• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Y'all ain't reading this bill neither, Chumps.

mhaze

Banned
mhaze
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
15,718
The request to put the final language of the Baucus bill online for 72 hours before the committee Senate Finance Committee voted on it...

Baucus pontificates:

  1. "It's too difficult to put health care bill online"
  2. "It would take staffers at least two weeks to put it on line."
  3. "We're voting on it before we've seen the legislative language"
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...-to-put-health-care-bill-online-61246377.html
 
Last edited:
We have read enough of it that only minimal elements of the language that Baucus wanted will go into the final version adopted by the entire Senate.

The chances of Baucus even being back for the next Congress have diminished greatly since he started palying his stupid game. His only campaign contributions in the primaries will probably come from corporate interests in the fianancial sector, to include insurance companies.
 
MattusMaximus said:
....
Click to expand...
Your assessment is:

amiss, askew, astray, at fault, awry, bad, counterfactual, defective, erratic, erring, erroneous, fallacious, false, faulty, fluffed, goofed, in error, inaccurate, inexact, miscalculated, misconstrued, misfigured, misguided, mishandled, mistaken, not precise, not right, not working, off-target, on the wrong track, out, out of commission, out of line, out of order, sophistical, specious, spurious, ungrounded, unsatisfactory, unsound, unsubstantial

Go back and read the OP. You will see that it is very specific.

The key phrases are:

  • final language
  • legislative language
 
Last edited:
MattusMaximus said:
Message to Mhaze:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_7747488553b0d8cb4.jpg
Click to expand...


While you are, of course, correct in the main, you are incorrect in the details.

Generally speaking, complex laws are written in relatively plain English at first. When those laws are agreed to, they get re-written in legalese and everyone has their lawyers check it to make sure no one got cute.

What Mhaze is trying to do is suggest that the Republican tactic of trying to reverse the order, to get it rewritten in legalese before it's agreed to in English, is anything other than a delay tactic to let them roll with the socialism/communism/death panel baloney for another few weeks and hope the momemtum for health care reform degrades even further.

Praktik's link upthread has more indepth information on this.
 
mhaze said:
The key phrases are:

  • final language
  • legislative language
Click to expand...

Not an issue. The Senate Finance Committee is currently debating something like 500 amendments to the bill.

There is no such thing as "final language" when the bill is in committee.

See the other thread I cited above for a discussion of the value of reading the legalese version of the proposed bill.

As has been mentioned, the Republican proposal for rule changes were strictly meant to obstruct and delay the process.
 
Last edited:
quixotecoyote said:
Generally speaking, complex laws are written in relatively plain English at first. When those laws are agreed to, they get re-written in legalese and everyone has their lawyers check it to make sure no one got cute.

What Mhaze is trying to do is suggest that the Republican tactic of trying to reverse the order, to get it rewritten in legalese before it's agreed to in English, is anything other than a delay tactic to let them roll with the socialism/communism/death panel baloney for another few weeks and hope the momemtum for health care reform degrades even further.
Click to expand...

Well said.

If Mhaze, or the author of the opinion column he cited, is suggesting that Baucus or Senate Democrats in general are trying to pull a fast one by having committee members vote on a bill without knowing what's in it (or doing anything out of the ordinary legislative process), he's being as disingenuous as Palin and company talking about "death panels".

My first post shows that the complete text of the proposal is available to committee members, their constituents and anyone with web access.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
Not an issue. The Senate Finance Committee is currently debating something like 500 amendments to the bill.

There is no such thing as "final language" when the bill is in committee.

See the other thread I cited above for a discussion of the value of reading the legalese version of the proposed bill.

As has been mentioned, the Republican proposal for rule changes were strictly meant to obstruct and delay the process.
Click to expand...

Okay, I checked your linky, and read your comments. Not impressed.

Yes, the version that should be posted for a several day period is the final language, with all attachments and "amendments", "legislative wording".
 
mhaze said:
Yes, the version that should be posted for a several day period is the final language, with all attachments and "amendments", "legislative wording".
Click to expand...
And you realize that that doesn't happen while the bill is in committee, don't you? The version that gets a floor vote isn't what we're talking about.

Do you propose someone spend the absurd number of hours necessary to make some 500 different legalese versions while the thing is in committee? (Actually, it could be much higher than that. The thing could exist with any combination of zero to all 500 proposed changes. What is that, 500! different versions?)

ETA: Do you really think there's a problem with committee members not knowing what's in the bill? (See the links in my first post on this thread.)
 
Last edited:
JoeTheJuggler said:
And you realize that that doesn't happen while the bill is in committee, don't you? The version that gets a floor vote isn't what we're talking about.

Do you propose someone spend the absurd number of hours necessary to make some 500 different legalese versions while the thing is in committee? (Actually, it could be much higher than that. The thing could exist with any combination of zero to all 500 proposed changes. What is that, 500! different versions?)

ETA: Do you really think there's a problem with committee members not knowing what's in the bill? (See the links in my first post on this thread.)
Click to expand...
I'm aware of these points that you have raised. I've read the other thread which you pointed out (and learned nothing I did not already know).

You fail to comprehend in your response the meaning of the statements of the OP. It is very specific. Incidentally, your answer is not an intelligent response, because you are only blurting out what I stated as the initial premise of the OP:

Y'all ain't reading this bill neither, Chumps.
 
mhaze said:
Incidentally, your answer is not an intelligent response, because you are only blurting out what I stated as the initial premise of the OP:

Y'all ain't reading this bill neither, Chumps.
Click to expand...
Ah. So your issue isn't with the Baucus Bill but with all bills as they go through this process. You don't like how Congress as a whole does things.

That makes more sense now...
 
Garrette said:
Ah. So your issue isn't with the Baucus Bill but with all bills as they go through this process. You don't like how Congress as a whole does things.

That makes more sense now...
Click to expand...
Apologies if I was unclear.

Yeah, I think all bills should be posted in this matter as they emerge from committee onto the floor, with a delay for public access.

Current public access to the english-language summary versions is still a big improvement over say, one or two decades back.

This bill only illustrates the inanity of Baucus trying to make excuses for a temporary perceived gain. The weakness of the excuses is transparent.

I'm not saying that while the bills are being gamed, and a hundred variations are being contemplated, that the hundred variations should be public. That would erroneously incite public opinion because it is defacto certain that stupid things were being discussed (they were not yet rejected as being stupid).

But the final version, with legislative language, is the Real McCoy. That's the one to focus one. It has all the pork added, and it has new phraseology that does not necessarily equal the prior English summary statements.
 
The Baucas bill is terrible at any rate. Worse than doing nothing IMHO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom