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

[guido911]

Barack Obama in 2004:

BARACK OBAMA: ...When you rush these budgets that are a foot high and nobody has any idea what's in them and nobody has read them.

RANDI RHODES: 14 pounds it was!

BARACK OBAMA:  Yeah. And it gets rushed through without any clear deliberation or debate then these kinds of things happen.  And I think that this is in some ways what happened to the Patriot Act. I mean you remember that there was no real debate about that. It was so quick after 9/11 that it was introduced that people felt very intimidated by the administration.

Just wow. Unbelievable. CF posted in another thread:

"If it has been broken for 15 years, why do we need to fix it NOW NOW NOW!  Why can't we take the time to read the bill, understand it, and try to do things right?  What is the super rush?" +1

[waterboy]

How long do you need? Is 58 years not long enough? As far back as Truman, presidents have been trying to get health care reform enacted. Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, even the Bushes all recogized the system stinks and promised reform. Each congress, fueled by the lobbyists, has successfully resisted.

These ideas being proposed are not new, in fact many of them (over 70 by one reported count from committee meetings) came from republicans who don't intend to support the final package. Why? Because they know its going to happen and they want to influence the outcome without having to tar themselves for the next election. They fear the looneys who threaten violence or refusal should it pass, but they know it needs to be done.

Really. How long do you need?

[guido911]

How long do you need? Is 58 years not long enough? As far back as Truman, presidents have been trying to get health care reform enacted. Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, even the Bushes all recogized the system stinks and promised reform. Each congress, fueled by the lobbyists, has successfully resisted.

These ideas being proposed are not new, in fact many of them (over 70 by one reported count from committee meetings) came from republicans who don't intend to support the final package. Why? Because they know its going to happen and they want to influence the outcome without having to tar themselves for the next election. They fear the looneys who threaten violence or refusal should it pass, but they know it needs to be done.

Really. How long do you need?

Nice attempt to change the subject in this thread. The point I was making was that Obama demanded more time to review a bill in 2004 when Bush was in office, yet now we need to pass something that has not even been read. Yeah, water, whatever.

[waterboy]

I stayed on topic best I can figure. There is little new in this legislation. We didn't have over 50 years of debate on the Patriot Act like we've had on health care issues. The republican minority has been involved with its drafting, though they are hesitant to admit it.

The weak kneed congressmen from both parties are resorting to the "rushing" complaint as a stalling tactic. The Mayo Clinic seems impressed with it, the AARP is supportive, popular support is strong. Stall till we can run some anti-ads, flood the internet with Drudge sludge, dilute support and hope for distraction.

Last time, in the early nineties, it was "you didn't include the medical industry". It will always be something.

[FOTD]

I stayed on topic best I can figure. There is little new in this legislation. We didn't have over 50 years of debate on the Patriot Act like we've had on health care issues. The republican minority has been involved with its drafting, though they are hesitant to admit it.

The weak kneed congressmen from both parties are resorting to the "rushing" complaint as a stalling tactic. The Mayo Clinic seems impressed with it, the AARP is supportive, popular support is strong. Stall till we can run some anti-ads, flood the internet with Drudge sludge, dilute support and hope for distraction.

Last time, in the early nineties, it was "you didn't include the medical industry". It will always be something.

The sheeples buy into it...there is no outrage at this Anti American Health Industry Mafioso. Incredible.

[cannon_fodder]

Water:  Medicare and Medicaid didn't exist under Truman.  Most health coverage was pay-to-play.  As a portion of income health care was a far lesser part of a family budget.  I'd say there have been significant reforms and changes since Truman including the entrance of the Government into health care.

That said:  How did the Patriot Act work out for us? We rushed into that "needing to get it done" and most people would agree that it was a bad idea.  But at least it had an expiration date associated with it.   

As you correctly point out, health care reform has been a long time in coming.  So why do we need to get in done in a month?  If the problem has been festering for 50 years, surely taking the time to fix it properly is better that putting a patch on it that very well make it worse.

[waterboy]

Water:  Medicare and Medicaid didn't exist under Truman.  Most health coverage was pay-to-play.  As a portion of income health care was a far lesser part of a family budget.  I'd say there have been significant reforms and changes since Truman including the entrance of the Government into health care.

That said:  How did the Patriot Act work out for us? We rushed into that "needing to get it done" and most people would agree that it was a bad idea.  But at least it had an expiration date associated with it.   

As you correctly point out, health care reform has been a long time in coming.  So why do we need to get in done in a month?  If the problem has been festering for 50 years, surely taking the time to fix it properly is better that putting a patch on it that very well make it worse.

I saw speech excerpts of each of those presidents promising health care reforms or requesting Congress to address health care reform. Truman was no exception. We had just come out of a depression where seniors had been left to fend for themselves and the baby boom was about to commence. Its become as much a political fixture as "no new taxes". There have been changes and additions to health care, some for the better, some not. However, the process has been pharmaceutical and insurance industry driven for the most part.

My point is that this rushing complaint ignores that this isn't a plan hatched in a few months with all new material. Both candidates put forward their plans a long time ago. The details have been analyzed for decades. The very people complaining have written many of the elements of the reforms based on their years of experience. There are few surprises here, especially for the big players who helped write the legislation.

With that in mind comparing it to the Patriot Act is a red herring. It was part of the emergency mindset of 911. Even so, it represented years of "what if" planning. Did anyone give Hillary an out when she whined that she hadn't had time to analzye its features? Its expiration date is more like an extension date. Its here for a long time.

Congress has had plenty of time, and plenty of help from staff and lobbyists to know what is happening. They know that the nexus of popular support, industry support and determined leadership means the best opportunity for healthcare change is imminent. With change is even more opportunity. Thus, those representing the status quo, which sucks, have enlisted their pals to blunt or kill the effort. At least till the mid term elections are over. The big problem for them is that those afforementioned boomers are now experiencing how the status quo works, and they don't like it.

So, a simple question. How long is enough?

[cannon_fodder]

When few if any of those voting on it have read it, and most analysts admit they are unsure of the implications, I disagree that the plan has been around a long time.  The candidates laid out their basic plans, but those were not detailed and that is not what gets made into law.

As the plan currently sits, it has been in existence for about 3 days.  Which is the last time it left committee.  I would very much like to have people know and understand what is in it before voting on it.  However long it takes legislators, analysts, and other interested parties to know and understand the contents of the proposed reform is long enough.  I don't think 3 days is in the time frame.

[waterboy]

You give them (congress) a lot of credit for being ignorant. More than the law would give me I dare say.

So, considering they wrote the stuff and the insurance and pharmaceutical industries collaborated with them, how much time is necessary? Shall we post it all on the internet and debate it till it dies a natural death? 3 Months? 3 Years?

Seriously, we rely on doctors to distill the issues of medical procedures into very simple decisions. Do we cut the tumor out and risk brain damage or leave it in and face imminent death. We rely on them to do that. Why now, do we insist that we must not rush, but be given all the details and debate their importance? I ask out of sincerity. My generation IS the horse in this race.

[guido911]

My point is that this rushing complaint ignores that this isn't a plan hatched in a few months with all new material. Both candidates put forward their plans a long time ago. The details have been analyzed for decades. The very people complaining have written many of the elements of the reforms based on their years of experience. There are few surprises here, especially for the big players who helped write the legislation.

***

Congress has had plenty of time, and plenty of help from staff and lobbyists to know what is happening. They know that the nexus of popular support, industry support and determined leadership means the best opportunity for healthcare change is imminent. With change is even more opportunity. Thus, those representing the status quo, which sucks, have enlisted their pals to blunt or kill the effort. At least till the mid term elections are over. The big problem for them is that those afforementioned boomers are now experiencing how the status quo works, and they don't like it.

So, a simple question. How long is enough?

How about long enough to read the damned thing, water. Jeez, are you that hopeychangey?

[waterboy]

Heck, I'm prayerychangey.

I believe in meaningful, fair, deadlines. Just saying we need more time is hopeystatusquo'sy.

[guido911]

Heck, I'm prayerychangey.

I believe in meaningful, fair, deadlines. Just saying we need more time is hopeystatusquo'sy.

No comment on Conyers? Figures.

[waterboy]

If "it figures" means, I didn't have time to open it and listen. Have to work sometime.

[guido911]

If "it figures" means, I didn't have time to open it and listen. Have to work sometime.

A 36 sec clip? You ain't that busy. And by "it figures", I straight forward mean you intentionally bury your head in the sand when it comes to dems talking like jacka$$es.

[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?