Good News, "Experts" Have Read The Obamacare Bill

[Gaspar]

In questioning yesterday at a meeting in Libby, MT concerning Asbestos victims, Kathleen Sibelius and Max Baucus were asked about some particulars in the healthcare bill as they relate to Asbestos victims.

A Nurse Judy Mattot asked if either of them had actually read the bill (you know, the one they claim to have authored).  Here is the response reported in the local newspaper.

"I don't think you want me to waste my time to read every page of the health care bill. You know why? It's statutory language," Baucus said. "We hire experts."

This was followed by a collective gasp from the crowd.

Now that's not the funny part.  The funny part is that the AP recorded and reported the event but left out Baucus's response in their reporting. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gDSKyUzwUH69quVtPFUdWYYrA0dwD9HPHVS80

Even funnier, the transcript as reported in the local Flathead Beacon is getting so many hits from people and reporters that the server keeps crashing.
http://www.flatheadbeacon.com/articles/article/libby_residents_relate_gains_drawbacks_of_asbestos_aid/19253/

I am sure he just mis-spoke.   

[nathanm]

Like it or not, our society is quite complicated and we have laws to match.

[Gaspar]

Like it or not, our society is quite complicated and we have laws to match.

Correct.  The fun thing is that no one seems to know who HAS read the bill.  Why don't they just tell us who the "experts" are that wrote the bill, and we can direct questions to them?

Baucus and Sibelius clam to be the architects of the legislation but don't seem to be able to shed much light on it.  At least now we know that there are "experts," and that's a relief.  Now if we could just ask them a few questions that would be helpful don't you think?

The diagrams just don't do it justice.

[Conan71]

Like it or not, our society is quite complicated and we have laws to match.

Bullshit.  There's no need for 2000 page bills.  1980 pages of it is smoke.

[Gaspar]

Bullshit.  There's no need for 2000 page bills.  1980 pages of it is smoke.

Over 100 new bureaucracies with hungry mouths to feed.

[nathanm]

Bullshit.  There's no need for 2000 page bills.  1980 pages of it is smoke.

I call bullshit on your calling bullshit. Some bills are needlessly complicated, but many are complicated only because the things we do are complicated. Financial regulation, for example, must be complicated because the activities and instruments being regulated are complicated.

When we write simple laws, people find a way around them. I'd rather the world not be that way, but it is.

[Gaspar]

When we write simple laws, people find a way around them. I'd rather the world not be that way, but it is.

Oh!  I beg to differ.  In fact the contrary is true.  Complex legislation is disposable, because it requires constant maintenance, interpretation, and adjustment.  The more language and provision you pour into a bill, the more change is necessary over time.

Look at our constitution.  The basic foundation has remained unchanged, because the language is simple and straightforward. The strongest amendments to the constitution are simple and concise. They speak of the law in broad terms that are very easy for the common man to interpret and difficult for challengers to attack.

Now, take a bill like the healthcare bill or financial reform bill.  The language within such bills is meant to be precise and binding, and as such, represents a snap-shot of time.  There are pages regulating the transfer of information on electronic devices, and details regulating specific drugs, treatments and diseases.  These things won't exist in 10, 20, 50 years. 

Legislation like this is designed to be in a constant state of flux, and therefore unstable by design.  Because it cannot be interpreted by the public or even understood by the very people who passed it, it cannot stand over time.

Don't relish in complexity, it is weakness.  Our very constitution proves that simplicity is strength. It's the old battle between principals and behavior.  It's the primary difference between liberal and conservative thought. Liberals attempt to control behavior, and conservatives attempt to control principals.

Simple, clear purpose and principles give rise to complex, intelligent behavior. Complex rules and regulations give rise to simple, stupid behavior. – Dee Hock, Founder and CEO Emeritus of Visa Corp

Liberals want the government to be your Mommy. Conservatives want government to be your Daddy. Libertarians want it to treat you like an adult. – Andre Marrou

[nathanm]

Don't relish in complexity, it is weakness.  Our very constitution proves that simplicity is strength. It's the old battle between principals and behavior.  It's the primary difference between liberal and conservative thought. Liberals attempt to control behavior, and conservatives attempt to control principals.

Our very Constitution shows quite clearly the opposite. If it were not so simple, there would not be endless argument about what it means. The Second Amendment would have been much more useful had it been spelled out more clearly. It wouldn't have taken until very recently for it to be made clear that it does in fact guarantee a personal right to the ownership of firearms. The Tenth Amendment would actually mean something if it was more specific. Take the commerce clause, the one they regularly drive trucks through. It sure could use some clarification as to what "interstate commerce" actually entails.

And like almost all "liberals are like this, conservatives are like that" tropes, yours is wrong. Liberals attempt to control things related to the economy. Conservatives attempt to control people's personal lives. (mine is an equally useless generalization)

[Gaspar]

Our very Constitution shows quite clearly the opposite. If it were not so simple, there would not be endless argument about what it means. The Second Amendment would have been much more useful had it been spelled out more clearly. It wouldn't have taken until very recently for it to be made clear that it does in fact guarantee a personal right to the ownership of firearms. The Tenth Amendment would actually mean something if it was more specific. Take the commerce clause, the one they regularly drive trucks through. It sure could use some clarification as to what "interstate commerce" actually entails.

And like almost all "liberals are like this, conservatives are like that" tropes, yours is wrong. Liberals attempt to control things related to the economy. Conservatives attempt to control people's personal lives. (mine is an equally useless generalization)

We simply view things differently.  You speak of the constant volley of attacks on the constitution, yet it survives with very few scars.  Both liberals and conservatives are guilty, due to their need to control or regulate.  They speak of "the people" as separate from "the law." 

I believe that simple legislation is powerful.  You long for the complex.  We have the most complex piece of legislation ever devised on the books now.  Time is the test.

[nathanm]

I believe that simple legislation is powerful.  You long for the complex.  We have the most complex piece of legislation ever devised on the books now.  Time is the test.

Believe me, I don't long for complexity. I prefer simplicity whenever possible. As an example, I think we have far too many criminal laws on the books that merely criminalize activity already covered by more general laws. There's no reason for it except having something to point to come election time.

I am sure there are aspects of HCR that are needlessly complicated, but it will out of necessity be a complex bill simply because our health care system as a whole is incredibly complex to begin with. Insurance companies have seen to that. (Medicare's raft of regulations didn't help) If I were to read the entirety of my SO's health insurance contract, I would have nearly 300 pages of  8.5x11" paper with small print to read. It's quite literally a book.

My auto insurance policy is much simpler, but the homeowner's policy is pretty damn big itself (once you add back in the documents incorporated by reference).

Surely you've seen the ridiculously long policy manuals that most large employers have. A small part of that is government mandated, but most is the company itself.

[Conan71]

I call bullshit on your calling bullshit. Some bills are needlessly complicated, but many are complicated only because the things we do are complicated. Financial regulation, for example, must be complicated because the activities and instruments being regulated are complicated.

When we write simple laws, people find a way around them. I'd rather the world not be that way, but it is.

I call bullshit on your calling my bullshit bullshit.  

Nathan, have you taken the time to actually try and read one of these 2000 page behemoths?  Imagine a Senator or Congressman being given 72 hours to read and make sense of all the legalese, even if it's broken down to ten staff members reading and summarizing various sections.

There is simply no need to cram that much into one bill with one purpose.  The practice of sausage stuffing has got to end, it's designed to slide through controversial measures and to allow as little debate as possible.

How could anyone possibly come to the conclusion that legislation should be so complicated that not even a common citizen can tell you what it means, much less your representatives who are voting on making this a part of your life?  Saying society is complicated, therefore legislation should be complicated is a cop-out.

[Townsend]

I call bullshit on your calling my bullshit bullshit.  

How could anyone possibly come to the conclusion that legislation should be so complicated that not even a common citizen can tell you what it means

Not that I support all the BS added in but a reason I can think of that there may be alot of language is there will always be people who will sue for any reason no matter how good the idea is...so you have to cover every possibility.

[Gaspar]

I call bullshit on your calling my bullshit bullshit.  

Nathan, have you taken the time to actually try and read one of these 2000 page behemoths?  Imagine a Senator or Congressman being given 72 hours to read and make sense of all the legalese, even if it's broken down to ten staff members reading and summarizing various sections.

There is simply no need to cram that much into one bill with one purpose.  The practice of sausage stuffing has got to end, it's designed to slide through controversial measures and to allow as little debate as possible.

How could anyone possibly come to the conclusion that legislation should be so complicated that not even a common citizen can tell you what it means, much less your representatives who are voting on making this a part of your life?  Saying society is complicated, therefore legislation should be complicated is a cop-out.

It's been 5 months and congress is still trying to make heads or tails of what they passed.  Every week someone finds another little jewel snuggled securely in the bill. 

To this day, no one has been able to give any concise explanation of how the bill works.  As a result a cottage-industry of consulting firms has sprung up providing expensive webanars to CPAs and healthcare providers on how the bill "might" affect their business.  As all of the new bureaucracies are built, I'm sure things will get even more complex.

Basically we've taken all of the things we love about the IRS and applied them to healthcare. I anticipate a new designation will emerge, CPHC (Certified Public Healthcare Consultant), to help guide consumers through the maze in the same way a CPA helps us understand tax code.

[YoungTulsan]

Solutions are simple, trickery is complicated.

[Gaspar]

Solutions are simple, trickery is complicated.

Now you've done it!

If we do not halt this steady process of building commissions and regulatory bodies and the special legislation like huge inverted pyramids over every one of the simple constitutional provisions, we shall soon be spending many billions of dollars more. – Franklin D. Roosevelt