Bills Should Not be Rushed Through Says....wait for it

[cannon_fodder]

If I had a tumor for 50 years and it was then discovered, they would probably look long and hard at it before acting.  It is doubtful they would insist they operate before looking at scans or explaining what it is to me.  Which is essentially what we are being asked to do on health care.

1200 pages.  War and Peace is 1200 pages.  Can you imagine if War and Peace was written by ~100 different authors with input from 1,500 interested parties in chunks of several paragraphs and then stuck together?  My guess is it wouldn't have worked out without careful review and editing.

I'm not attempting to stall.  I'm not coming out against the plan.  I'm asking that it be given a fair chance.  In order to get a fair chance people have to have the ability to know the contents of the laws their legislature is asked to vote upon.  I would soundly support a measure requiring all bills be posted online for a period of time before a vote can transpire.  Base in on pagination if you want:  1 day per 100 pages with a minimum of 3 days.   Thus, an devoted average citizen could actual know what is going on with a bill they are interested in before a vote transpires.

Under that scenario we could vote on a most measures within a week.  This one in two weeks.  It's been broken for 50 years according to your train of thought . . . taking 2 weeks to know what we are voting on can't be a bad idea.  I research the hell out of everything I do.  I don't buy a boat, car, or any product without researching it.  We're talking about spending trillions of dollars effecting the lives of hundreds of millions - and waiting long enough to read the bill is too much to ask?

As it stands liberals can say that this gloriously socializes medicine for the benefit of the proletariat and conservatives can say it gives god fearing citizens medical rights to fascist bureaucrats.   All I can do is listen to them go back and forth with rhetoric while no one really knows what the damn thing does.  I'd rather not be informed by Rush Limbaugh or Adriana Huffington, but if all we have time for is truncated debates that's what we are left with.

[FOTD]

 Bozone (n.): The substance surrounding stupid people that stops bright ideas from penetrating. The bozone layer, unfortunately, shows little sign of breaking down in the near future.




Blue Dog Bozos
by Reihan Salam

It's not the Republicans who pose the biggest threat to Obama's agenda but the infuriating Blue Dog Democrats. The Daily Beast's Reihan Salam on the renegades threatening to kill health-care reform—and the Obama presidency.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-07-27/blue-dog-bozos/

"It's important to keep in mind that Blue Dogs are not conservatives. Rather, they appear to be, to put it unkindly, preening bozos. Instead of offering principled alternatives, they choose to Hoover up campaign donations from the well-heeled while stabbing their Democratic allies, many of whom made real sacrifices to get them elected, in the back."

You may interpret this stall as a learning time out. It is not. It's a screen for the Health Care Industry Mafioso. Get it right.


In Oklahoma we have a name for Blue Dog Democrats...we call them Republicans.

[waterboy]

That's not necessary. I know lots of Dems who are jackasses, and more than a few repubs. I often do not open videos, especially if I'm at work. Are their any questions I've asked that you might consider addressing?

So, I opened the Conyers video. Not so interesting. In fact, waste of 36 seconds.

I think its funny that when Congress was a Republican majority I heard the same whining from the Democratic minority that they weren't being allowed to even read bills that were being considered. It was surprising to me how often that happened. But, the majority didn't think it mattered since they could easily steamroller any legislation they wanted. Did you carry the banner for those poor Dems? No? No one did around here. Its not tit for tat....okay it might be. Nonetheless, motives are in question here.

How much time do you think is necessary to fully analyze the bill and its impact? Should the volumes of info be put on the internet so the discriminating voters can read them and critically judge their merits? Those same people who respond to Tulsa World stories so intelligently?

[waterboy]

I'm not attempting to stall.  I'm not coming out against the plan.  I'm asking that it be given a fair chance.  In order to get a fair chance people have to have the ability to know the contents of the laws their legislature is asked to vote upon.  I would soundly support a measure requiring all bills be posted online for a period of time before a vote can transpire.  Base in on pagination if you want:  1 day per 100 pages with a minimum of 3 days.   Thus, an devoted average citizen could actual know what is going on with a bill they are interested in before a vote transpires.

Under that scenario we could vote on a most measures within a week.  This one in two weeks. 

You're certainly having a devil of a time walking that thin line of reasonability. Finally, some sort of answer as to time necessary and the audience for the bill.

I can't argue with 3 weeks for analyzing the bills contents. I would say, that is more consideration than the majority party has given the minority for the last 15 years. There is now some hostile payback for the disrespect they doled out. And still, they act like they are in control by using DINO's from the red states as their allies. Their motives are suspect. It must truly aggravate the new majority.

It isn't going to work to have bills scrutinized at length by the public. The sheer number of bills proffered each session would make that difficult. Then, one has to wonder just what good is gained. Sure, a few discriminating readers will be able to understand the wording and a few more will be able to deduce their implications and they likely already have access to the legislation.  But not the average guy. So you add another layer of pundits, charlatins and political spinners that muddy up the water so much that no bill stands a chance. Is that the good?

When I worked in a huge oil company, we had people whose only jobs were to monitor pending legislation for its impact on our industry, lobby for legislation that would benefit the industry and disseminate the final laws to each of the affected departments. They were mostly lawyers. It worked real well. I suspect most companies still do that. The difference between lawyers and the general public though is perhaps greater than you might think or that this forum might lead you to believe. They don't understand big words and they are prone to misunderstand context. I see dozens of applicants for jobs each week. High school and college educated. They are downright dumb. One recently asked me just what  the word "initiative" meant on a test question. They also believe all the conspiratorial nonsense that abounds on the net.

The media has always performed the same watchdog task for the general public that my oil company used lawyers to do. Up until media giants like Fox and friends peed in the drinking water, CBS decided news wasn't important and newspapers couldn't keep up with techology. Now no one trusts the liberal media, the conservative media or even the dang alternative press. Instead, they trust bloggers, churches, associations and internet chain letters. Posting legislative activity for 85% of the public would be a waste of energy.

[Townsend]

I'm pretty sure I heard a blurb on NPR this morning stating the bill will be released for public consumption for the month of August before the vote.

This was led by the "Blue Dogs" to allay some fear.

[FOTD]

If everybody is insured for healthcare, that means there will be billions of dollars in less debt for banks to charge usurious interest rates on.

Are you beginning to get the picture?

[cannon_fodder]

Waterboy:

I understand the timeframe would not enable the public to review all bills.  But it would allow people to review matter in which they are actually interested.  Anything that increases the transparency of government is a good thing.  As it stands bills are passed into law and we hear about the pork or unrelated amendments/riders on CNN a few days later.  We can improve on that.

[waterboy]

Agreed. Steam released. Normalcy achieved. Rat killing commencing.

[guido911]

Sen. Specter steps on his d!@k at a townhall:

Just look at all those haters giving Sebelius and Specter a hard time.