. The business
of America is justice and securing the blessings of liberty.
-- George F. Will
On Aug 28, 3:46=A0pm, Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 8/28/2012 5:02 AM, John H. Gohde wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 26, 9:27 pm, Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On 8/25/2012 8:44 PM, HeyBub wrote:> Just Wondering wrote:
> >>>>> Tell us what it means. Take as much space - and time - as you need.
> >>>> I can't. =A0You can't. =A0Your federal Representative and Senators c=
an't.
> >>>> Nobody can. =A0That's exactly my point. =A0Something like that shoul=
d not
> >>>> be made into law. =A0Every congressperson whose desk that monstrosit=
y
> >>>> came to should have said, "I can't understand this, therefore I won'=
t
> >>>> vote for it."
> >>> I don't want to put words in your mouth, but are you proposing a bill=
must
> >>> fail, no matter how good it is, if a legislator can't understand it? =
Or are
> >>> you just complaining of the ACA?
> >> If a legislator can't understand it, he can't know if it it a good bil=
l
> >> or not. =A0In a case like that, he votes on a pig in a poke. =A0And no=
, it's
> >> not just the ACA, it's the massively bloated tax code, the obtuse
> >> environmental protection laws, and on and on.
>
> > Just wondering, if you know how to read English? =A0I rather doubt it.
> > Twenty percent of the population does NOT realize how dumb and
> > uneducated they truly are.
>
> > Just wondering, if you can read without getting bored?
>
> > Just wondering, if you can read fast with excellent comprehension?
>
> > Just wondering, if you are truly the total idiot that you pretend to
> > be?
>
> When you stop discussing the merits and resort to ad hominem personal
> attacks, the usual reason is that you've run out of anything meaningful
> to say.
Thanks for fessing up about NOT being able to read.
Your puny aging brain has my condolences. :)
On 08/20/2012 07:22 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 11:54:30 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 08/20/2012 10:20 AM, Han wrote:
>>> What are the "rules" on that, Heybub? Or are there no rules with
>>> respect to irrelevant addenda?
>>
>> The rules are that the elites on both sides of the aisle think they
>> are better and smarter than we are and they THEY should run things.
>> They purposely use obfuscatory language and legal fine points to keep
>> the people in the dark as much as possible. HeyBub's contention may
>> be true today but it's absurd. There is no reason whatsoever that
>> the CongressCritters should not be required to read every bill, understand
>> it, and thereby vote in an informed way. If nothing else, it would
>> slow down the explosion of new legislation, the majority of which is
>> either outside the enumerated power of the Federal government or
>> altogether unnecessary.
>
> I wholeheartedly agree, Tim. They should be required to read and
> understand every bloody word of every bloody bill. These are legal
> documents. What does every contract you've ever signed have at the
> bottom? READ EVERY PAGE AND LEAVE NO BLANKS. (or similar)
>
Then again, we have no one but ourselves to blame. The politicians -
at the end of the day - are *us*. The end of this gets it right:
http://culturewrench.com/?p=63
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On 8/21/2012 4:30 AM, HeyBub wrote:
> A congressman understand every bill? Impossible. Most bills are written by,
> or at least have tremendous input by, lobbyists. It is not reasonable to
> expect a congressman from Floating Stick, Utah to understand all the
> ramifications of a bill attempting to regulate import tariffs on
> hydrogenated yak fat, let alone one on the riparian rights of coal slurry.
> The people proposing these bills, lobbyists, have their entire lives
> invested in the topic and are often backed up by, literally, hundreds of
> experts who are likewise experienced.
>
>
That's not a fact, it's just your opinion, one with which reasonable
people can and do disagree. Any legislator who does not understand what
he is voting on should not vote in favor of it. If an issue is so
complex that a legislator cannot be expected to understand, he should
not make it a law.
On 8/21/2012 2:23 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>> Larry Jaques wrote:
>>> I wholeheartedly agree, Tim. They should be required to read and
>>> understand every bloody word of every bloody bill. These are legal
>>> documents. What does every contract you've ever signed have at the
>>> bottom? READ EVERY PAGE AND LEAVE NO BLANKS. (or similar)
>> By the same token, YOU should read and understand every jot and tittle of
>> every bill introduced in Congress so YOU can better inform your
>> representatives of the proper course of action.
>>
>> You can get started today: www.thomas.gov.
> I really do not understand your objection to legislators actually
> reading something before they are allowed to vote for it. Or maybe I
> do--do you work for Nancy Pelosi?
You mean this Nancy Pelosi?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoE1R-xH5To
On 08/22/2012 03:12 PM, HeyBub wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>
>>> You can get started today: www.thomas.gov.
>>
>> I really do not understand your objection to legislators actually
>> reading something before they are allowed to vote for it. Or maybe I
>> do--do you work for Nancy Pelosi?
>
> No, I don't work for Pelosi.
>
> I object to the idea because it's a fools errand. It would be similar to
> solving the doctor shortage by having lay people operate on each other, a
> totally useless, and dangerous, endeavor.
>
> People should do what they do best. Legislators are not the best - or even
> competent - to read and understand prospective legislation. That's a STAFF
> job.
>
> Interestingly, one of the major changes in the military is the mind-set of
> the commanders. Today, every general believes that the corporal running the
> radio is as much an expert in his field as the brigadier is in his.
>
>
I have to say, this argument makes some sense.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
On 8/22/2012 2:17 PM, HeyBub wrote:
> Just Wondering wrote:
>> On 8/21/2012 4:30 AM, HeyBub wrote:
>>> A congressman understand every bill? Impossible. Most bills are
>>> written by, or at least have tremendous input by, lobbyists. It is
>>> not reasonable to expect a congressman from Floating Stick, Utah to
>>> understand all the ramifications of a bill attempting to regulate
>>> import tariffs on hydrogenated yak fat, let alone one on the
>>> riparian rights of coal slurry. The people proposing these bills,
>>> lobbyists, have their entire lives invested in the topic and are
>>> often backed up by, literally, hundreds of experts who are likewise
>>> experienced.
>> That's not a fact, it's just your opinion, one with which reasonable
>> people can and do disagree. Any legislator who does not understand
>> what he is voting on should not vote in favor of it. If an issue is
>> so complex that a legislator cannot be expected to understand, he
>> should not make it a law.
> Not an opinion, a fact.
Calling an onion a rose does not make it so.
> Remember, I spent almost two years as an Administrative Assistant to a senator.
Which entitles you to form an opinion, nothing more.
> Many, in fact most, bills that crossed my desk were unintelligible to a greater or lesser degree.
Then your senator should have voted against them.
> Most of this unintelligibility was due to references to other laws or regulations.
Cross references indeed make a statute difficult to parse, but do not
without more make a statute unintelligible.
> These other laws always had references to still other laws and regulations.
> For the non-expert, chasing down all these interactions is unbelievable and
> left up to the staff.
>
>
Your Senator was supposed to be the expert. That's what he was elected
for and was paid the big bucks for. You're basically saying that your
Senator, and perhaps all of them, surrendered non-delegable duties to
staff, and that it is an unelected nameless bureaucratic staff who
controls what bills are made into law. If that's true, we need a couple
of hundred impeachment proceedings.
On 8/22/2012 2:12 PM, HeyBub wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
>>> You can get started today: www.thomas.gov.
>> I really do not understand your objection to legislators actually
>> reading something before they are allowed to vote for it. Or maybe I
>> do--do you work for Nancy Pelosi?
> No, I don't work for Pelosi.
>
> I object to the idea because it's a fools errand. It would be similar to
> solving the doctor shortage by having lay people operate on each other, a
> totally useless, and dangerous, endeavor.
>
> People should do what they do best. Legislators are not the best - or even
> competent - to read and understand prospective legislation. That's a STAFF
> job.
>
>
That may be how the system currently operates. It's not how it's
supposed to work. We elect representatives to decide what laws we live
under. They can't make rational decisions, must less intelligent ones,
if they do not understand what they vote for or against.
On 8/23/2012 7:33 AM, HeyBub wrote:
> Just Wondering wrote:
>>>
>> Your Senator was supposed to be the expert. That's what he was
>> elected for and was paid the big bucks for. You're basically saying
>> that your Senator, and perhaps all of them, surrendered non-delegable
>> duties to staff, and that it is an unelected nameless bureaucratic
>> staff who controls what bills are made into law. If that's true, we
>> need a couple of hundred impeachment proceedings.
> "I don't rule Russia; ten thousand clerks rule Russia" - Peter the Great.
>
> It has always been thus.
>
>
By that, Peter the Great meant the "ten thousand clerks" handled the
nuts-and-bolts administration of the government. But those clerks did
not write the laws.
On 8/23/2012 1:08 PM, Han wrote:
> Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 8/23/2012 7:33 AM, HeyBub wrote:
>>> Just Wondering wrote:
>>>> Your Senator was supposed to be the expert. That's what he was
>>>> elected for and was paid the big bucks for. You're basically saying
>>>> that your Senator, and perhaps all of them, surrendered
>>>> non-delegable duties to staff, and that it is an unelected nameless
>>>> bureaucratic staff who controls what bills are made into law. If
>>>> that's true, we need a couple of hundred impeachment proceedings.
>>> "I don't rule Russia; ten thousand clerks rule Russia" - Peter the
>>> Great.
>>>
>>> It has always been thus.
>>>
>>>
>> By that, Peter the Great meant the "ten thousand clerks" handled the
>> nuts-and-bolts administration of the government. But those clerks did
>> not write the laws.
> Come on. We elect a new rep every once in a while. You think he is
> going to be an instant encyclopedic source of all law that pases by him?
> He is charged (IMO) with directing the staff in what the electorate has
> elected him to do, in a philosophy so to speak. Not the itty bitty
> gritty details of writing law.
>
I didn't say a representative should be an "instant" anything. I also
didn't see he should be the only one to draft a bill. But if he's going
to vote for something to be a law, he'd darn well read the thing, and
take enough time to educate himself if necessary to understand it, and
by those means know what it is he's voting for before he casts his vote.
On 8/23/2012 6:24 PM, Han wrote:
> Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 8/23/2012 1:08 PM, Han wrote:
>>> Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> On 8/23/2012 7:33 AM, HeyBub wrote:
>>>>> Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>>> Your Senator was supposed to be the expert. That's what he was
>>>>>> elected for and was paid the big bucks for. You're basically
>>>>>> saying that your Senator, and perhaps all of them, surrendered
>>>>>> non-delegable duties to staff, and that it is an unelected
>>>>>> nameless bureaucratic staff who controls what bills are made into
>>>>>> law. If that's true, we need a couple of hundred impeachment
>>>>>> proceedings.
>>>>> "I don't rule Russia; ten thousand clerks rule Russia" - Peter the
>>>>> Great.
>>>>>
>>>>> It has always been thus.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> By that, Peter the Great meant the "ten thousand clerks" handled the
>>>> nuts-and-bolts administration of the government. But those clerks
>>>> did not write the laws.
>>> Come on. We elect a new rep every once in a while. You think he is
>>> going to be an instant encyclopedic source of all law that pases by
>>> him? He is charged (IMO) with directing the staff in what the
>>> electorate has elected him to do, in a philosophy so to speak. Not
>>> the itty bitty gritty details of writing law.
>>>
>> I didn't say a representative should be an "instant" anything. I also
>> didn't see he should be the only one to draft a bill. But if he's
>> going to vote for something to be a law, he'd darn well read the
>> thing, and take enough time to educate himself if necessary to
>> understand it, and by those means know what it is he's voting for
>> before he casts his vote.
> Of course, but the problem is that the devil is in the details, and did
> he really mean that thing? He thought it meant green, but now it seems
> the law says black ... Of course could be all part of "plausible
> deniability" and now he has the capaign contribution in his pocket ...
>
Who was it that drafted the Obamacare bill, anyway?, You know, the one
that lead the then Speaker of the House to state from the Congressional
floor, "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in
it." 'Cause it obviously was not drafted by Obama, Pelosi, Reid or any
other elected representative of the people, and I doubt there was a
single person who voted for the Bill who could accurately explain what
he/she voted for.
On 8/24/2012 6:55 AM, HeyBub wrote:
> Just Wondering wrote:
>> I didn't say a representative should be an "instant" anything. I also
>> didn't see he should be the only one to draft a bill. But if he's
>> going to vote for something to be a law, he'd darn well read the
>> thing, and take enough time to educate himself if necessary to
>> understand it, and by those means know what it is he's voting for
>> before he casts his vote.
> Sounds good, but 5,000 years of precedent says otherwise.
Funny, but you haven't cited a precedent of any age for the proposition
that it is proper for a lawmaker to be ignorant of the laws he makes.
> Moses told the assembled: "If a matter comes before you which is too hard
> for you to judge, place the matter before the sages of the generation and by
> guided by them."
You're comparing apples to oranges. Moses was not talking about passing
laws here. According to Exodus and Deuteronomy, the one who gave the
nation of Israel their laws was God. I rather think God understood a
law when he passed it.
>
> Have you ever used a torque wrench? Do you take the manual's advice for the
> amount of torque necessary on a bolt or do you insist on knowing all the
> mechanical details on how that value was determined?
>
> You probably take the expert's (from the repair manual) advice.
>
More apples and oranges. I presume that the person who write the manual
understood what he was writing, and if the manual is properly written, I
will understand it. If Congressmen actually understood the laws they
voted on, and if the average voter could understand the laws on a first
reading, the situation would be the way it should be.
On 27 Aug 2012 03:15:54 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> For example, I'd wager nobody had a glimmer of the regulation
>> requiring Catholic organizations would be compelled to provide
>> contraceptive and abortion coverage. Had that requirement been
>> ANYWHERE in the 2500 pages, the bill would not have passed.
>
><rant>
>Many Catholic church-supported hospitals etc were already providing this
>coverage prior to ACA. I am not going to scour the nitty gritty of ACA
>to find where it says all employers will ..., but I would guess it is in
>there.
I don't see what the big problem is, if just one hospital in town,
which happens to be Catholic, doesn't do abortions. The rest will
cover the thousands of daily abortions in any given city, eh?
Is this really an issue? No, it's merely more distraction from the
real issues: TOTAL corruption in our government, and their failure to
fix anything or keep their/our damned wallets pocketed.
>It seems to come down (pardon my English) to the very hypocritical notion
>that if it isn't forbidden by the government, us catholics can indeed go
>and use birth control. And with hypocritical I mean 2 things: Firstly
>it means that the catholic church has determined apparently that plain
>Janes can't think for themselves and follow the rules that the church has
>laid down unless the government prohibits it, and secondly that the party
>that ostensibly wants less government interference now wants the
>government to stand guard in the bedroom. I thought that was over with
>when sodomy laws were repealed.
Butt, butt...never mind.
>Again, if Jane doesn't want to use birth control, that's her business,
>for whatever reason she decides that. But IMO it is just good economic
>and humane policy to offer it as part of ACA. We have already discussed
>that it is economically "better" for insurance companies to offer birth
>control than to cover unwanted pregnancies, births and kids.
></rant>
Abso BIRTHING lutely. It's much better for society. Remember the
"coincidence" of drastic reductions in crime the decade following Roe
v. Wade?
--
The human brain is unique in that it is the only container of which
it can be said that the more you put into it, the more it will hold.
-- Glenn Doman
On 8/24/2012 4:58 PM, HeyBub wrote:
> Just Wondering wrote:
>>> Moses told the assembled: "If a matter comes before you which is too
>>> hard for you to judge, place the matter before the sages of the
>>> generation and by guided by them."
>> You're comparing apples to oranges. Moses was not talking about
>> passing laws here. According to Exodus and Deuteronomy, the one who
>> gave the nation of Israel their laws was God. I rather think God
>> understood a law when he passed it.
> Moses got more than the first five books of the Bible. He also got the
> Mishna - the oral law. Over the centuries, the oral law has been expanded
> and codified in the Talmud. For those not familiar, the Talmud consists of
> 22 tractates, or books, any one of which is larger than the Encyclopedia
> Britannica. It's still growing.
>
All of which has nothing to do with whether members of Congress should
read and understand the bills they vote on.
>>> Have you ever used a torque wrench? Do you take the manual's advice
>>> for the amount of torque necessary on a bolt or do you insist on
>>> knowing all the mechanical details on how that value was determined?
>>>
>>> You probably take the expert's (from the repair manual) advice.
>>>
>> More apples and oranges. I presume that the person who write the
>> manual understood what he was writing, and if the manual is properly
>> written, I will understand it. If Congressmen actually understood
>> the laws they voted on, and if the average voter could understand the
>> laws on a first reading, the situation would be the way it should be.
> And the aide who writes the bill understands its provisions. The congressman
> will have the bill explained to him by the aide ("It's good").
It's NOT all good. You're giving your explanation of the way things
are. I'm saying that the way things are are wrong and should be
changed. I never voted for a congressional aide. My congressman is
supposed to represent ME, not some aide and certainly not some
special-interest group that asks him to sponsor a bill he can't
understand. If I was there myself, I would need to know what a bill
said before I could vote Yea or Nay on it. My elected representative
should be no less diligent.
> That's all the congressman needs to know.
>
I want my elected representative to know what he's voting on. To that
end, it's not enough for some unelected bureaucrat tells him "it's
good." Maybe the aide thinks he understands the bill but really
doesn't. Maybe he emphasizes what he thinks are good provisions and
minimizes the warts of a bill. Maybe he's simply lying. The
responsibility is not his, it's his boss's. I expect my congressman to
shoulder the responsibility of understanding the bill himself -- the
whole bill, warts and all, not foist that serious responsibility of on
some unknown hireling. It's that king of wrong-thinking mindset that in
large part has created the unholy mess that we call the United States
Code. It's that wrong-thing mindset that led the then Speaker of the
House to stupidly declare from her bully pulpit, "But we have to pass
the care bill so that you can find out what is in it." If you are so
____________ (you pick the negative adjective) that you think that crass
attitude is appropriate, then there's not much more to say.
On 8/25/2012 5:59 AM, Han wrote:
> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Just Wondering wrote:
>>>> And the aide who writes the bill understands its provisions. The
>>>> congressman will have the bill explained to him by the aide ("It's
>>>> good").
>>> It's NOT all good. You're giving your explanation of the way things
>>> are. I'm saying that the way things are are wrong and should be
>>> changed. I never voted for a congressional aide. My congressman is
>>> supposed to represent ME, not some aide and certainly not some
>>> special-interest group that asks him to sponsor a bill he can't
>>> understand. If I was there myself, I would need to know what a bill
>>> said before I could vote Yea or Nay on it. My elected representative
>>> should be no less diligent.
>> Obviously things don't work the way you suggest they should. And for
>> good reason: they CAN'T work the way you suggest they should. But you
>> don't have to take my word for it.
>>
>> Go here:
>> http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr3590enr/pdf/BILLS-111hr3590enr.
>> pdf
>>
>> It's the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
>>
>> Tell us what it means. Take as much space - and time - as you need.
> I agree with you on this point - a "normal" human being can't fully
> understand this, and we need experts to write and explain it. Sometimes
> the problem is simply that it is so dang complicated to (try to) avoid
> unintended consequences because of the complexity of the whole thing.
It is wrong for government to expect its citizens to comply with laws
they don't understand. If you can't understand it, if I can't
understand it, if my representative and Senators can't understand it, if
we need experts to explain it to us, it should either be rewritten in
plain enough terms that we can understand it, or it should not be made
into law at all.
On 8/25/2012 5:18 AM, HeyBub wrote:
> Just Wondering wrote:
>>> And the aide who writes the bill understands its provisions. The
>>> congressman will have the bill explained to him by the aide ("It's
>>> good").
>> It's NOT all good. You're giving your explanation of the way things
>> are. I'm saying that the way things are are wrong and should be
>> changed. I never voted for a congressional aide. My congressman is
>> supposed to represent ME, not some aide and certainly not some
>> special-interest group that asks him to sponsor a bill he can't
>> understand. If I was there myself, I would need to know what a bill
>> said before I could vote Yea or Nay on it. My elected representative
>> should be no less diligent.
> Obviously things don't work the way you suggest they should. And for good
> reason: they CAN'T work the way you suggest they should. But you don't have
> to take my word for it.
>
> Go here:
> http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr3590enr/pdf/BILLS-111hr3590enr.pdf
>
> It's the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
>
> Tell us what it means. Take as much space - and time - as you need.
>
I can't. You can't. Your federal Representative and Senators can't.
Nobody can. That's exactly my point. Something like that should not be
made into law. Every congressperson whose desk that monstrosity came to
should have said, "I can't understand this, therefore I won't vote for it."
On 8/25/2012 10:36 AM, Han wrote:
> Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 8/25/2012 5:59 AM, Han wrote:
>>> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>>> And the aide who writes the bill understands its provisions. The
>>>>>> congressman will have the bill explained to him by the aide ("It's
>>>>>> good").
>>>>> It's NOT all good. You're giving your explanation of the way
>>>>> things are. I'm saying that the way things are are wrong and
>>>>> should be changed. I never voted for a congressional aide. My
>>>>> congressman is supposed to represent ME, not some aide and
>>>>> certainly not some special-interest group that asks him to sponsor
>>>>> a bill he can't understand. If I was there myself, I would need to
>>>>> know what a bill said before I could vote Yea or Nay on it. My
>>>>> elected representative should be no less diligent.
>>>> Obviously things don't work the way you suggest they should. And for
>>>> good reason: they CAN'T work the way you suggest they should. But
>>>> you don't have to take my word for it.
>>>>
>>>> Go here:
>>>> http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr3590enr/pdf/BILLS-111hr3590en
>>>> r. pdf
>>>>
>>>> It's the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
>>>>
>>>> Tell us what it means. Take as much space - and time - as you need.
>>> I agree with you on this point - a "normal" human being can't fully
>>> understand this, and we need experts to write and explain it.
>>> Sometimes the problem is simply that it is so dang complicated to
>>> (try to) avoid unintended consequences because of the complexity of
>>> the whole thing.
>> It is wrong for government to expect its citizens to comply with laws
>> they don't understand. If you can't understand it, if I can't
>> understand it, if my representative and Senators can't understand it,
>> if we need experts to explain it to us, it should either be rewritten
>> in plain enough terms that we can understand it, or it should not be
>> made into law at all.
> There is a difference between not understanding the purposes of a bill,
> and fully understanding the nitty gritty. I do not have to know all the
> laws of electromagnetism to know how to handle my vacuum cleaner (though
> I wish I knew exactly what broke in my dust collector). I may need a
> repair person ...
>
That's not a valid comparison. If Congress passes a law that affects
me, I have to comply with the "nitty gritty," and am subject to
penalties if I do not. I cannot comply with that which I do not
understand. If I can understand the law, so can, and should, my
congressman. If he can't understand the "nitty gritty," I should not
be required to understand or obey it, and so it should not be law.
On 8/25/2012 8:44 PM, HeyBub wrote:
> Just Wondering wrote:
>>> Tell us what it means. Take as much space - and time - as you need.
>>>
>> I can't. You can't. Your federal Representative and Senators can't.
>> Nobody can. That's exactly my point. Something like that should not
>> be made into law. Every congressperson whose desk that monstrosity
>> came to should have said, "I can't understand this, therefore I won't
>> vote for it."
> I don't want to put words in your mouth, but are you proposing a bill must
> fail, no matter how good it is, if a legislator can't understand it? Or are
> you just complaining of the ACA?
>
>
If a legislator can't understand it, he can't know if it it a good bill
or not. In a case like that, he votes on a pig in a poke. And no, it's
not just the ACA, it's the massively bloated tax code, the obtuse
environmental protection laws, and on and on. And it's not enough to
say the legislator can and should rely on staff or so-called experts to
tell him what he's voting on. They may not understand the legal
ramifications themselves, or may have an agenda of their own that colors
their explanation, or may have no ideal about unintended consequences.
Their explanations of a complex law will necessarily be so incomplete
that the legislator may come away thinking he understands what he is
voting for when he is really clueless after all. And if the legislator
must hire an expert to understand it, that means everyone affected by it
must hire their own expert. In a nation the size of the USA, the result
is millions of wasted hours and billions of wasted dollars. The
solution is to keep a bill brief and clear enough that any person who
must comply with it can read it and understand what he must do to comply
without spending thousands on an expert.
On 8/26/2012 7:52 PM, HeyBub wrote:
> Just Wondering wrote:
>> That's not a valid comparison. If Congress passes a law that affects
>> me, I have to comply with the "nitty gritty," and am subject to
>> penalties if I do not. I cannot comply with that which I do not
>> understand. If I can understand the law, so can, and should, my
>> congressman. If he can't understand the "nitty gritty," I should not
>> be required to understand or obey it, and so it should not be law.
> No, Pelosi was right when she said "we have to pass this bill to find out
> what's in it."
That was about the stupidest thing a legislator has ever said, and you
approve of it? Well, that explains a lot.
> The Affordable Care Act contains very few (relatively) things we would call
> "laws." Over and over again you see the phrase "The Secretary (director,
> administrator, etc.) shall develop regulations (standards, departements,
> offices, etc.) to (do something)."
What do you think a law is, anyway? Your example of a "non-law" is in
fact a law. It is a law that delegates the legislative power to the
head of an administrative agency.
>
> Virtually no one, at the time of passage, had any comprehensive inkling of
> what all the future regulations, requirements, standards, and so forth would
> be.
Now you're changing the subject. The question is not what a future
regulation might say, it's what a bill sitting on a Congressman's desk
already says. And BTW, proposed regulations are published in the
Federal Register before adoption. Anyone is free to submit formal
comments, including comments on whether or not the proposed regulation
is good or bad or even understandable. The whole process of adopting a
regulation is completely different from the process of enacting a law.
>
> For example, I'd wager nobody had a glimmer of the regulation requiring
> Catholic organizations would be compelled to provide contraceptive and
> abortion coverage. Had that requirement been ANYWHERE in the 2500 pages, the
> bill would not have passed.
>
Are you really that naive?
On 8/26/2012 7:55 PM, HeyBub wrote:
> Just Wondering wrote:
>>> I don't want to put words in your mouth, but are you proposing a
>>> bill must fail, no matter how good it is, if a legislator can't
>>> understand it? Or are you just complaining of the ACA?
>>>
>>>
>> If a legislator can't understand it, he can't know if it it a good
>> bill or not. In a case like that, he votes on a pig in a poke. And
>> no, it's not just the ACA, it's the massively bloated tax code, the
>> obtuse environmental protection laws, and on and on. And it's not
>> enough to say the legislator can and should rely on staff or
>> so-called experts to tell him what he's voting on. They may not
>> understand the legal ramifications themselves, or may have an agenda
>> of their own that colors their explanation, or may have no ideal
>> about unintended consequences. Their explanations of a complex law
>> will necessarily be so incomplete that the legislator may come away
>> thinking he understands what he is voting for when he is really
>> clueless after all. And if the legislator must hire an expert to
>> understand it, that means everyone affected by it must hire their own
>> expert. In a nation the size of the USA, the result is millions of
>> wasted hours and billions of wasted dollars. The solution is to keep
>> a bill brief and clear enough that any person who must comply with it
>> can read it and understand what he must do to comply without spending
>> thousands on an expert.
> Very few, very, very few, people are affected by laws in the United States
> Code.
>
> Millions upon millions more are affected by regulations established by
> various agencies and departments. These regulations are never seen or voted
> upon by legislators.
>
You say that like you think it's a good thing. There is no federal
regulation that is not the result of federal legislation, and every
regulation is a "law" for enforcement purposes. You basic premise
appears to be that the current system is fine and dandy. If so, you are
in a distinct minority.
Every person who has a social security number, attends a private school,
pays income taxes, uses a bank, buys stock in public corporations, has
an IRA, posts anything on the internet (think copyright), drives on the
interstate highway system, uses electricity and clean water, is an
employee of any but the smallest business, is directly affected by laws
in the U.S. Code. You probably cannot go a month without violating some
federal law. The only reason you aren't caught and punished is that
there are so many laws and so few enforcement personnel that it would be
impractical to pursue every violation.
On 8/27/2012 5:05 AM, HeyBub wrote:
> Han wrote:
>> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>> I don't want to put words in your mouth, but are you proposing a
>>>>> bill must fail, no matter how good it is, if a legislator can't
>>>>> understand it? Or are you just complaining of the ACA?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> If a legislator can't understand it, he can't know if it it a good
>>>> bill or not. In a case like that, he votes on a pig in a poke. And
>>>> no, it's not just the ACA, it's the massively bloated tax code, the
>>>> obtuse environmental protection laws, and on and on. And it's not
>>>> enough to say the legislator can and should rely on staff or
>>>> so-called experts to tell him what he's voting on. They may not
>>>> understand the legal ramifications themselves, or may have an agenda
>>>> of their own that colors their explanation, or may have no ideal
>>>> about unintended consequences. Their explanations of a complex law
>>>> will necessarily be so incomplete that the legislator may come away
>>>> thinking he understands what he is voting for when he is really
>>>> clueless after all. And if the legislator must hire an expert to
>>>> understand it, that means everyone affected by it must hire their
>>>> own expert. In a nation the size of the USA, the result is
>>>> millions of wasted hours and billions of wasted dollars. The
>>>> solution is to keep a bill brief and clear enough that any person
>>>> who must comply with it can read it and understand what he must do
>>>> to comply without spending thousands on an expert.
>>> Very few, very, very few, people are affected by laws in the United
>>> States Code.
>>>
>>> Millions upon millions more are affected by regulations established
>>> by various agencies and departments. These regulations are never
>>> seen or voted upon by legislators.
>> I'd assume that if anyone has a problem with a regulation, he'd check
>> (pun intended) with his friendly neighborhood constitutional lawyer.
>> After all, we are the most litiginous (sp?) nation in the world.
> Yep. And sometimes that works. Just this past week, Texas won a suit against
> the EPA on downwind pollution regulations. The EPA issued regulations
> clearly outside their area of competence/ The US Court for the District of
> Columbia vacated the regulations and told the EPA to go pound sand.
>
At what financial cost to the Plaintiff? Is that something you could
afford to do? More likely, you'd just have to knuckle under to the
regulation.
On 8/28/2012 5:02 AM, John H. Gohde wrote:
> On Aug 26, 9:27 pm, Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 8/25/2012 8:44 PM, HeyBub wrote:> Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>> Tell us what it means. Take as much space - and time - as you need.
>>>> I can't. You can't. Your federal Representative and Senators can't.
>>>> Nobody can. That's exactly my point. Something like that should not
>>>> be made into law. Every congressperson whose desk that monstrosity
>>>> came to should have said, "I can't understand this, therefore I won't
>>>> vote for it."
>>> I don't want to put words in your mouth, but are you proposing a bill must
>>> fail, no matter how good it is, if a legislator can't understand it? Or are
>>> you just complaining of the ACA?
>> If a legislator can't understand it, he can't know if it it a good bill
>> or not. In a case like that, he votes on a pig in a poke. And no, it's
>> not just the ACA, it's the massively bloated tax code, the obtuse
>> environmental protection laws, and on and on.
>
> Just wondering, if you know how to read English? I rather doubt it.
> Twenty percent of the population does NOT realize how dumb and
> uneducated they truly are.
>
> Just wondering, if you can read without getting bored?
>
> Just wondering, if you can read fast with excellent comprehension?
>
> Just wondering, if you are truly the total idiot that you pretend to
> be?
When you stop discussing the merits and resort to ad hominem personal
attacks, the usual reason is that you've run out of anything meaningful
to say.
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> On 08/20/2012 10:20 AM, Han wrote:
>> What are the "rules" on that, Heybub? Or are there no rules with
>> respect to irrelevant addenda?
>
> The rules are that the elites on both sides of the aisle think they
> are better and smarter than we are and they THEY should run things.
> They purposely use obfuscatory language and legal fine points to keep
> the people in the dark as much as possible. HeyBub's contention may
> be true today but it's absurd. There is no reason whatsoever that
> the CongressCritters should not be required to read every bill,
> understand it, and thereby vote in an informed way. If nothing else,
> it would slow down the explosion of new legislation, the majority of which
> is
> either outside the enumerated power of the Federal government or
> altogether unnecessary.
I don't think trying to hide something is common or even exists. There are
too many "interested parties" that pour over every particular.
A congressman understand every bill? Impossible. Most bills are written by,
or at least have tremendous input by, lobbyists. It is not reasonable to
expect a congressman from Floating Stick, Utah to understand all the
ramifications of a bill attempting to regulate import tariffs on
hydrogenated yak fat, let alone one on the riparian rights of coal slurry.
The people proposing these bills, lobbyists, have their entire lives
invested in the topic and are often backed up by, literally, hundreds of
experts who are likewise experienced.
I am, however, with you on slowing down - or eliminating - as much
legislation as possible.
On 08/20/2012 10:20 AM, Han wrote:
> What are the "rules" on that, Heybub? Or are there no rules with
> respect to irrelevant addenda?
The rules are that the elites on both sides of the aisle think they
are better and smarter than we are and they THEY should run things.
They purposely use obfuscatory language and legal fine points to keep
the people in the dark as much as possible. HeyBub's contention may
be true today but it's absurd. There is no reason whatsoever that
the CongressCritters should not be required to read every bill, understand
it, and thereby vote in an informed way. If nothing else, it would
slow down the explosion of new legislation, the majority of which is
either outside the enumerated power of the Federal government or
altogether unnecessary.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Aug 26, 9:27=A0pm, Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 8/25/2012 8:44 PM, HeyBub wrote:> Just Wondering wrote:
> >>> Tell us what it means. Take as much space - and time - as you need.
>
> >> I can't. =A0You can't. =A0Your federal Representative and Senators can=
't.
> >> Nobody can. =A0That's exactly my point. =A0Something like that should =
not
> >> be made into law. =A0Every congressperson whose desk that monstrosity
> >> came to should have said, "I can't understand this, therefore I won't
> >> vote for it."
> > I don't want to put words in your mouth, but are you proposing a bill m=
ust
> > fail, no matter how good it is, if a legislator can't understand it? Or=
are
> > you just complaining of the ACA?
>
> If a legislator can't understand it, he can't know if it it a good bill
> or not. =A0In a case like that, he votes on a pig in a poke. =A0And no, i=
t's
> not just the ACA, it's the massively bloated tax code, the obtuse
> environmental protection laws, and on and on.
Just wondering, if you know how to read English? I rather doubt it.
Twenty percent of the population does NOT realize how dumb and
uneducated they truly are.
Just wondering, if you can read without getting bored?
Just wondering, if you can read fast with excellent comprehension?
Just wondering, if you are truly the total idiot that you pretend to
be?
Just Wondering wrote:
>>
>> Tell us what it means. Take as much space - and time - as you need.
>>
> I can't. You can't. Your federal Representative and Senators can't.
> Nobody can. That's exactly my point. Something like that should not
> be made into law. Every congressperson whose desk that monstrosity
> came to should have said, "I can't understand this, therefore I won't
> vote for it."
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but are you proposing a bill must
fail, no matter how good it is, if a legislator can't understand it? Or are
you just complaining of the ACA?
Larry Jaques wrote:
>
> I wholeheartedly agree, Tim. They should be required to read and
> understand every bloody word of every bloody bill. These are legal
> documents. What does every contract you've ever signed have at the
> bottom? READ EVERY PAGE AND LEAVE NO BLANKS. (or similar)
By the same token, YOU should read and understand every jot and tittle of
every bill introduced in Congress so YOU can better inform your
representatives of the proper course of action.
You can get started today: www.thomas.gov.
Just Wondering wrote:
> On 8/21/2012 4:30 AM, HeyBub wrote:
>> A congressman understand every bill? Impossible. Most bills are
>> written by, or at least have tremendous input by, lobbyists. It is
>> not reasonable to expect a congressman from Floating Stick, Utah to
>> understand all the ramifications of a bill attempting to regulate
>> import tariffs on hydrogenated yak fat, let alone one on the
>> riparian rights of coal slurry. The people proposing these bills,
>> lobbyists, have their entire lives invested in the topic and are
>> often backed up by, literally, hundreds of experts who are likewise
>> experienced.
> That's not a fact, it's just your opinion, one with which reasonable
> people can and do disagree. Any legislator who does not understand
> what he is voting on should not vote in favor of it. If an issue is
> so complex that a legislator cannot be expected to understand, he
> should not make it a law.
Not an opinion, a fact. Remember, I spent almost two years as an
Administrative Assistant to a senator. Many, in fact most, bills that
crossed my desk were unintelligible to a greater or lesser degree. Most of
this unintelligibility was due to references to other laws or regulations.
These other laws always had references to still other laws and regulations.
For the non-expert, chasing down all these interactions is unbelievable and
left up to the staff.
Markem <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 24 Aug 2012 18:21:31 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> Who was it that drafted the Obamacare bill, anyway?, You know, the
>>>> one that lead the then Speaker of the House to state from the
>>>> Congressional floor, "We have to pass the bill so that you can find
>>>> out what is in it." 'Cause it obviously was not drafted by Obama,
>>>> Pelosi, Reid or any other elected representative of the people, and
>>>> I doubt there was a single person who voted for the Bill who could
>>>> accurately explain what he/she voted for.
>>>
>>> From experience I can make a good guess.
>>>
>>> Parts, or maybe the whole, of the Affordable Care Act have been
>>> languishing in various congressional aides and researchers' bottom
>>> desk drawers since before the days of Hillary-Care. When passage
>>> became possible, this (those?) were pulled out of the drawer and,
>>> with only a few days work to bring them current and/or melded
>>> together, were introduced.
>>
>>Since the days Nixon tried.
>
> Since Truman actually
Phew! What a relief. It is actually a Democratic proposal originally
...
<grin>
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On 24 Aug 2012 18:21:31 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>
>>> Who was it that drafted the Obamacare bill, anyway?, You know, the
>>> one that lead the then Speaker of the House to state from the
>>> Congressional floor, "We have to pass the bill so that you can find
>>> out what is in it." 'Cause it obviously was not drafted by Obama,
>>> Pelosi, Reid or any other elected representative of the people, and I
>>> doubt there was a single person who voted for the Bill who could
>>> accurately explain what he/she voted for.
>>
>> From experience I can make a good guess.
>>
>> Parts, or maybe the whole, of the Affordable Care Act have been
>> languishing in various congressional aides and researchers' bottom
>> desk drawers since before the days of Hillary-Care. When passage
>> became possible, this (those?) were pulled out of the drawer and, with
>> only a few days work to bring them current and/or melded together,
>> were introduced.
>
>Since the days Nixon tried.
Since Truman actually
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >Yeah, I would love to see a Constitutional requirement that every bill
> >only be permitted to cover a single topic and that topic would have
> >to be justified as a Constitutionally enumerated power of the Federal
> >government.
>
> Amen.
Also that if any statute is found to violate the Constitution then every
legislator who voted in favor of it shall automatically have 20 percent
of his votes deducted at each future election, with the effect being
cumulative.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> > On 08/20/2012 10:20 AM, Han wrote:
> >> What are the "rules" on that, Heybub? Or are there no rules with
> >> respect to irrelevant addenda?
> >
> > The rules are that the elites on both sides of the aisle think they
> > are better and smarter than we are and they THEY should run things.
> > They purposely use obfuscatory language and legal fine points to keep
> > the people in the dark as much as possible. HeyBub's contention may
> > be true today but it's absurd. There is no reason whatsoever that
> > the CongressCritters should not be required to read every bill,
> > understand it, and thereby vote in an informed way. If nothing else,
> > it would slow down the explosion of new legislation, the majority of which
> > is
> > either outside the enumerated power of the Federal government or
> > altogether unnecessary.
>
> I don't think trying to hide something is common or even exists. There are
> too many "interested parties" that pour over every particular.
>
> A congressman understand every bill? Impossible. Most bills are written by,
> or at least have tremendous input by, lobbyists. It is not reasonable to
> expect a congressman from Floating Stick, Utah to understand all the
> ramifications of a bill attempting to regulate import tariffs on
> hydrogenated yak fat, let alone one on the riparian rights of coal slurry.
> The people proposing these bills, lobbyists, have their entire lives
> invested in the topic and are often backed up by, literally, hundreds of
> experts who are likewise experienced.
>
> I am, however, with you on slowing down - or eliminating - as much
> legislation as possible.
Any bill which cannot be understood by a majority of the legislature
should simply not be passed.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> Larry Jaques wrote:
> >
> > I wholeheartedly agree, Tim. They should be required to read and
> > understand every bloody word of every bloody bill. These are legal
> > documents. What does every contract you've ever signed have at the
> > bottom? READ EVERY PAGE AND LEAVE NO BLANKS. (or similar)
>
> By the same token, YOU should read and understand every jot and tittle of
> every bill introduced in Congress so YOU can better inform your
> representatives of the proper course of action.
>
> You can get started today: www.thomas.gov.
I really do not understand your objection to legislators actually
reading something before they are allowed to vote for it. Or maybe I
do--do you work for Nancy Pelosi?
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> J. Clarke wrote:
> >>
> >> You can get started today: www.thomas.gov.
> >
> > I really do not understand your objection to legislators actually
> > reading something before they are allowed to vote for it. Or maybe I
> > do--do you work for Nancy Pelosi?
>
> No, I don't work for Pelosi.
>
> I object to the idea because it's a fools errand. It would be similar to
> solving the doctor shortage by having lay people operate on each other, a
> totally useless, and dangerous, endeavor.
>
> People should do what they do best. Legislators are not the best - or even
> competent - to read and understand prospective legislation. That's a STAFF
> job.
So you're saying that the people whose job it is to pass laws are not
competent to do so?
> Interestingly, one of the major changes in the military is the mind-set of
> the commanders. Today, every general believes that the corporal running the
> radio is as much an expert in his field as the brigadier is in his.
The corporal doesn't get paid to run the Army though.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> Just Wondering wrote:
> > On 8/21/2012 4:30 AM, HeyBub wrote:
> >> A congressman understand every bill? Impossible. Most bills are
> >> written by, or at least have tremendous input by, lobbyists. It is
> >> not reasonable to expect a congressman from Floating Stick, Utah to
> >> understand all the ramifications of a bill attempting to regulate
> >> import tariffs on hydrogenated yak fat, let alone one on the
> >> riparian rights of coal slurry. The people proposing these bills,
> >> lobbyists, have their entire lives invested in the topic and are
> >> often backed up by, literally, hundreds of experts who are likewise
> >> experienced.
> > That's not a fact, it's just your opinion, one with which reasonable
> > people can and do disagree. Any legislator who does not understand
> > what he is voting on should not vote in favor of it. If an issue is
> > so complex that a legislator cannot be expected to understand, he
> > should not make it a law.
>
> Not an opinion, a fact. Remember, I spent almost two years as an
> Administrative Assistant to a senator.
Oh, now we get it. You want to preserve your own power.
> Many, in fact most, bills that
> crossed my desk were unintelligible to a greater or lesser degree. Most of
> this unintelligibility was due to references to other laws or regulations.
> These other laws always had references to still other laws and regulations.
> For the non-expert, chasing down all these interactions is unbelievable and
> left up to the staff.
If the legislator had to do it he would have an incentive to simplify
the law.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> Just Wondering wrote:
> >>
> >>
> > Your Senator was supposed to be the expert. That's what he was
> > elected for and was paid the big bucks for. You're basically saying
> > that your Senator, and perhaps all of them, surrendered non-delegable
> > duties to staff, and that it is an unelected nameless bureaucratic
> > staff who controls what bills are made into law. If that's true, we
> > need a couple of hundred impeachment proceedings.
>
> "I don't rule Russia; ten thousand clerks rule Russia" - Peter the Great.
>
> It has always been thus.
Well, one thing I will say is that you're giving us a clear
demonstration of the reason that the problem won't get fixed without
watering the tree.
Just Wondering wrote:
>> I don't want to put words in your mouth, but are you proposing a
>> bill must fail, no matter how good it is, if a legislator can't
>> understand it? Or are you just complaining of the ACA?
>>
>>
> If a legislator can't understand it, he can't know if it it a good
> bill or not. In a case like that, he votes on a pig in a poke. And
> no, it's not just the ACA, it's the massively bloated tax code, the
> obtuse environmental protection laws, and on and on. And it's not
> enough to say the legislator can and should rely on staff or
> so-called experts to tell him what he's voting on. They may not
> understand the legal ramifications themselves, or may have an agenda
> of their own that colors their explanation, or may have no ideal
> about unintended consequences. Their explanations of a complex law
> will necessarily be so incomplete that the legislator may come away
> thinking he understands what he is voting for when he is really
> clueless after all. And if the legislator must hire an expert to
> understand it, that means everyone affected by it must hire their own
> expert. In a nation the size of the USA, the result is millions of
> wasted hours and billions of wasted dollars. The solution is to keep
> a bill brief and clear enough that any person who must comply with it
> can read it and understand what he must do to comply without spending
> thousands on an expert.
Very few, very, very few, people are affected by laws in the United States
Code.
Millions upon millions more are affected by regulations established by
various agencies and departments. These regulations are never seen or voted
upon by legislators.
Han wrote:
> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> For example, I'd wager nobody had a glimmer of the regulation
>> requiring Catholic organizations would be compelled to provide
>> contraceptive and abortion coverage. Had that requirement been
>> ANYWHERE in the 2500 pages, the bill would not have passed.
>
> <rant>
> Many Catholic church-supported hospitals etc were already providing
> this coverage prior to ACA. I am not going to scour the nitty gritty
> of ACA to find where it says all employers will ..., but I would
> guess it is in there.
It's NOT in there, at least not directly. "The Secretary shall develop
standards..." or language to that effect IS in the bill, but it's the
Secretary of HHS that devised the regulation.
>
> It seems to come down (pardon my English) to the very hypocritical
> notion that if it isn't forbidden by the government, us catholics can
> indeed go and use birth control. And with hypocritical I mean 2
> things: Firstly it means that the catholic church has determined
> apparently that plain Janes can't think for themselves and follow the
> rules that the church has laid down unless the government prohibits
> it, and secondly that the party that ostensibly wants less government
> interference now wants the government to stand guard in the bedroom.
> I thought that was over with when sodomy laws were repealed.
First, what an individual Catholic does is between the individual and God.
When the government mandates that a Catholic violate the teaching of the
Church or facilitate violating the teachings of the Church, is where the
problem lies.
>
> Again, if Jane doesn't want to use birth control, that's her business,
> for whatever reason she decides that. But IMO it is just good
> economic and humane policy to offer it as part of ACA. We have
> already discussed that it is economically "better" for insurance
> companies to offer birth control than to cover unwanted pregnancies,
> births and kids. </rant>
Birth control may be economically better for the insurance companies than
unplanned pregnancies, but the fundamental teaching of the Church is that no
good can come from an immoral act. In the view of the Church, the government
is forcing it to perform an immoral act, and that it will not do.
Just Wondering wrote:
>> And the aide who writes the bill understands its provisions. The
>> congressman will have the bill explained to him by the aide ("It's
>> good").
>
> It's NOT all good. You're giving your explanation of the way things
> are. I'm saying that the way things are are wrong and should be
> changed. I never voted for a congressional aide. My congressman is
> supposed to represent ME, not some aide and certainly not some
> special-interest group that asks him to sponsor a bill he can't
> understand. If I was there myself, I would need to know what a bill
> said before I could vote Yea or Nay on it. My elected representative
> should be no less diligent.
Obviously things don't work the way you suggest they should. And for good
reason: they CAN'T work the way you suggest they should. But you don't have
to take my word for it.
Go here:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr3590enr/pdf/BILLS-111hr3590enr.pdf
It's the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
Tell us what it means. Take as much space - and time - as you need.
Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote in news:6op7g9-8fr1.ln1
@ozzie.tundraware.com:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=svGDZOW-brA
Has been going on for a very long time, and yes he is correct, even if he
is from the right (smile).
Not only should bills in full final text be available in a timely fashion,
they should NOT contain extraneous little subterfuges for the lack of
passing "little" things in their own bills.
These are indeed not left or right issues, but issues of transparency and
common sense. At least that is how I see it.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote in news:evt7g9-8fr1.ln1
@ozzie.tundraware.com:
> Yeah, I would love to see a Constitutional requirement that every bill
> only be permitted to cover a single topic and that topic would have
> to be justified as a Constitutionally enumerated power of the Federal
> government.
We have the first half of that in Indiana, but not the second. That's been enough, though, for the
state Supreme Court to strike down statutes from time to time.
Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote in news:o2v9g9-qeh.ln1
@ozzie.tundraware.com:
> On 08/20/2012 08:30 AM, HeyBub wrote:
>> but there is almost zero
>> chance that he'll even have the slightest clue.
>
> ... which would incentivize him/her to write simpler, smaller,
> clearer bills. Laws should be precise and concise, not vehicles to
> hide things from the voting/paying public.
The lawyers have made it impossible to do that, Tim. But I agree that
there should be (isn't there?) a plain English summary of what the bill
intends to do, or not to do. And in the Congressional record it should
say so.
But the discussion was really about extraneous things that get added as
amendments, such that the square water melon bill - which was a really
great idea, if it were about some real idea - does not get an amendment
limiting abortion rights, whether or not that in itself would be a good
idea. What are the "rules" on that, Heybub? Or are there no rules with
respect to irrelevant addenda?
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>>
>> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>> > On 08/20/2012 10:20 AM, Han wrote:
>> >> What are the "rules" on that, Heybub? Or are there no rules with
>> >> respect to irrelevant addenda?
>> >
>> > The rules are that the elites on both sides of the aisle think they
>> > are better and smarter than we are and they THEY should run things.
>> > They purposely use obfuscatory language and legal fine points to
>> > keep the people in the dark as much as possible. HeyBub's
>> > contention may be true today but it's absurd. There is no reason
>> > whatsoever that the CongressCritters should not be required to read
>> > every bill, understand it, and thereby vote in an informed way. If
>> > nothing else, it would slow down the explosion of new legislation,
>> > the majority of which is
>> > either outside the enumerated power of the Federal government or
>> > altogether unnecessary.
>>
>> I don't think trying to hide something is common or even exists.
>> There are too many "interested parties" that pour over every
>> particular.
>>
>> A congressman understand every bill? Impossible. Most bills are
>> written by, or at least have tremendous input by, lobbyists. It is
>> not reasonable to expect a congressman from Floating Stick, Utah to
>> understand all the ramifications of a bill attempting to regulate
>> import tariffs on hydrogenated yak fat, let alone one on the riparian
>> rights of coal slurry. The people proposing these bills, lobbyists,
>> have their entire lives invested in the topic and are often backed up
>> by, literally, hundreds of experts who are likewise experienced.
>>
>> I am, however, with you on slowing down - or eliminating - as much
>> legislation as possible.
>
> Any bill which cannot be understood by a majority of the legislature
> should simply not be passed.
I'm disappointed in you guys. Most of you are in favor of the strictest
possible interpretation of the Constitution, but here and now most of you
say, leave it to the "experts" - lobbyists mostly.
I can see that the nitty gritty of legislation be written by real nitty
gritty experts. But the legislaTORS not the lobbyists, should at least
tightly circumscribe the intent of a piece of legislation. The bill on
hydrogenated yak fat should not be affected by the riparian rights of
coal slurry.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Larry Jaques wrote:
>>
>> I wholeheartedly agree, Tim. They should be required to read and
>> understand every bloody word of every bloody bill. These are legal
>> documents. What does every contract you've ever signed have at the
>> bottom? READ EVERY PAGE AND LEAVE NO BLANKS. (or similar)
>
> By the same token, YOU should read and understand every jot and tittle
> of every bill introduced in Congress so YOU can better inform your
> representatives of the proper course of action.
>
> You can get started today: www.thomas.gov.
Thanks, Heybub!
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in news:LvudnU-rqZU-
[email protected]:
> Han wrote:
>
>> The bill on hydrogenated yak fat should not be affected by the
>> riparian rights of coal slurry.
>
> Efficiency.
Or expediency? If the HYF bill can't get enough support, throw a bone to
the RRCS supporters ...
That may indeed be part and parcel of "compromise", of which I am a
supporter, but sometimes that becomes giving in, or up.
Yes, it is politics, dirty by nature, and indispensable ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>
>>> People should do what they do best. Legislators are not the best -
>>> or even competent - to read and understand prospective legislation.
>>> That's a STAFF job.
>>
>> So you're saying that the people whose job it is to pass laws are not
>> competent to do so?
>>
>
> Yes. They were elected (presumably) on their ability to make rational
> decisions. They get input from people they trust and vote accordingly.
> Sometimes the advice from two or more staffers or lobbyists support
> differing positions. The congressman, in that situation, almost always
> picks the side that gives him the most money. It's the rational
> decision.
>
> It's pretty much the same thing as a surgeon relying on the advice of
> a radiologist regarding the location of a tumor or the auto mechanic
> following the diagnostic procedures found in the car-makers
> trouble-shooting manual.
>
> A congressman, or a surgeon, can't know everything. A competent
> congressman, or a competent mechanic, must seek guidance from other
> experts.
If everyone involved (including of course staff, but also lobbyists!)
does his/her job with a view of what is best for the country as a whole
(with the state/district second best), I have no problem with that. Not
even with a little horse trading (check idiom) every once in a while.
Now please point me to Utopia ...
No kidding. That's how it should be ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 8/22/2012 2:12 PM, HeyBub wrote:
>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> You can get started today: www.thomas.gov.
>>> I really do not understand your objection to legislators actually
>>> reading something before they are allowed to vote for it. Or maybe
>>> I do--do you work for Nancy Pelosi?
>> No, I don't work for Pelosi.
>>
>> I object to the idea because it's a fools errand. It would be similar
>> to solving the doctor shortage by having lay people operate on each
>> other, a totally useless, and dangerous, endeavor.
>>
>> People should do what they do best. Legislators are not the best - or
>> even competent - to read and understand prospective legislation.
>> That's a STAFF job.
>>
>>
> That may be how the system currently operates. It's not how it's
> supposed to work. We elect representatives to decide what laws we
> live under. They can't make rational decisions, must less intelligent
> ones, if they do not understand what they vote for or against.
But they can't be experts in all fields. That was too abundantly clear
when a certain representative from MO on the Science Committe gave an
interview recently. But hopefully that's an outlier.
I don't blame representatives to rely on staff or even lobbyists to put
some cogent (and factually correct) reasoning on rep's desk. But rep has
to take the consequences and voters need the facts too.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 8/23/2012 7:33 AM, HeyBub wrote:
>> Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>
>>> Your Senator was supposed to be the expert. That's what he was
>>> elected for and was paid the big bucks for. You're basically saying
>>> that your Senator, and perhaps all of them, surrendered
>>> non-delegable duties to staff, and that it is an unelected nameless
>>> bureaucratic staff who controls what bills are made into law. If
>>> that's true, we need a couple of hundred impeachment proceedings.
>> "I don't rule Russia; ten thousand clerks rule Russia" - Peter the
>> Great.
>>
>> It has always been thus.
>>
>>
> By that, Peter the Great meant the "ten thousand clerks" handled the
> nuts-and-bolts administration of the government. But those clerks did
> not write the laws.
Come on. We elect a new rep every once in a while. You think he is
going to be an instant encyclopedic source of all law that pases by him?
He is charged (IMO) with directing the staff in what the electorate has
elected him to do, in a philosophy so to speak. Not the itty bitty
gritty details of writing law.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On 25 Aug 2012 17:51:30 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 25 Aug 2012 11:59:20 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>>> And the aide who writes the bill understands its provisions. The
>>>>>> congressman will have the bill explained to him by the aide ("It's
>>>>>> good").
>>>>>
>>>>> It's NOT all good. You're giving your explanation of the way
>>>>> things are. I'm saying that the way things are are wrong and
>>>>> should be changed. I never voted for a congressional aide. My
>>>>> congressman is supposed to represent ME, not some aide and
>>>>> certainly not some special-interest group that asks him to sponsor
>>>>> a bill he can't understand. If I was there myself, I would need to
>>>>> know what a bill said before I could vote Yea or Nay on it. My
>>>>> elected representative should be no less diligent.
>>>>
>>>> Obviously things don't work the way you suggest they should. And for
>>>> good reason: they CAN'T work the way you suggest they should. But
>>>> you don't have to take my word for it.
>>>>
>>>> Go here:
>>>> http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr3590enr/pdf/BILLS-111hr3590en
>>>> r. pdf
>>>>
>>>> It's the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
>>>>
>>>> Tell us what it means. Take as much space - and time - as you need.
>>>
>>>I agree with you on this point - a "normal" human being can't fully
>>>understand this, and we need experts to write and explain it.
>>>Sometimes the problem is simply that it is so dang complicated to (try
>>>to) avoid unintended consequences because of the complexity of the
>>>whole thing.
>>>
>>>As you all know, I am in favor of the gist of the law. I'm surethere
>>>is nitty gritty that could, should, will be modified.
>>
>> An explanation isn't good enough, Han. In order to comply with a law
>> we need to understand *it*, not some congresscritter's opinion of
>> what's in it. If it can be faithfully be put into understandable
>> language, why wasn't it? The only obvious answer is that it was
>> obfuscation.
>
>Well, Keith, I must adamit that I never tried to really read a bill,
>IIRC. The legalistic complexities just make my eyelids close. I have
>heard a lot about the unintended consequences in even the simplest bills.
>So I really have to rely on the explanations of experts. Especially
>something as technical and complex as the ACA.
Perhaps there shouldn't be 2700 page bills? ...and that doesn't even touch
the problem. It references perhaps another hundred thousand pages.
Obfuscation or "We have to pass the bill to see what's in it". You do like
that, though.
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 25 Aug 2012 17:51:30 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 25 Aug 2012 11:59:20 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>>>> And the aide who writes the bill understands its provisions. The
>>>>>>> congressman will have the bill explained to him by the aide
>>>>>>> ("It's good").
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's NOT all good. You're giving your explanation of the way
>>>>>> things are. I'm saying that the way things are are wrong and
>>>>>> should be changed. I never voted for a congressional aide. My
>>>>>> congressman is supposed to represent ME, not some aide and
>>>>>> certainly not some special-interest group that asks him to
>>>>>> sponsor a bill he can't understand. If I was there myself, I
>>>>>> would need to know what a bill said before I could vote Yea or
>>>>>> Nay on it. My elected representative should be no less diligent.
>>>>>
>>>>> Obviously things don't work the way you suggest they should. And
>>>>> for good reason: they CAN'T work the way you suggest they should.
>>>>> But you don't have to take my word for it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Go here:
>>>>> http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr3590enr/pdf/BILLS-111hr3590
>>>>> en r. pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> It's the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tell us what it means. Take as much space - and time - as you
>>>>> need.
>>>>
>>>>I agree with you on this point - a "normal" human being can't fully
>>>>understand this, and we need experts to write and explain it.
>>>>Sometimes the problem is simply that it is so dang complicated to
>>>>(try to) avoid unintended consequences because of the complexity of
>>>>the whole thing.
>>>>
>>>>As you all know, I am in favor of the gist of the law. I'm
>>>>surethere is nitty gritty that could, should, will be modified.
>>>
>>> An explanation isn't good enough, Han. In order to comply with a
>>> law we need to understand *it*, not some congresscritter's opinion
>>> of what's in it. If it can be faithfully be put into understandable
>>> language, why wasn't it? The only obvious answer is that it was
>>> obfuscation.
>>
>>Well, Keith, I must adamit that I never tried to really read a bill,
>>IIRC. The legalistic complexities just make my eyelids close. I have
>>heard a lot about the unintended consequences in even the simplest
>>bills. So I really have to rely on the explanations of experts.
>>Especially something as technical and complex as the ACA.
>
> Perhaps there shouldn't be 2700 page bills? ...and that doesn't even
> touch the problem. It references perhaps another hundred thousand
> pages. Obfuscation or "We have to pass the bill to see what's in it".
> You do like that, though.
As a matter of fact, Keith, I don't like it. I would like to have bills
of 1 page. Something like. Congress agrees that everyone should have
health insurance. Everyone should pay to spread the risks. Price should
be 10% (whatever) higher than cheapest policy in effect before this date
covering the risks as set forth in Appendix A. Conscientious objectors
to the birth control coverage requirements will not have to pay for that
coverage as it will be born by the insurance companies. No reduction in
premium for the absence of this feature.
All legalistic details will be set forth in Appendix B.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Nope. Each should do what is (overall) best for himself. The result
> will be rewarding for everybody.
The best thing for a criminal would be if the witnesses disappeared. But
I am sure that isn't what you meant. I was talking a utopian idea.
Human nature being what it is, that idea is nonsense. But equally
ruthless selfishness would eventually ve selfdefeating too.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 8/23/2012 1:08 PM, Han wrote:
>> Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 8/23/2012 7:33 AM, HeyBub wrote:
>>>> Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>> Your Senator was supposed to be the expert. That's what he was
>>>>> elected for and was paid the big bucks for. You're basically
>>>>> saying that your Senator, and perhaps all of them, surrendered
>>>>> non-delegable duties to staff, and that it is an unelected
>>>>> nameless bureaucratic staff who controls what bills are made into
>>>>> law. If that's true, we need a couple of hundred impeachment
>>>>> proceedings.
>>>> "I don't rule Russia; ten thousand clerks rule Russia" - Peter the
>>>> Great.
>>>>
>>>> It has always been thus.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> By that, Peter the Great meant the "ten thousand clerks" handled the
>>> nuts-and-bolts administration of the government. But those clerks
>>> did not write the laws.
>> Come on. We elect a new rep every once in a while. You think he is
>> going to be an instant encyclopedic source of all law that pases by
>> him? He is charged (IMO) with directing the staff in what the
>> electorate has elected him to do, in a philosophy so to speak. Not
>> the itty bitty gritty details of writing law.
>>
> I didn't say a representative should be an "instant" anything. I also
> didn't see he should be the only one to draft a bill. But if he's
> going to vote for something to be a law, he'd darn well read the
> thing, and take enough time to educate himself if necessary to
> understand it, and by those means know what it is he's voting for
> before he casts his vote.
Of course, but the problem is that the devil is in the details, and did
he really mean that thing? He thought it meant green, but now it seems
the law says black ... Of course could be all part of "plausible
deniability" and now he has the capaign contribution in his pocket ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in news:i6-
[email protected]:
> Han wrote:
>> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> Nope. Each should do what is (overall) best for himself. The result
>>> will be rewarding for everybody.
>>
>> The best thing for a criminal would be if the witnesses disappeared.
>> But I am sure that isn't what you meant. I was talking a utopian
>> idea. Human nature being what it is, that idea is nonsense. But
>> equally ruthless selfishness would eventually ve selfdefeating too.
>
> I'd be interested in an example of "ruthless selfishness" being
> self-defeating (in a democratic, capitalistic society).
I'm really not interested in pursueing this further, but let's see.
Apparently
<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/opinion/brooks-ryans-biggest-
mistake.html?hp>
Ryan took a very principled stance (i.e. he was being ruthlessly selfish)
on Bowles-Simpson, and, at least according to Brooks, was the one who
canned Bowles-Simpson ("Ryan voted no for intellectually coherent
reasons.").
Now we are faced with the fiscal cliff, and the Republicans seem to be
the ones who have difficulty defending their oh so principled stand,
because:
they are absolutely against higher taxes on the more wealthy;
they will try to roll back Obamacare;
they don't want cuts in the military budget;
they do want higher taxes (effectively on the middle class);
(non-budgetary item, they are waging war on women)
All these are admirably principled stances (which I don't agree with, but
at least they are principled)
Together that is going to be self-defeating.
Constructively:
I'd like to have an independent commission look into ways to make
Obamacare cheaper. Individual mandate remains (this is a sine qua non).
We can argue about coverage, and my personal advice would be to "skip"
covering those procedures that are most expensive (eg transplants,
dialysis) and dump them into sets of additional coverages, to be paid
separately. With the proviso that there be penalties if you later in
life want those more extended coverages. In other words, choose now and
be clear that dialysis is not covered unless you do choose it now, ot pay
thrice the cost later on.
The commission could look into extending Medicare to all.
Military: This includes CIA & Homeland (in)Security. Reduce budget by
10 years from now to 2000 levels or lower. Half to go to renewable
energy and infrastructure, rest to deficit reduction.
Just examples - for discussion, eventually.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Just Wondering wrote:
>>>
>> Who was it that drafted the Obamacare bill, anyway?, You know, the
>> one that lead the then Speaker of the House to state from the
>> Congressional floor, "We have to pass the bill so that you can find
>> out what is in it." 'Cause it obviously was not drafted by Obama,
>> Pelosi, Reid or any other elected representative of the people, and I
>> doubt there was a single person who voted for the Bill who could
>> accurately explain what he/she voted for.
>
> From experience I can make a good guess.
>
> Parts, or maybe the whole, of the Affordable Care Act have been
> languishing in various congressional aides and researchers' bottom
> desk drawers since before the days of Hillary-Care. When passage
> became possible, this (those?) were pulled out of the drawer and, with
> only a few days work to bring them current and/or melded together,
> were introduced.
Since the days Nixon tried.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Just Wondering wrote:
>>> And the aide who writes the bill understands its provisions. The
>>> congressman will have the bill explained to him by the aide ("It's
>>> good").
>>
>> It's NOT all good. You're giving your explanation of the way things
>> are. I'm saying that the way things are are wrong and should be
>> changed. I never voted for a congressional aide. My congressman is
>> supposed to represent ME, not some aide and certainly not some
>> special-interest group that asks him to sponsor a bill he can't
>> understand. If I was there myself, I would need to know what a bill
>> said before I could vote Yea or Nay on it. My elected representative
>> should be no less diligent.
>
> Obviously things don't work the way you suggest they should. And for
> good reason: they CAN'T work the way you suggest they should. But you
> don't have to take my word for it.
>
> Go here:
> http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr3590enr/pdf/BILLS-111hr3590enr.
> pdf
>
> It's the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
>
> Tell us what it means. Take as much space - and time - as you need.
I agree with you on this point - a "normal" human being can't fully
understand this, and we need experts to write and explain it. Sometimes
the problem is simply that it is so dang complicated to (try to) avoid
unintended consequences because of the complexity of the whole thing.
As you all know, I am in favor of the gist of the law. I'm surethere is
nitty gritty that could, should, will be modified.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 8/25/2012 5:59 AM, Han wrote:
>> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>> And the aide who writes the bill understands its provisions. The
>>>>> congressman will have the bill explained to him by the aide ("It's
>>>>> good").
>>>> It's NOT all good. You're giving your explanation of the way
>>>> things are. I'm saying that the way things are are wrong and
>>>> should be changed. I never voted for a congressional aide. My
>>>> congressman is supposed to represent ME, not some aide and
>>>> certainly not some special-interest group that asks him to sponsor
>>>> a bill he can't understand. If I was there myself, I would need to
>>>> know what a bill said before I could vote Yea or Nay on it. My
>>>> elected representative should be no less diligent.
>>> Obviously things don't work the way you suggest they should. And for
>>> good reason: they CAN'T work the way you suggest they should. But
>>> you don't have to take my word for it.
>>>
>>> Go here:
>>> http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr3590enr/pdf/BILLS-111hr3590en
>>> r. pdf
>>>
>>> It's the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
>>>
>>> Tell us what it means. Take as much space - and time - as you need.
>> I agree with you on this point - a "normal" human being can't fully
>> understand this, and we need experts to write and explain it.
>> Sometimes the problem is simply that it is so dang complicated to
>> (try to) avoid unintended consequences because of the complexity of
>> the whole thing.
>
> It is wrong for government to expect its citizens to comply with laws
> they don't understand. If you can't understand it, if I can't
> understand it, if my representative and Senators can't understand it,
> if we need experts to explain it to us, it should either be rewritten
> in plain enough terms that we can understand it, or it should not be
> made into law at all.
There is a difference between not understanding the purposes of a bill,
and fully understanding the nitty gritty. I do not have to know all the
laws of electromagnetism to know how to handle my vacuum cleaner (though
I wish I knew exactly what broke in my dust collector). I may need a
repair person ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> For example, I'd wager nobody had a glimmer of the regulation
> requiring Catholic organizations would be compelled to provide
> contraceptive and abortion coverage. Had that requirement been
> ANYWHERE in the 2500 pages, the bill would not have passed.
<rant>
Many Catholic church-supported hospitals etc were already providing this
coverage prior to ACA. I am not going to scour the nitty gritty of ACA
to find where it says all employers will ..., but I would guess it is in
there.
It seems to come down (pardon my English) to the very hypocritical notion
that if it isn't forbidden by the government, us catholics can indeed go
and use birth control. And with hypocritical I mean 2 things: Firstly
it means that the catholic church has determined apparently that plain
Janes can't think for themselves and follow the rules that the church has
laid down unless the government prohibits it, and secondly that the party
that ostensibly wants less government interference now wants the
government to stand guard in the bedroom. I thought that was over with
when sodomy laws were repealed.
Again, if Jane doesn't want to use birth control, that's her business,
for whatever reason she decides that. But IMO it is just good economic
and humane policy to offer it as part of ACA. We have already discussed
that it is economically "better" for insurance companies to offer birth
control than to cover unwanted pregnancies, births and kids.
</rant>
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Just Wondering wrote:
>>> I don't want to put words in your mouth, but are you proposing a
>>> bill must fail, no matter how good it is, if a legislator can't
>>> understand it? Or are you just complaining of the ACA?
>>>
>>>
>> If a legislator can't understand it, he can't know if it it a good
>> bill or not. In a case like that, he votes on a pig in a poke. And
>> no, it's not just the ACA, it's the massively bloated tax code, the
>> obtuse environmental protection laws, and on and on. And it's not
>> enough to say the legislator can and should rely on staff or
>> so-called experts to tell him what he's voting on. They may not
>> understand the legal ramifications themselves, or may have an agenda
>> of their own that colors their explanation, or may have no ideal
>> about unintended consequences. Their explanations of a complex law
>> will necessarily be so incomplete that the legislator may come away
>> thinking he understands what he is voting for when he is really
>> clueless after all. And if the legislator must hire an expert to
>> understand it, that means everyone affected by it must hire their own
>> expert. In a nation the size of the USA, the result is millions of
>> wasted hours and billions of wasted dollars. The solution is to keep
>> a bill brief and clear enough that any person who must comply with it
>> can read it and understand what he must do to comply without spending
>> thousands on an expert.
>
> Very few, very, very few, people are affected by laws in the United
> States Code.
>
> Millions upon millions more are affected by regulations established by
> various agencies and departments. These regulations are never seen or
> voted upon by legislators.
I'd assume that if anyone has a problem with a regulation, he'd check
(pun intended) with his friendly neighborhood constitutional lawyer.
After all, we are the most litiginous (sp?) nation in the world.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Birth control may be economically better for the insurance companies
> than unplanned pregnancies, but the fundamental teaching of the Church
> is that no good can come from an immoral act. In the view of the
> Church, the government is forcing it to perform an immoral act, and
> that it will not do.
We already discussed that. No skin off the church's conscience, they
just have to stipulate that they don't pay for it, but that it is
included in the package. Schizophrenic, but religious laws are almost by
definition not logical.
And please be careful for what you wish for. If we let religion dictate
what can or cannot be done, we'll have to give equal time to all
religions, since we cannot discriminate. We aren't letting store hours
be dictated by Jewish law (my area is 50% Jewish), but if the kosher
store isn't open on Saturdays, that's fine with all around here. It
would then also include permitting Islamic "honor" killings, as is common
among some of the savages (my opinion peeking through). The liberal,
ultrapermissive Dutch did not really prosecute those crimes much, but
even they have come back from that.
Let's go with the (civil) law, please. Any individual can act like he or
she may damn well please, whether or not that agrees with religious law,
as long as it conforms to civil law. And regarding morality, I
personally think it is immoral that catholics cannot avail themselves of
ALL medical technology if they want to fully follow catholic teachings.
So the difference is that I will leave it up to the individual to decide,
not up to government to take the place of a religious official dictating
civil law.
Btw, I would have much more respect for catholic doctrine if the church
would come into the 19th century and permit marriage of priests, and
birth control.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Han wrote:
>> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>> I don't want to put words in your mouth, but are you proposing a
>>>>> bill must fail, no matter how good it is, if a legislator can't
>>>>> understand it? Or are you just complaining of the ACA?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> If a legislator can't understand it, he can't know if it it a good
>>>> bill or not. In a case like that, he votes on a pig in a poke.
>>>> And no, it's not just the ACA, it's the massively bloated tax code,
>>>> the obtuse environmental protection laws, and on and on. And it's
>>>> not enough to say the legislator can and should rely on staff or
>>>> so-called experts to tell him what he's voting on. They may not
>>>> understand the legal ramifications themselves, or may have an
>>>> agenda of their own that colors their explanation, or may have no
>>>> ideal about unintended consequences. Their explanations of a
>>>> complex law will necessarily be so incomplete that the legislator
>>>> may come away thinking he understands what he is voting for when he
>>>> is really clueless after all. And if the legislator must hire an
>>>> expert to understand it, that means everyone affected by it must
>>>> hire their own expert. In a nation the size of the USA, the result
>>>> is millions of wasted hours and billions of wasted dollars. The
>>>> solution is to keep a bill brief and clear enough that any person
>>>> who must comply with it can read it and understand what he must do
>>>> to comply without spending thousands on an expert.
>>>
>>> Very few, very, very few, people are affected by laws in the United
>>> States Code.
>>>
>>> Millions upon millions more are affected by regulations established
>>> by various agencies and departments. These regulations are never
>>> seen or voted upon by legislators.
>>
>> I'd assume that if anyone has a problem with a regulation, he'd check
>> (pun intended) with his friendly neighborhood constitutional lawyer.
>> After all, we are the most litiginous (sp?) nation in the world.
>
> Yep. And sometimes that works. Just this past week, Texas won a suit
> against the EPA on downwind pollution regulations. The EPA issued
> regulations clearly outside their area of competence/ The US Court for
> the District of Columbia vacated the regulations and told the EPA to
> go pound sand.
Yes, sometimes law takes precedence over common sense. We discussed that
elsewhere - as long as your pollution goes to the next state, that state
can't do a thing about it. If it is indeed the law, it's antediluvial.
The Swiss, French and Germans used the Rhine as a sewer, not just for
human waste, but also industrial chemical waste. It's a lot better than
it was decades ago, but the salmon hasn't returned yet, as far as I know.
So now more advertisements of domestic help for hire specifying no more
than 3x/week salmon to be served to them.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Han wrote:
>>
>> Btw, I would have much more respect for catholic doctrine if the
>> church would come into the 19th century and permit marriage of
>> priests, and birth control.
>
> Priests used to be married, even Popes. The ban on marriage came about
> because those in the hierarchy were showing favoritism to their
> spouses and children.
>
> You may be interested to know that there ARE married priests within
> the Roman Catholic fold. Married Episcopalian priests who convert to
> RC are not required to divorce their wives.
Yes, I know both those points. Even more reason not to discriminate
against the home folk <grin>.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 8/27/2012 5:05 AM, HeyBub wrote:
>> Han wrote:
>>> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>>> I don't want to put words in your mouth, but are you proposing a
>>>>>> bill must fail, no matter how good it is, if a legislator can't
>>>>>> understand it? Or are you just complaining of the ACA?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> If a legislator can't understand it, he can't know if it it a good
>>>>> bill or not. In a case like that, he votes on a pig in a poke.
>>>>> And no, it's not just the ACA, it's the massively bloated tax
>>>>> code, the obtuse environmental protection laws, and on and on.
>>>>> And it's not enough to say the legislator can and should rely on
>>>>> staff or so-called experts to tell him what he's voting on. They
>>>>> may not understand the legal ramifications themselves, or may have
>>>>> an agenda of their own that colors their explanation, or may have
>>>>> no ideal about unintended consequences. Their explanations of a
>>>>> complex law will necessarily be so incomplete that the legislator
>>>>> may come away thinking he understands what he is voting for when
>>>>> he is really clueless after all. And if the legislator must hire
>>>>> an expert to understand it, that means everyone affected by it
>>>>> must hire their own expert. In a nation the size of the USA, the
>>>>> result is millions of wasted hours and billions of wasted dollars.
>>>>> The solution is to keep a bill brief and clear enough that any
>>>>> person who must comply with it can read it and understand what he
>>>>> must do to comply without spending thousands on an expert.
>>>> Very few, very, very few, people are affected by laws in the United
>>>> States Code.
>>>>
>>>> Millions upon millions more are affected by regulations established
>>>> by various agencies and departments. These regulations are never
>>>> seen or voted upon by legislators.
>>> I'd assume that if anyone has a problem with a regulation, he'd
>>> check (pun intended) with his friendly neighborhood constitutional
>>> lawyer. After all, we are the most litiginous (sp?) nation in the
>>> world.
>> Yep. And sometimes that works. Just this past week, Texas won a suit
>> against the EPA on downwind pollution regulations. The EPA issued
>> regulations clearly outside their area of competence/ The US Court
>> for the District of Columbia vacated the regulations and told the EPA
>> to go pound sand.
>>
> At what financial cost to the Plaintiff? Is that something you could
> afford to do? More likely, you'd just have to knuckle under to the
> regulation.
That is the system, and sometimes it results in terrible decisions. Just
recently I was made aware of the ending of a suit about liability.
Someone claimed to have been hurt by falling on ice on a public walkway
that is to some extent maintained by a not-for-profit corporation. The
lawyer for the insurance company of the corporation told the corporation
that it was better to settle the suit, rather than litigate any further,
and the judge here in Bergen County, NJ very much encouraged settling.
That leaves some aspects of this occurrence without legal resolution, or
with a resolution that is detrimental to my feeling of what's right. BUt
the insurance company apparently is making the decision.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>> You can get started today: www.thomas.gov.
>
> I really do not understand your objection to legislators actually
> reading something before they are allowed to vote for it. Or maybe I
> do--do you work for Nancy Pelosi?
No, I don't work for Pelosi.
I object to the idea because it's a fools errand. It would be similar to
solving the doctor shortage by having lay people operate on each other, a
totally useless, and dangerous, endeavor.
People should do what they do best. Legislators are not the best - or even
competent - to read and understand prospective legislation. That's a STAFF
job.
Interestingly, one of the major changes in the military is the mind-set of
the commanders. Today, every general believes that the corporal running the
radio is as much an expert in his field as the brigadier is in his.
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=svGDZOW-brA
Well, I'm not in full agreement with the thesis. Back in the day, I spent
some time as an Administrative Assistant to a US Senator.
Let me tell you about bills and Congress.
Most bills are written in congress-eese; that is they contain myriad
cross-references, additions, deletions, rewordings, and all manner of arcane
and confusing verbiage. A amateur, of even superior intellect, cannot hope
to decipher the damn thing. Here, try it yourself:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr3590enr/pdf/BILLS-111hr3590enr.pdf
Now your average congress-critter should have SOME experience in deciphering
a bill placed on his desk, but the truth is that discovering all the
meanings therein is a STAFF function. The congress-critter's staff has the
job of converting a simple statement into a proposed law and translating a
bill into something the congress-critter understands.
For example, one day a congress-critter calls in one of his legislative
aides and says: "Ralph, I need a bill regulating the growth, size, and
shipment of square watermelons. If we don't take steps pretty soon, the
Japanese square watermelon factories are going to adversely affect our
domestic growers!" Ralph says "Right, boss," and sets to work.
A couple of weeks later, Ralph puts a 160-page proposed bill on his bosses'
desk. The bill is completely unintelligible to you, me, or the congressman
(well, maybe not me). It contains modifications to trade treaties,
regulations for the Department of Commerce, the U.S. Tax Code, imperatives
to the FDA, oversight control, methods of obtaining permits, various
amendments to the United States Code to provide sanctions for violating
various provisions, funding for a new division within the Department of
Agriculture, and on and on.
The bill gets dropped in the hopper.
In a couple of days, another congress-critter gets his copy. He calls in HIS
legislative aide. "Frank, what the fuck is this all about?"
Frank quickly scans a few pages and says: "It's a bill to regulate square
watermelons." Frank's congressman says: "Outstanding! Contact the author and
ask him to add my name as co-sponser."
Point is, if not obvious, it is the underlings who are able to decipher
bills, not the congressman. We could make the congressman read the bill -
and even give him a quiz to pass before he votes - but there is almost zero
chance that he'll even have the slightest clue.
in 1536238 20120823 143116 "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>J. Clarke wrote:
>>>
>>> People should do what they do best. Legislators are not the best -
>>> or even competent - to read and understand prospective legislation.
>>> That's a STAFF job.
>>
>> So you're saying that the people whose job it is to pass laws are not
>> competent to do so?
>>
>
>Yes. They were elected (presumably) on their ability to make rational
>decisions.
They were elected by people who share their prejudices.
J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>> People should do what they do best. Legislators are not the best -
>> or even competent - to read and understand prospective legislation.
>> That's a STAFF job.
>
> So you're saying that the people whose job it is to pass laws are not
> competent to do so?
>
Yes. They were elected (presumably) on their ability to make rational
decisions. They get input from people they trust and vote accordingly.
Sometimes the advice from two or more staffers or lobbyists support
differing positions. The congressman, in that situation, almost always picks
the side that gives him the most money. It's the rational decision.
It's pretty much the same thing as a surgeon relying on the advice of a
radiologist regarding the location of a tumor or the auto mechanic following
the diagnostic procedures found in the car-makers trouble-shooting manual.
A congressman, or a surgeon, can't know everything. A competent congressman,
or a competent mechanic, must seek guidance from other experts.
in 1536796 20120828 120217 "John H. Gohde" <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Aug 26, 9:27=A0pm, Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 8/25/2012 8:44 PM, HeyBub wrote:> Just Wondering wrote:
>> >>> Tell us what it means. Take as much space - and time - as you need.
>>
>> >> I can't. =A0You can't. =A0Your federal Representative and Senators can=
>'t.
>> >> Nobody can. =A0That's exactly my point. =A0Something like that should =
>not
>> >> be made into law. =A0Every congressperson whose desk that monstrosity
>> >> came to should have said, "I can't understand this, therefore I won't
>> >> vote for it."
>> > I don't want to put words in your mouth, but are you proposing a bill m=
>ust
>> > fail, no matter how good it is, if a legislator can't understand it? Or=
>are
>> > you just complaining of the ACA?
>>
>> If a legislator can't understand it, he can't know if it it a good bill
>> or not. =A0In a case like that, he votes on a pig in a poke. =A0And no, i=
>t's
>> not just the ACA, it's the massively bloated tax code, the obtuse
>> environmental protection laws, and on and on.
>
>
>Just wondering, if you know how to read English? I rather doubt it.
>Twenty percent of the population does NOT realize how dumb and
>uneducated they truly are.
"Twenty percent of the population" is singular??
On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 11:54:30 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On 08/20/2012 10:20 AM, Han wrote:
>> What are the "rules" on that, Heybub? Or are there no rules with
>> respect to irrelevant addenda?
>
>The rules are that the elites on both sides of the aisle think they
>are better and smarter than we are and they THEY should run things.
>They purposely use obfuscatory language and legal fine points to keep
>the people in the dark as much as possible. HeyBub's contention may
>be true today but it's absurd. There is no reason whatsoever that
>the CongressCritters should not be required to read every bill, understand
>it, and thereby vote in an informed way. If nothing else, it would
>slow down the explosion of new legislation, the majority of which is
>either outside the enumerated power of the Federal government or
>altogether unnecessary.
I wholeheartedly agree, Tim. They should be required to read and
understand every bloody word of every bloody bill. These are legal
documents. What does every contract you've ever signed have at the
bottom? READ EVERY PAGE AND LEAVE NO BLANKS. (or similar)
--
The business of America is not business. Neither is it war. The business
of America is justice and securing the blessings of liberty.
-- George F. Will
On 08/21/2012 08:43 AM, HeyBub wrote:
> Han wrote:
>
>> The bill on hydrogenated yak fat should not be affected by the
>> riparian rights of coal slurry.
>
> Efficiency.
>
>
Which is the last thing you want from government. Efficient governments
typically end up being despotic.
I favor a somewhat different approach. We need a Constitutional
amendment. Instead of the two part legislature modeled after the
English houses of Lords and Commons we have today, we need a
bicameral legislature in which one house passes laws with a required
75% majority, and one house repeals laws with a simple majority.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
Just Wondering wrote:
>>
> That's not a valid comparison. If Congress passes a law that affects
> me, I have to comply with the "nitty gritty," and am subject to
> penalties if I do not. I cannot comply with that which I do not
> understand. If I can understand the law, so can, and should, my
> congressman. If he can't understand the "nitty gritty," I should not
> be required to understand or obey it, and so it should not be law.
No, Pelosi was right when she said "we have to pass this bill to find out
what's in it."
The Affordable Care Act contains very few (relatively) things we would call
"laws." Over and over again you see the phrase "The Secretary (director,
administrator, etc.) shall develop regulations (standards, departements,
offices, etc.) to (do something)."
Virtually no one, at the time of passage, had any comprehensive inkling of
what all the future regulations, requirements, standards, and so forth would
be.
For example, I'd wager nobody had a glimmer of the regulation requiring
Catholic organizations would be compelled to provide contraceptive and
abortion coverage. Had that requirement been ANYWHERE in the 2500 pages, the
bill would not have passed.
Han wrote:
>
> Btw, I would have much more respect for catholic doctrine if the
> church would come into the 19th century and permit marriage of
> priests, and birth control.
Priests used to be married, even Popes. The ban on marriage came about
because those in the hierarchy were showing favoritism to their spouses and
children.
You may be interested to know that there ARE married priests within the
Roman Catholic fold. Married Episcopalian priests who convert to RC are not
required to divorce their wives.
On 08/19/2012 02:29 PM, Han wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote in news:6op7g9-8fr1.ln1
> @ozzie.tundraware.com:
>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=svGDZOW-brA
>
> Has been going on for a very long time, and yes he is correct, even if he
> is from the right (smile).
>
> Not only should bills in full final text be available in a timely fashion,
> they should NOT contain extraneous little subterfuges for the lack of
> passing "little" things in their own bills.
>
> These are indeed not left or right issues, but issues of transparency and
> common sense. At least that is how I see it.
>
Yeah, I would love to see a Constitutional requirement that every bill
only be permitted to cover a single topic and that topic would have
to be justified as a Constitutionally enumerated power of the Federal
government.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Just Wondering wrote:
>>
> Who was it that drafted the Obamacare bill, anyway?, You know, the
> one that lead the then Speaker of the House to state from the
> Congressional floor, "We have to pass the bill so that you can find
> out what is in it." 'Cause it obviously was not drafted by Obama,
> Pelosi, Reid or any other elected representative of the people, and I
> doubt there was a single person who voted for the Bill who could
> accurately explain what he/she voted for.
From experience I can make a good guess.
Parts, or maybe the whole, of the Affordable Care Act have been languishing
in various congressional aides and researchers' bottom desk drawers since
before the days of Hillary-Care. When passage became possible, this (those?)
were pulled out of the drawer and, with only a few days work to bring them
current and/or melded together, were introduced.
Han wrote:
> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Nope. Each should do what is (overall) best for himself. The result
>> will be rewarding for everybody.
>
> The best thing for a criminal would be if the witnesses disappeared.
> But I am sure that isn't what you meant. I was talking a utopian
> idea. Human nature being what it is, that idea is nonsense. But
> equally ruthless selfishness would eventually ve selfdefeating too.
I'd be interested in an example of "ruthless selfishness" being
self-defeating (in a democratic, capitalistic society).
Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 14:00:46 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=svGDZOW-brA
>
> Damned straight we agree!
He makes a few references to some of those "angle-shooters" I have
alluded to. Is is sad to see government as a game played by lawyers.
That's what I was referring to earlier when I wrote, "We're maybe
getting too smart of our own good...".
>
> --
> The business of America is not business. Neither is it war. The business
> of America is justice and securing the blessings of liberty.
> -- George F. Will
>
In article <[email protected]>,
Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Yeah, I would love to see a Constitutional requirement that every bill
>only be permitted to cover a single topic and that topic would have
>to be justified as a Constitutionally enumerated power of the Federal
>government.
Amen.
--
-Ed Falk, [email protected]
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/
On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 08:30:07 -0500, HeyBub wrote:
> We could make the congressman read the bill - and even give him a quiz
> to pass before he votes - but there is almost zero chance that he'll
> even have the slightest clue.
Well, that's one thing we agree on :-).
--
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying the cross.
--
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying the cross.
On 8/27/2012 2:03 PM, HeyBub wrote:
> Han wrote:
>>
>> Btw, I would have much more respect for catholic doctrine if the
>> church would come into the 19th century and permit marriage of
>> priests, and birth control.
>
> Priests used to be married, even Popes. The ban on marriage came about
> because those in the hierarchy were showing favoritism to their spouses and
> children.
>
> You may be interested to know that there ARE married priests within the
> Roman Catholic fold. Married Episcopalian priests who convert to RC are not
> required to divorce their wives.
>
>
well, that and inheritance laws would have sucked too much $ out of the
religion.
On 8/24/2012 8:51 AM, HeyBub wrote:
> Han wrote:
>> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> Nope. Each should do what is (overall) best for himself. The result
>>> will be rewarding for everybody.
>>
>> The best thing for a criminal would be if the witnesses disappeared.
>> But I am sure that isn't what you meant. I was talking a utopian
>> idea. Human nature being what it is, that idea is nonsense. But
>> equally ruthless selfishness would eventually ve selfdefeating too.
>
> I'd be interested in an example of "ruthless selfishness" being
> self-defeating (in a democratic, capitalistic society).
Everyone using WIN, the worlds worst OS comes to mind. Of course laws
exist to reduce that level of ruthless selfishness (greed) but laws mean
little to a corrupt system.
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com
On 8/23/2012 3:34 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>>
>> Just Wondering wrote:
>>> Your Senator was supposed to be the expert. That's what he was
>>> elected for and was paid the big bucks for. You're basically saying
>>> that your Senator, and perhaps all of them, surrendered non-delegable
>>> duties to staff, and that it is an unelected nameless bureaucratic
>>> staff who controls what bills are made into law. If that's true, we
>>> need a couple of hundred impeachment proceedings.
>>
>> "I don't rule Russia; ten thousand clerks rule Russia" - Peter the Great.
>>
>> It has always been thus.
>
> Well, one thing I will say is that you're giving us a clear
> demonstration of the reason that the problem won't get fixed without
> watering the tree.
Exactly wrong, unless you water the tree with tainted water. The tree
is WAY too big and needs chopped a great deal so it is more in
compliance with the intent of the founding fathers.
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong
enough to take everything you have".
- Thomas Jefferson
--
Jack
Right Wing Extremist: Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Madison, ME!
http://jbstein.com
On 8/25/2012 7:18 AM, HeyBub wrote:
> Obviously things don't work the way you suggest they should. And for good
> reason: they CAN'T work the way you suggest they should. But you don't have
> to take my word for it.
>
> Go here:
> http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr3590enr/pdf/BILLS-111hr3590enr.pdf
>
> It's the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
>
> Tell us what it means. Take as much space - and time - as you need.
It means gov't shouldn't be involved with this crap in a free market
society, particularly the one handed to us by the founding fathers, and
one that had worked quite well, proven by all the folks sneaking in
rather than sneaking out.
--
Jack
Right Wing Extremist: Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Madison, ME!
http://jbstein.com
On 8/25/2012 11:26 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
>> Tell us what it means. Take as much space - and time - as you need.
>>
> I can't. You can't. Your federal Representative and Senators can't.
> Nobody can. That's exactly my point. Something like that should not be
> made into law. Every congressperson whose desk that monstrosity came to
> should have said, "I can't understand this, therefore I won't vote for it."
My rep should have asked his aide what is this bill, the aide should
have said it moves health care from the private sector to the gov't
sector, and my rep should have immediately set fire to it.
--
Jack
If You Think Health Care is Expensive now, Wait Until it's FREE!
http://jbstein.com
On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 18:39:29 -0400, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>>
>> J. Clarke wrote:
>> >>
>> >> You can get started today: www.thomas.gov.
>> >
>> > I really do not understand your objection to legislators actually
>> > reading something before they are allowed to vote for it. Or maybe I
>> > do--do you work for Nancy Pelosi?
>>
>> No, I don't work for Pelosi.
>>
>> I object to the idea because it's a fools errand. It would be similar to
>> solving the doctor shortage by having lay people operate on each other, a
>> totally useless, and dangerous, endeavor.
>>
>> People should do what they do best. Legislators are not the best - or even
>> competent - to read and understand prospective legislation. That's a STAFF
>> job.
>
>So you're saying that the people whose job it is to pass laws are not
>competent to do so?
Duh!
>> Interestingly, one of the major changes in the military is the mind-set of
>> the commanders. Today, every general believes that the corporal running the
>> radio is as much an expert in his field as the brigadier is in his.
>
>The corporal doesn't get paid to run the Army though.
No but as long as you insist on continuing the analogy, he gets paid to do the
real work. The general gets paid for the big picture.
On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 20:41:22 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On 08/20/2012 07:22 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 11:54:30 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 08/20/2012 10:20 AM, Han wrote:
>>>> What are the "rules" on that, Heybub? Or are there no rules with
>>>> respect to irrelevant addenda?
>>>
>>> The rules are that the elites on both sides of the aisle think they
>>> are better and smarter than we are and they THEY should run things.
>>> They purposely use obfuscatory language and legal fine points to keep
>>> the people in the dark as much as possible. HeyBub's contention may
>>> be true today but it's absurd. There is no reason whatsoever that
>>> the CongressCritters should not be required to read every bill, understand
>>> it, and thereby vote in an informed way. If nothing else, it would
>>> slow down the explosion of new legislation, the majority of which is
>>> either outside the enumerated power of the Federal government or
>>> altogether unnecessary.
>>
>> I wholeheartedly agree, Tim. They should be required to read and
>> understand every bloody word of every bloody bill. These are legal
>> documents. What does every contract you've ever signed have at the
>> bottom? READ EVERY PAGE AND LEAVE NO BLANKS. (or similar)
>>
>
>Then again, we have no one but ourselves to blame. The politicians -
>at the end of the day - are *us*. The end of this gets it right:
>
> http://culturewrench.com/?p=63
The majority of *us* apparently aren't paying nearly enough attention
to politics. I sometimes feel like slapping people upside the head
(Gibbs-slapping) and saying "Pay attention, turkey!"
--
The business of America is not business. Neither is it war. The business
of America is justice and securing the blessings of liberty.
-- George F. Will
On 08/20/2012 08:30 AM, HeyBub wrote:
> but there is almost zero
> chance that he'll even have the slightest clue.
... which would incentivize him/her to write simpler, smaller,
clearer bills. Laws should be precise and concise, not vehicles to
hide things from the voting/paying public.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Just Wondering wrote:
>>
> I didn't say a representative should be an "instant" anything. I also
> didn't see he should be the only one to draft a bill. But if he's
> going to vote for something to be a law, he'd darn well read the
> thing, and take enough time to educate himself if necessary to
> understand it, and by those means know what it is he's voting for
> before he casts his vote.
Sounds good, but 5,000 years of precedent says otherwise.
Moses told the assembled: "If a matter comes before you which is too hard
for you to judge, place the matter before the sages of the generation and by
guided by them."
Have you ever used a torque wrench? Do you take the manual's advice for the
amount of torque necessary on a bolt or do you insist on knowing all the
mechanical details on how that value was determined?
You probably take the expert's (from the repair manual) advice.
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 25 Aug 2012 19:04:49 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 25 Aug 2012 17:51:30 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> On 25 Aug 2012 11:59:20 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>>>>>> And the aide who writes the bill understands its provisions.
>>>>>>>>> The congressman will have the bill explained to him by the
>>>>>>>>> aide ("It's good").
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's NOT all good. You're giving your explanation of the way
>>>>>>>> things are. I'm saying that the way things are are wrong and
>>>>>>>> should be changed. I never voted for a congressional aide. My
>>>>>>>> congressman is supposed to represent ME, not some aide and
>>>>>>>> certainly not some special-interest group that asks him to
>>>>>>>> sponsor a bill he can't understand. If I was there myself, I
>>>>>>>> would need to know what a bill said before I could vote Yea or
>>>>>>>> Nay on it. My elected representative should be no less
>>>>>>>> diligent.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Obviously things don't work the way you suggest they should. And
>>>>>>> for good reason: they CAN'T work the way you suggest they
>>>>>>> should. But you don't have to take my word for it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Go here:
>>>>>>> http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr3590enr/pdf/BILLS-111hr35
>>>>>>> 90 en r. pdf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tell us what it means. Take as much space - and time - as you
>>>>>>> need.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I agree with you on this point - a "normal" human being can't
>>>>>>fully understand this, and we need experts to write and explain
>>>>>>it. Sometimes the problem is simply that it is so dang complicated
>>>>>>to (try to) avoid unintended consequences because of the
>>>>>>complexity of the whole thing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>As you all know, I am in favor of the gist of the law. I'm
>>>>>>surethere is nitty gritty that could, should, will be modified.
>>>>>
>>>>> An explanation isn't good enough, Han. In order to comply with a
>>>>> law we need to understand *it*, not some congresscritter's opinion
>>>>> of what's in it. If it can be faithfully be put into
>>>>> understandable language, why wasn't it? The only obvious answer
>>>>> is that it was obfuscation.
>>>>
>>>>Well, Keith, I must adamit that I never tried to really read a bill,
>>>>IIRC. The legalistic complexities just make my eyelids close. I
>>>>have heard a lot about the unintended consequences in even the
>>>>simplest bills. So I really have to rely on the explanations of
>>>>experts. Especially something as technical and complex as the ACA.
>>>
>>> Perhaps there shouldn't be 2700 page bills? ...and that doesn't
>>> even touch the problem. It references perhaps another hundred
>>> thousand pages. Obfuscation or "We have to pass the bill to see
>>> what's in it". You do like that, though.
>>
>>As a matter of fact, Keith, I don't like it. I would like to have
>>bills of 1 page. Something like. Congress agrees that everyone
>>should have health insurance. Everyone should pay to spread the
>>risks. Price should be 10% (whatever) higher than cheapest policy in
>>effect before this date covering the risks as set forth in Appendix A.
>> Conscientious objectors to the birth control coverage requirements
>>will not have to pay for that coverage as it will be born by the
>>insurance companies. No reduction in premium for the absence of this
>>feature.
>
> Great. You leave the implementation details to bureaucrats. What
> about your bums who can't pay for the coverage?
Yes, I would leave technical details to those who do that kind of thing.
And they better do it right, because patronage jobs have no protection
against firing. I didn't address the bums, as you call them. I believe
the real laws do address that. People without sufficient wages would pay
less than some others. Just likein real life.
> Hell, why don't you do the same to wipe out poverty and end war? With
> that platform, you could even enter a beauty pageant.
Well, thanks for the compliment. If your newsreader can show Xfaces, you
know how pretty I am.
>>All legalistic details will be set forth in Appendix B.
>
> The devil is *always* in the details.
Of course.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On 25 Aug 2012 19:04:49 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 25 Aug 2012 17:51:30 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> On 25 Aug 2012 11:59:20 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>>>>> And the aide who writes the bill understands its provisions. The
>>>>>>>> congressman will have the bill explained to him by the aide
>>>>>>>> ("It's good").
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's NOT all good. You're giving your explanation of the way
>>>>>>> things are. I'm saying that the way things are are wrong and
>>>>>>> should be changed. I never voted for a congressional aide. My
>>>>>>> congressman is supposed to represent ME, not some aide and
>>>>>>> certainly not some special-interest group that asks him to
>>>>>>> sponsor a bill he can't understand. If I was there myself, I
>>>>>>> would need to know what a bill said before I could vote Yea or
>>>>>>> Nay on it. My elected representative should be no less diligent.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Obviously things don't work the way you suggest they should. And
>>>>>> for good reason: they CAN'T work the way you suggest they should.
>>>>>> But you don't have to take my word for it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Go here:
>>>>>> http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr3590enr/pdf/BILLS-111hr3590
>>>>>> en r. pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tell us what it means. Take as much space - and time - as you
>>>>>> need.
>>>>>
>>>>>I agree with you on this point - a "normal" human being can't fully
>>>>>understand this, and we need experts to write and explain it.
>>>>>Sometimes the problem is simply that it is so dang complicated to
>>>>>(try to) avoid unintended consequences because of the complexity of
>>>>>the whole thing.
>>>>>
>>>>>As you all know, I am in favor of the gist of the law. I'm
>>>>>surethere is nitty gritty that could, should, will be modified.
>>>>
>>>> An explanation isn't good enough, Han. In order to comply with a
>>>> law we need to understand *it*, not some congresscritter's opinion
>>>> of what's in it. If it can be faithfully be put into understandable
>>>> language, why wasn't it? The only obvious answer is that it was
>>>> obfuscation.
>>>
>>>Well, Keith, I must adamit that I never tried to really read a bill,
>>>IIRC. The legalistic complexities just make my eyelids close. I have
>>>heard a lot about the unintended consequences in even the simplest
>>>bills. So I really have to rely on the explanations of experts.
>>>Especially something as technical and complex as the ACA.
>>
>> Perhaps there shouldn't be 2700 page bills? ...and that doesn't even
>> touch the problem. It references perhaps another hundred thousand
>> pages. Obfuscation or "We have to pass the bill to see what's in it".
>> You do like that, though.
>
>As a matter of fact, Keith, I don't like it. I would like to have bills
>of 1 page. Something like. Congress agrees that everyone should have
>health insurance. Everyone should pay to spread the risks. Price should
>be 10% (whatever) higher than cheapest policy in effect before this date
>covering the risks as set forth in Appendix A. Conscientious objectors
>to the birth control coverage requirements will not have to pay for that
>coverage as it will be born by the insurance companies. No reduction in
>premium for the absence of this feature.
Great. You leave the implementation details to bureaucrats. What about your
bums who can't pay for the coverage?
Hell, why don't you do the same to wipe out poverty and end war? With that
platform, you could even enter a beauty pageant.
>All legalistic details will be set forth in Appendix B.
The devil is *always* in the details.
On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 04:02:17 -0700 (PDT), "John H. Gohde"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Aug 26, 9:27 pm, Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 8/25/2012 8:44 PM, HeyBub wrote:> Just Wondering wrote:
>> >>> Tell us what it means. Take as much space - and time - as you need.
>>
>> >> I can't. You can't. Your federal Representative and Senators can't.
>> >> Nobody can. That's exactly my point. Something like that should not
>> >> be made into law. Every congressperson whose desk that monstrosity
>> >> came to should have said, "I can't understand this, therefore I won't
>> >> vote for it."
>> > I don't want to put words in your mouth, but are you proposing a bill must
>> > fail, no matter how good it is, if a legislator can't understand it? Or are
>> > you just complaining of the ACA?
>>
>> If a legislator can't understand it, he can't know if it it a good bill
>> or not. In a case like that, he votes on a pig in a poke. And no, it's
>> not just the ACA, it's the massively bloated tax code, the obtuse
>> environmental protection laws, and on and on.
>
>
>Just wondering, if you know how to read English? I rather doubt it.
>Twenty percent of the population does NOT realize how dumb and
>uneducated they truly are.
>
>Just wondering, if you can read without getting bored?
>
>Just wondering, if you can read fast with excellent comprehension?
>
>Just wondering, if you are truly the total idiot that you pretend to
>be?
Just wondering what kind of Troll you are John.
Just Wondering wrote:
>> Moses told the assembled: "If a matter comes before you which is too
>> hard for you to judge, place the matter before the sages of the
>> generation and by guided by them."
>
> You're comparing apples to oranges. Moses was not talking about
> passing laws here. According to Exodus and Deuteronomy, the one who
> gave the nation of Israel their laws was God. I rather think God
> understood a law when he passed it.
Moses got more than the first five books of the Bible. He also got the
Mishna - the oral law. Over the centuries, the oral law has been expanded
and codified in the Talmud. For those not familiar, the Talmud consists of
22 tractates, or books, any one of which is larger than the Encyclopedia
Britannica. It's still growing.
The reason for growth is that new things come up all the time. Consider
Pampers. "On the Sabbath, you shall do no work" is a positive commandment of
God. The early rabbis defined "work" as any of the seven activities involved
in erecting the Tabernacle in the desert. Among these seven prohibited
activities is "sewing." Now the question before "the sages of the
generation" is whether the press-apply tabs on commercial diapers
constitutes "sewing," and hence would be prohibited. (Spoiler: press-apply
tabs are not "sewing" and, hence, are permitted.)
Here's another: God listed seven birds a Jew could not eat, but was silent
on what WAS permitted. The rabbis studied the seven birds in an attempt to
find a common characteristic; they failed. So, they fell back on the birds
that were permitted as sacrifices in the Temple (quail, chicken, duck,
etc.). Problem solved. For over a thousand years, every Jew in the world
knew what birds were kosher.
Hold that thought.
Some historians compute that the chief navigator on Columbus's ships was
Jewish. For sure, the Columbus expedition sailed the day after the Jews were
expelled from Spain. Point is, Jews were early in the New World. What did
they find here?
Turkeys.
Letters went back and forth to the Jewish sages of Europe: Is a turkey
kosher? What's a turkey? Well, it's like a big chicken (permitted), but it
has this red thing hanging down like a vulture (prohibited). Does it eat
carrion? We don't know, but it does eat grain...
Eventually, it was decided that a turkey was more like a chicken than a
vulture.
Whew!
Another 500 or so years pass, and the Antartic was explored.
Penguins!
Ah, well. Back to the drawing board.
>>
>> Have you ever used a torque wrench? Do you take the manual's advice
>> for the amount of torque necessary on a bolt or do you insist on
>> knowing all the mechanical details on how that value was determined?
>>
>> You probably take the expert's (from the repair manual) advice.
>>
> More apples and oranges. I presume that the person who write the
> manual understood what he was writing, and if the manual is properly
> written, I will understand it. If Congressmen actually understood
> the laws they voted on, and if the average voter could understand the
> laws on a first reading, the situation would be the way it should be.
And the aide who writes the bill understands its provisions. The congressman
will have the bill explained to him by the aide ("It's good"). That's all
the congressman needs to know.
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 03:59:05 -0700 (PDT), "John H. Gohde"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Aug 28, 3:46 pm, Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 8/28/2012 5:02 AM, John H. Gohde wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Aug 26, 9:27 pm, Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> On 8/25/2012 8:44 PM, HeyBub wrote:> Just Wondering wrote:
>> >>>>> Tell us what it means. Take as much space - and time - as you need.
>> >>>> I can't. You can't. Your federal Representative and Senators can't.
>> >>>> Nobody can. That's exactly my point. Something like that should not
>> >>>> be made into law. Every congressperson whose desk that monstrosity
>> >>>> came to should have said, "I can't understand this, therefore I won't
>> >>>> vote for it."
>> >>> I don't want to put words in your mouth, but are you proposing a bill must
>> >>> fail, no matter how good it is, if a legislator can't understand it? Or are
>> >>> you just complaining of the ACA?
>> >> If a legislator can't understand it, he can't know if it it a good bill
>> >> or not. In a case like that, he votes on a pig in a poke. And no, it's
>> >> not just the ACA, it's the massively bloated tax code, the obtuse
>> >> environmental protection laws, and on and on.
>>
>> > Just wondering, if you know how to read English? I rather doubt it.
>> > Twenty percent of the population does NOT realize how dumb and
>> > uneducated they truly are.
>>
>> > Just wondering, if you can read without getting bored?
>>
>> > Just wondering, if you can read fast with excellent comprehension?
>>
>> > Just wondering, if you are truly the total idiot that you pretend to
>> > be?
>>
>> When you stop discussing the merits and resort to ad hominem personal
>> attacks, the usual reason is that you've run out of anything meaningful
>> to say.
>
>
>Thanks for fessing up about NOT being able to read.
>
>Your puny aging brain has my condolences. :)
Ah another reason to filter out google groups
On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 14:00:46 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
<[email protected]> wrote:
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=svGDZOW-brA
Damned straight we agree!
--
The business of America is not business. Neither is it war. The business
of America is justice and securing the blessings of liberty.
-- George F. Will
Han wrote:
>
> If everyone involved (including of course staff, but also lobbyists!)
> does his/her job with a view of what is best for the country as a
> whole (with the state/district second best), I have no problem with
> that. Not even with a little horse trading (check idiom) every once
> in a while. Now please point me to Utopia ...
>
> No kidding. That's how it should be ...
Nope. Each should do what is (overall) best for himself. The result will be
rewarding for everybody.
As soon as you start filtering decisions with "the greatest good for the
greatest number," you end up with a completely dysfunctional system skewed
to the greatest good for apparatchik.
Just Wondering wrote:
>>
>>
> Your Senator was supposed to be the expert. That's what he was
> elected for and was paid the big bucks for. You're basically saying
> that your Senator, and perhaps all of them, surrendered non-delegable
> duties to staff, and that it is an unelected nameless bureaucratic
> staff who controls what bills are made into law. If that's true, we
> need a couple of hundred impeachment proceedings.
"I don't rule Russia; ten thousand clerks rule Russia" - Peter the Great.
It has always been thus.
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 25 Aug 2012 11:59:20 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>> And the aide who writes the bill understands its provisions. The
>>>>> congressman will have the bill explained to him by the aide ("It's
>>>>> good").
>>>>
>>>> It's NOT all good. You're giving your explanation of the way
>>>> things are. I'm saying that the way things are are wrong and
>>>> should be changed. I never voted for a congressional aide. My
>>>> congressman is supposed to represent ME, not some aide and
>>>> certainly not some special-interest group that asks him to sponsor
>>>> a bill he can't understand. If I was there myself, I would need to
>>>> know what a bill said before I could vote Yea or Nay on it. My
>>>> elected representative should be no less diligent.
>>>
>>> Obviously things don't work the way you suggest they should. And for
>>> good reason: they CAN'T work the way you suggest they should. But
>>> you don't have to take my word for it.
>>>
>>> Go here:
>>> http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr3590enr/pdf/BILLS-111hr3590en
>>> r. pdf
>>>
>>> It's the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
>>>
>>> Tell us what it means. Take as much space - and time - as you need.
>>
>>I agree with you on this point - a "normal" human being can't fully
>>understand this, and we need experts to write and explain it.
>>Sometimes the problem is simply that it is so dang complicated to (try
>>to) avoid unintended consequences because of the complexity of the
>>whole thing.
>>
>>As you all know, I am in favor of the gist of the law. I'm surethere
>>is nitty gritty that could, should, will be modified.
>
> An explanation isn't good enough, Han. In order to comply with a law
> we need to understand *it*, not some congresscritter's opinion of
> what's in it. If it can be faithfully be put into understandable
> language, why wasn't it? The only obvious answer is that it was
> obfuscation.
Well, Keith, I must adamit that I never tried to really read a bill,
IIRC. The legalistic complexities just make my eyelids close. I have
heard a lot about the unintended consequences in even the simplest bills.
So I really have to rely on the explanations of experts. Especially
something as technical and complex as the ACA.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On 25 Aug 2012 11:59:20 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> Just Wondering wrote:
>>>> And the aide who writes the bill understands its provisions. The
>>>> congressman will have the bill explained to him by the aide ("It's
>>>> good").
>>>
>>> It's NOT all good. You're giving your explanation of the way things
>>> are. I'm saying that the way things are are wrong and should be
>>> changed. I never voted for a congressional aide. My congressman is
>>> supposed to represent ME, not some aide and certainly not some
>>> special-interest group that asks him to sponsor a bill he can't
>>> understand. If I was there myself, I would need to know what a bill
>>> said before I could vote Yea or Nay on it. My elected representative
>>> should be no less diligent.
>>
>> Obviously things don't work the way you suggest they should. And for
>> good reason: they CAN'T work the way you suggest they should. But you
>> don't have to take my word for it.
>>
>> Go here:
>> http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr3590enr/pdf/BILLS-111hr3590enr.
>> pdf
>>
>> It's the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
>>
>> Tell us what it means. Take as much space - and time - as you need.
>
>I agree with you on this point - a "normal" human being can't fully
>understand this, and we need experts to write and explain it. Sometimes
>the problem is simply that it is so dang complicated to (try to) avoid
>unintended consequences because of the complexity of the whole thing.
>
>As you all know, I am in favor of the gist of the law. I'm surethere is
>nitty gritty that could, should, will be modified.
An explanation isn't good enough, Han. In order to comply with a law we need
to understand *it*, not some congresscritter's opinion of what's in it. If it
can be faithfully be put into understandable language, why wasn't it? The
only obvious answer is that it was obfuscation.
Han wrote:
> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Just Wondering wrote:
>>>> I don't want to put words in your mouth, but are you proposing a
>>>> bill must fail, no matter how good it is, if a legislator can't
>>>> understand it? Or are you just complaining of the ACA?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> If a legislator can't understand it, he can't know if it it a good
>>> bill or not. In a case like that, he votes on a pig in a poke. And
>>> no, it's not just the ACA, it's the massively bloated tax code, the
>>> obtuse environmental protection laws, and on and on. And it's not
>>> enough to say the legislator can and should rely on staff or
>>> so-called experts to tell him what he's voting on. They may not
>>> understand the legal ramifications themselves, or may have an agenda
>>> of their own that colors their explanation, or may have no ideal
>>> about unintended consequences. Their explanations of a complex law
>>> will necessarily be so incomplete that the legislator may come away
>>> thinking he understands what he is voting for when he is really
>>> clueless after all. And if the legislator must hire an expert to
>>> understand it, that means everyone affected by it must hire their
>>> own expert. In a nation the size of the USA, the result is
>>> millions of wasted hours and billions of wasted dollars. The
>>> solution is to keep a bill brief and clear enough that any person
>>> who must comply with it can read it and understand what he must do
>>> to comply without spending thousands on an expert.
>>
>> Very few, very, very few, people are affected by laws in the United
>> States Code.
>>
>> Millions upon millions more are affected by regulations established
>> by various agencies and departments. These regulations are never
>> seen or voted upon by legislators.
>
> I'd assume that if anyone has a problem with a regulation, he'd check
> (pun intended) with his friendly neighborhood constitutional lawyer.
> After all, we are the most litiginous (sp?) nation in the world.
Yep. And sometimes that works. Just this past week, Texas won a suit against
the EPA on downwind pollution regulations. The EPA issued regulations
clearly outside their area of competence/ The US Court for the District of
Columbia vacated the regulations and told the EPA to go pound sand.