Good News, "Experts" Have Read The Obamacare Bill

[dbacks fan]

"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."

Does this explain where the 3.3 million jobs were created by the stimulus package?

[nathanm]

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.

Many bills are difficult to understand because they are amendatory. ("Section foo paragraph 3 is changed to add 'blah blah'" sort of stuff) That's what the US Code publication is for.

Even when they're not, they're still complex because the things they aim to do are complex. We don't live in a Jeffersonian ideal agrarian society.

I fully support a requirement that all bills pertain to only one subject, FWIW. That's one piece of Oklahoma law that I wish were applicable everywhere.

[Gaspar]

Conan,

At some point even the apologists have to surrender and say "Ok, this is ridiculous."

Otherwise they eventually talk themselves into supporting things that they don't agree with on a fundamental level.

I think we are getting to that point now.

[Conan71]

Any legislator who runs on "more transparency" and votes for a 2000 page POS needs to be turned out the next election.  There's not one iota of transparency in a bill like that...

[Smokinokie]

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

I'm confused. Was your remark intended to be satirical or are you serious?
I expect every law maker to read every line of every page of everything they vote on. If they find the process to tedious or difficult, they need to find an easier job.
Voting on something they haven't read is dereliction of duty. Fire them.

[nathanm]

I'm confused. Was your remark intended to be satirical or are you serious?
I expect every law maker to read every line of every page of everything they vote on. If they find the process to tedious or difficult, they need to find an easier job.
Voting on something they haven't read is dereliction of duty. Fire them.

I expect them to have had a staff member or other trusted associate read the various provisions and communicate that information to them on large bills. You know, like it's done in the business world.

If we wanted simple legislation, we would have to turn government on its head and prohibit everything by default, and only allow that which was legislatively condoned. Complex legislation is part of the price of living in a society where we are free by default. One where we're free to think up ever more convoluted ways to get around legislation we don't like.

I'd rather have simple laws, but it's simply unworkable in today's society. Perhaps if the peak oil folks turn out to be correct and society ends up collapsing and we return to a primarily agrarian existence we can go back to the simplicity we'd all prefer.

[Conan71]

I expect them to have had a staff member or other trusted associate read the various provisions and communicate that information to them on large bills. You know, like it's done in the business world.

If we wanted simple legislation, we would have to turn government on its head and prohibit everything by default, and only allow that which was legislatively condoned. Complex legislation is part of the price of living in a society where we are free by default. One where we're free to think up ever more convoluted ways to get around legislation we don't like.

I'd rather have simple laws, but it's simply unworkable in today's society. Perhaps if the peak oil folks turn out to be correct and society ends up collapsing and we return to a primarily agrarian existence we can go back to the simplicity we'd all prefer.

You have got to be the most complacent big government apologist I've ever seen. 

[Gaspar]

You have got to be the most complacent big government apologist I've ever seen. 

Kinda like a government "pet."

You know what happens the minute you feed them. . .They never go home.

[guido911]

Here's an editorial which points out some problems with HCR bill. Now, it's from the Washington Examiner, so you will get a little rightie hyperbole. Still, (putrid) food for thought:

» Obamacare won't decrease health care costs for the government. According to Medicare's actuary, it will increase costs. The same is likely to happen for privately funded health care.

» As written, Obamacare covers elective abortions, contrary to Obama's promise that it wouldn't. This means that tax dollars will be used to pay for a procedure millions of Americans across the political spectrum view as immoral. Supposedly, the Department of Health and Human Services will bar abortion coverage with new regulations but these will likely be tied up for years in litigation, and in the end may not survive the court challenge.

» Obamacare won't allow employees or most small businesses to keep the coverage they have and like. By Obama's estimates, as many as 69 percent of employees, 80 percent of small businesses, and 64 percent of large businesses will be forced to change coverage, probably to more expensive plans.

» Obamacare will increase insurance premiums -- in some places, it already has. Insurers, suddenly forced to cover clients' children until age 26, have little choice but to raise premiums, and they attribute to Obamacare's mandates a 1 to 9 percent increase. Obama's only method of preventing massive rate increases so far has been to threaten insurers.

» Obamacare will force seasonal employers -- especially the ski and amusement park industries -- to pay huge fines, cut hours, or lay off employees.

» Obamacare forces states to guarantee not only payment but also treatment for indigent Medicaid patients. With many doctors now refusing to take Medicaid (because they lose money doing so), cash-strapped states could be sued and ordered to increase reimbursement rates beyond their means.

» Obamacare imposes a huge nonmedical tax compliance burden on small business. It will require them to mail IRS 1099 tax forms to every vendor from whom they make purchases of more than $600 in a year, with duplicate forms going to the Internal Revenue Service. Like so much else in the 2,500-page bill, our senators and representatives were apparently unaware of this when they passed the measure.

» Obamacare allows the IRS to confiscate part or all of your tax refund if you do not purchase a qualified insurance plan. The bill funds 16,000 new IRS agents to make sure Americans stay in line.


Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/Obamacare-is-even-worse-than-critics-thought-960772-103571664.html#ixzz10OFMJU4h

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/Obamacare-is-even-worse-than-critics-thought-960772-103571664.html

[Townsend]

Here's an editorial which points out some problems with HCR bill. Now, it's from the Washington Examiner, so you will get a little rightie hyperbole. Still, (putrid) food for thought:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/Obamacare-is-even-worse-than-critics-thought-960772-103571664.html

Why aren't we referring to Iraq as "Bushland" and the war in Afghanistan as "Bushwar"?

[Conan71]

"The bill funds 16,000 new IRS agents to make sure Americans stay in line."

And that's just at the IRS.  That's a lot more salaries and well-paying government pensions.  Does anyone have a full count on how many more people get to suck the government tit with a newly-minted job as a result of this legislation?

This is one more area where I fail to see the value in this to the average American.  You cannot possibly create an entirely new administrative layer in healthcare or health insurance management and expect the overall cost between premuiums and taxes to be less to the end user.

[Gaspar]

"The bill funds 16,000 new IRS agents to make sure Americans stay in line."

And that's just at the IRS.  That's a lot more salaries and well-paying government pensions.  Does anyone have a full count on how many more people get to suck the government tit with a newly-minted job as a result of this legislation?

This is one more area where I fail to see the value in this to the average American.  You cannot possibly create an entirely new administrative layer in healthcare or health insurance management and expect the overall cost between premuiums and taxes to be less to the end user.

Come on man, it's a jobs bill for you to pay for.

[guido911]

Why aren't we referring to Iraq as "Bushland" and the war in Afghanistan as "Bushwar"?

Come on, many on the left do refer to Iraq as Bush's War. Here are some links to support this point:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/09/20/texas_iraq

[Townsend]

Come on, many on the left do refer to Iraq as Bush's War. Here are some links to support this point:

Yeah, they talked about "Bushwar" on Bushnews when Jenna Bush was doing her roving reporter bit for NBC mornings.

I bet Bill is pissed that Clintonville is still governmentless and has pirates attacking ships off its coast.

Carterland's president was just talking about 9/11 in the UN...and he's talkin' crazy.