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

[JoeTheJuggler]

Oh, want to play a little game.

I've had high speed broadband at my home since 1995.

How about you? That's probably when you were being put to bed with warm milk and cookies.

Want some warm milk and cookies?

PS: Losers always resort to ad hominems in the tail end of a discussion.

You were the one who answered my question about why you didn't feel so outraged when large pieces of legislation were passed following the same procedures in use today by saying:

So the first response I have is that 2003 is six years and six years of technological awareness back from 2009.

Obviously, this was simply an evasion of the actual issue.

You seem to think there's some conspiracy of secrecy about the way the Senate Finance Committee is handling this legislation, but you can't substantiate that claim or differentiate the process being used now from the way similar large and complex legislation was passed in 2003.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

WHO DOES NOT BENEFIT FROM THAT SECRECY IS US - YOU AND I. Yes, irrespective of our differences in issues. Because it is that last stage before the vote in the committee when the 500 pieces of pork are slapped on. So I'm for the "common sense, put it on the internet, let us all look at it" approach.

So? What secrecy? I watched some of the committee debate on TV yesterday. It's quite an open process.

They're debating the bill and proposed amendments and even voting on some of them.

You seem to think there's a closed-door secret process going on to attach "pork". Do you have even one single example of "pork" attached to the bill?


Here's an article about some of the proposed amendments:
http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes....ng-changes-to-make-insurance-more-affordable/

I'd already mentioned that two proposals to add in the Public Option (which were debated and then defeated in 15-8 votes). I think the triggered public option is still being discussed.

Nope--no funding for that Bridge to Nowhere in it.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

So yesterday, the Senate Finance Committee voted in favor of an amendment to the proposal to "allow states to use federal funds to set up public health insurance plans for lower-income and middle-income people." Linky.

This is an attempt to make insurance affordable to those who aren't poor enough to qualify for the medicare expansion but still would have trouble getting health insurance absent a public option.

So, Mhaze, was this more of the conspiracy of secrecy that allows them to attach "pork" to the bill?

It's a strange conspiracy of secrecy, though, since they let the news media in on it. There's even TV cameras in the committee room.

 

[Tricky]

Losers always resort to ad hominems in the tail end of a discussion.

Oh, this is definitely sig material. I think I have to nominate it.

 

[MikeMangum]

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.

Completely off topic, but I absolutely loathe this. Aside from increasing the need for lawyers and obfuscating the contents of the bill, what purpose does this serve?

Every bill that comes out of Congress should be readable by anyone with a public high school diploma.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/54930

Sen. Thomas Carper (D.-Del.), a member of the Senate Finance Committee, told CNSNews.com that he does not “expect” to read the actual legislative language of the committee’s health care bill because it is “confusing” and that anyone who claims they are going to read it and understand it is fooling people.

“I don’t expect to actually read the legislative language because reading the legislative language is among the more confusing things I’ve ever read in my life,” Carper told CNSNews.com.

To quote Glenn Reynolds: "I’m willing to go with that, if he’s willing to let us ignore whatever he passes on the same basis "

 

[mhaze]

I was reading that article earlier today, through Reynold's like, and thinking about how nonsensical what Carper said.

Personally, I've had to plough through legalese many times. And done it, and understood it. So I don't buy his story. But let's not forget that the last two 1000 page bills, they didn't read the plain english version - either.

In fact, if he can't read legaleze and understand it, fire him.

 

[Dancing David]

And how long has Congress been doing this?
And now people want it to change.

You can't use common language in bills, they have to be translated into legalese.

Much of legalese is about the fact that courts fight about thee xact meaning and interpretation of words. the legalese is defined exactly by usage, wether people like it or not.

 

[mhaze]

And how long has Congress been doing this?
And now people want it to change....

Right.

On second thought, we could have good-outstanding legislators who didn't want or could not read legaleze.

But post it on the Internet so we can, and do not presume that we cannot or will not.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

But post it on the Internet so we can, and do not presume that we cannot or will not.

Again, you're specifically talking about the rule change that Republicans introduced to attempt to delay the Baucus proposal. The bill is still in committee, and amendments to it are still being debated and voted on. As you fully know, what was proposed would have been a huge waste of time and money for no benefit.

Your silly conspiracy of silence idea is paranoid nonsense. I suspect that's why you haven't yet replied to my last post--the one about another amendment to the bill that was debated and passed a couple days ago. The process is not secret. You can read about developments nearly every day in the news. You can even see video of debate and voting on TV. (Yes, there are cameras in the room of this secret process!) There is no secret pork being added to the bill. The members of the committee either know or can know (it's up to them) what is in the bill even though it's not in a final legalese state yet. So can the public.

On the broader issue, Dancing David is correct. Legalese is necessary, especially with complex and technical issues like health insurance. There are jargon words and terms of art that must be used for legal reasons. For the purposes of discussion and debate and voting on amendments, the plain English summaries are sufficient. For example, when they debated the "public option" that term was sufficient for people both for and against it to understand what was meant. It would not be appropriate in the final draft.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

But post it on the Internet so we can, and do not presume that we cannot or will not.

I bet I'm safe to presume that you have not read the text that's been posted on the internet for some time now:

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/11382446/Baucus-Health-Care-Bill---Full-Text

http://finance.senate.gov/sitepages/leg/LEG 2009/091609 Americas_Healthy_Future_Act.pdf

http://documents.nytimes.com/baucus-proposal-to-overhaul-health-care#p=1

Since there are hundreds of amendments to the bill being considered, it would be a huge waste of time and money to translate the bill to hundreds (maybe thousands) of versions of legalese at this point in the process. In fact, that's why the process goes the way it does.

See QuixoteCoyote's first post in this thread.

There's no legitimate reason for changing the process in this way. In fact, I suspect the Teabaggers would be up in arms if such a rule change were passed since it would result in much bigger and much less efficient government. The only reason the rule change was attempted was to fight the bill by stalling it.

Again, for purposes of disclosure, I'm not a supporter of the Baucus bill.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Mhaze, you're trying to make this into something it is not--a conspiracy of secrecy or some such silliness.

I used to do typesetting and layout for various kinds of documents including books. What was proposed was similar to doing the typesetting on a novel when the author has only written a first draft of the first couple of chapters and outlined the rest. Work on the novel is underway, and the author and editor can get a lot done. He could even share the outline and first chapters with other people to get their feedback, but it would be absurd to typeset anything at that stage.

 

[mhaze]

I used to do typesetting and layout for various kinds of documents including books. What was proposed was similar to doing the typesetting on a novel when the author has only written a first draft of the first couple of chapters and outlined the rest. Work on the novel is underway, and the author and editor can get a lot done. He could even share the outline and first chapters with other people to get their feedback, but it would be absurd to typeset anything at that stage.

Irrelevant.

Frankly, you don't know what you are talking about on this subject you by choice pontificate thusly.

 

[cyborg]

Irrelevant.

Frankly, you don't know what you are talking about on this subject you by choice pontificate thusly.

Yeah, well, losers only result to ad hominems at the tail end of a discussion.

So, nyah!

Yours, respectfully,

A Loser.

 

[mhaze]

Yeah, well, losers only result to ad hominems at the tail end of a discussion.

So, nyah!

Yours, respectfully,

A Loser.

HAHAHA! That's good!

But it is not an ad hominem.

I've said that on occasion I have had to plough through long tomes of legaleze, and Joe has indicated that he has not. I infer that he, like many people, could not.

Such a person dictating to others what others should be allowed to read?

Excuse me, but there is no smell test that this passes.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Irrelevant.

You're wrong.

Frankly, you don't know what you are talking about on this subject you by choice pontificate thusly.

Bull.

You asserted that there's some sort of conspiracy of silence going on because this proposal to require final language on a bill before the bill is finalized was defeated. You're wrong.

I've been citing nearly daily news updates on the debate and vote on amendments to the Baucus bill as proof that there is no such secrecy on the bill. I've also given you links to the plain text of the bill and have asked you repeatedly if you really think the members of the Senate Finance Committee (or indeed their constituents) can find out what's in the bill.

You also alleged that the reason for this conspiracy of silence is that every last one of the proposed amendments being discussed are merely attempts at adding pork to the bill. I've cited several examples of the amendments being debated and voted on--not one of them is pork.

Look, Mhaze, it's plain that you put your foot in your mouth. The only honorable thing for you to do is admit you were mistaken about his.

The proposal introduced by Republicans was an attempt to delay the process and not something introduced to benefit taxpayers. Nor is there any great secrecy surrounding the process (again, you can see the debate on TV when something newsworthy goes on--the news media and cameras are right there in the room). Nobody's trying to pull a fast one by not having the bill in final language before the bill is finalized.

My analogy to doing the layout for a book before the writing is in finished form is apt. It would be a waste of time and money to do it that way around.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I've said that on occasion I have had to plough through long tomes of legaleze[sic], and Joe has indicated that he has not.

That's a lie.

I infer that he, like many people, could not.

You infer incorrectly.

Such a person dictating to others what others should be allowed to read?

First, who's dictating to anyone what they should be allowed to read? The proposal to require publication of a final version of the bill long before it has reached final form was not about what anyone was "allowing" anyone else to read.

Second, how can you use the phrase I bolded above so soon after you just said the following?

But it is not an ad hominem.

Do you know what ad hominem means?


At any rate, why is it you keep trying to make this discussion about such petty matters and you fail to address the central points? I keep showing you examples of how the process going on in the Senate Finance Committee is not secret. I've made legitimate arguments about how absurd it would be to require publication of final, legalese versions of a proposed bill before it has reached final form.

Yet you choose to ignore these remarks and steer the conversation to petty matters.

The fact that you have pored through long tomes of legal writing is completely irrelevant. It does nothing to support your position that there's a conspiracy of silence or that there's an effort to add pork to the bill by keeping members of the Senate Finance Committee and their constituents ignorant of what's in the bill.

Your approach is pretty much the definition of ad hominem reasoning.

 

[mhaze]

That's a lie.

You infer incorrectly.

First, who's dictating to anyone what they should be allowed to read?....

You are.

First, I don't think you are exactly applying a straw man argument.

What you are doing is

• taking a blurred, imprecise misunderstanding of exactly what I said -
• Applying that against a burred and imprecise misunderstanding of what the committees in Congress do -
• And reaching blurred and imprecise mis conclusions.

Which is all too complicated, really. So you are working really hard at getting nowhere.

It's really simple. The final form of the bill, in legaleze, should be publicly available for 72 hours before the final committee vote is taken, after which the bill moves to the chamber. Final form includes all amendments, yada yada yada.

By the way. The bill creating the Interstate Highway System in the early 1950s was the largest construction project in the history of man. It was a whole 17 pages.

So why not stop the lecturing on why we can't do this, why that's too complicated, and why such and such is impossible to understand.

Wise up.

 

[The Painter]

interesting thoughts here on the merits of reading bills

Yes, not reading that is the answer. No one should read anything. Especial things that may effect the future of everyone. That would be stupid. So glad you could point that out. Kudos?

 

[MikeMangum]

Since there are hundreds of amendments to the bill being considered, it would be a huge waste of time and money to translate the bill to hundreds (maybe thousands) of versions of legalese at this point in the process. In fact, that's why the process goes the way it does.

I agree that until a bill comes out of committee, it would (currently) be a ton of wasted work to post the bill online while it is still undergoing revisions in committee. Once it's out of committee, it should be made available.

Of course, we do have the technology to basically instantly publish the contents of a bill and document every change made to it. I think there are many other things that are higher priority, but I think it would a good thing if a system like that could be implemented.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I agree that until a bill comes out of committee, it would (currently) be a ton of wasted work to post the bill online while it is still undergoing revisions in committee. Once it's out of committee, it should be made available.

Me too, and I think that reflects the current process. The proposed rule change by Republicans would've required that the final version of the bill be posted on-line 2 days before any committee vote. That requirement would have effectively stalled the process.

Of course, we do have the technology to basically instantly publish the contents of a bill and document every change made to it. I think there are many other things that are higher priority, but I think it would a good thing if a system like that could be implemented.

I don't think posting text to the web is the problem. (See my very first post in this thread--the complete text of the plain language version of the Baucus bill has been on the web for some time now.) It's the work of finalizing the language that is time consuming.