*Final* Health Care Bill released ... NOT!

[BeAChooser]

Anybody at JREF bother to look at the details of the *final* health care bill that was just released (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2009/10/senate_finance_committee_relea.html ) and which democrats want to vote out of committee as soon as possible?

Of course, what was released isn't really the final version of the health care bill. It's merely an abbreviated "plain english" summary of the bill. It's only about 260 pages long ... because it contains nothing but "conceptual" language as opposed to the REAL *final* language, which will make the bill more than a thousand (perhaps more than two thousand) pages long. Here's the summary:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/documents/Americas_Healthy_Future_Act_amended_100209.pdf

But before you comment on it, keep in mind that there is more to the story:

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

Turns out that:

Last week, the Finance Committee considered an amendment offered by Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) that would have required the committee to post the full actual language of the proposed*legislation online for at least 72 hours before holding a final committee vote on it. The committee defeated the amendment 13-10.

And reason given by democrats for not doing that?

(CNSNews.com) - 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.

Carper described the type of language the actual text of the*bill would finally be drafted in as "arcane," "confusing," "hard stuff to understand," and "incomprehensible." He likened it to the*"gibberish" used in credit card disclosure forms.

... snip ...

In a Thursday afternoon interview outside the hearing room where the Finance Committee was debating the final amendments to the still-unseen bill, Carper explained why he believes it would be useless for both members of the public and members of the Senate to read the bill’s actual text.


Committee members did not have a “clue,” he said, when one senator recently read them an example of some actual legislative language. When you look at the legislative language, he said, “it really doesn’t make much sense.”



“When you get into the legislative language, Senator Conrad actually read some of it, several pages of it, the other day and I don’t think anybody had a clue--including people who have served on this committee for decades--what he was talking about,” said Carper. “So, legislative language is so arcane, so confusing, refers to other parts of the code—‘and after the first syllable insert the word X’--and it’s just, it really doesn’t make much sense.”

So, let's see ... the democrat party's explanation for refusing to publish a bill they've essentially written 72 hours before any vote is taken, so that Congressmen and the American public can know for sure what they are voting on, is that it's so incompressible that not even they can/will read it and because they think anyone who does attempt to read it must be a fool.

And God save us from fools, right?

 

[oldhat]

Why do you call it the "Democrat Party"? The name is the "Democratic Party."

Call it by it's correct name instead of slurring it.

 

[WildCat]

And reason given by democrats for not doing that?

I can think of one. All the opposition would then have to do is keep tacking on amendments and the bill could never come to a vote.

 

[BeAChooser]

Why do you call it the "Democrat Party"? The name is the "Democratic Party."

With all the things we might talk about, this is your contribution to this thread?

So tell me oldhat ... why don't democrats call themselves democratics? That would make more sense.

And why are we urged to "vote democrat" rather than "vote democratic"? For example ...

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Vote-Democrat/115690289681

http://rlv.zcache.com/vote_democrat_sticker-p217528114263392968qjcl_400.jpg

http://www.dartershirts.com/thetshirtexpress/images/product_images/VoteDemocrat_Lg1.jpg

http://www.democraticstuff.com/common/images/products/large/BT13691-2.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v61/SacTapDog/Vote_Democrat_2008.jpg

http://www.myspace.com/morgancountydemocrats



But I tell you what, oldhat ... in the interest of promoting civil debate I will be happy to add the "ic" in the future. Because it fits.

 

[BeAChooser]

I can think of one. All the opposition would then have to do is keep tacking on amendments and the bill could never come to a vote.

That makes no sense. Because, by that logic there is nothing to prevent the opposition from just tacking on amendments to the "conceptual language" bill so that it never comes to a vote. Try again, wildcat. I enjoy watching you defend the indefensible.

But while we are discussing amendments ...

http://www.floppingaces.net/2009/09...show-democrats-true-hand-in-health-care-bill/

Senate GOP Amendments Show Democrats True Hand in Health Care Bill

... snip ...

Just as Democrat party line votes against GOP amendments in House Committees drafting health care legislation gave the lie to Obama’s claim that abortions and illegal aliens wouldn’t’ be covered the same is true in the Senate. This week, the Senate Finance Committee is drafting the Senate’s version of Obama Care. Once again Republicans on the committee offered a series of amendments which would have made Democrats live up to their promises. They were rejected on party line votes:

Rejected: Amendment To Preserve Seniors’ Medicare Advantage Plans

HATCH AMENDMENT: “This Amendment Would Strike The Medicare Advantage Provisions Of The Chairman’s Mark If CBO Certifies That Beneficiaries Currently Participating In The Medicare Advantage Program Will Lose Plan Benefits.

Rejected: Amendment To Provide Legislative Language And Price Tag Before Voting

BUNNING AMENDMENT: “This Amendment Requires That Before The Finance Committee Can Vote On Final Passage Of ‘America’s Healthy Future Act Of 2009,’ The Legislative Language Must Be Publically Available On The Finance Committee’s Website For At Least 72 Hours.”

Rejected: Amendment To Stop “Gag Order”

The Health and Human Services Dept. has issued a gag order to insurance companies with medicare customers prohibiting them from any communication with their customers not approved by the Democrats who control HHS.

Rejected: Amendment Prohibiting A Federal Rationing Board

KYL AMENDMENT: “The amendment would strike the following language from the Medicare Commission in subtitle E of Title III: ‘By April 1, 2014, the Senate Finance Committee, along with the relevant House committees, would be required to report out either the Commission’s (or Secretary’s) proposal or an amended proposal that achieves the same level of reductions in excess cost growth.’”

Ruled Out Of Order: Medical Liability Reform Amendments


ENSIGN AMENDMENT: “The amendment will insert language in Title III, Subtitle H of the Chairman‘s Mark to improve patient access to health care services and provide improved medical care by reducing the excessive burden the liability system places on the health care delivery system.”
CORNYN AMENDMENT: “Any state receiving funding under Medicaid shall enact a limit on total noneconomic damages against doctors and health care facilities of one million dollars or less.”
KYL AMENDMENT: “This amendment would limit noneconomic damages in a civil medical liability lawsuit to $250,000 from any provider or health care institution, not to exceed $500,000 from all providers and health care institutions. It would also make each party liable only for the amount of damages directly proportional to such party’s percentage of responsibility.”

 

[Dr Adequate]

So tell me oldhat ... why don't democrats call themselves democratics?

Because they know the difference between a noun and an adjective.

And why are we urged to "vote democrat" rather than "vote democratic"?

Because the people writing these slogans know the difference between a noun and an adjective.

Look, if you can't grasp English grammar any more than you can grasp ... er ... anything, apparently ... then leave it to wiser heads than yours and just acquiesce.

The same might well be said of every other opinion that you have ever posted.

 

[Dr Adequate]

But while we are discussing amendments ...

You're right, Republicans legislators are stupid and dishonest.

But we knew that already. Did you have some further and more substantial point to make?

 

[BeAChooser]

Say JREFers ... didn't Obama promise that “Public Will Have 5 Days To Look At Every Bill That Lands On My Desk”?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5t8GdxFYBU

Think he'll adhere to that in this case?

 

[oldhat]

It has to land on his desk first, BAC.

 

[BeAChooser]

Did you have some further and more substantial point to make?

I did. In the OP. But then you don't appear to want to discuss that.

 

[Wowbagger]

Since we're only crying about how the bill was released, can I assume that we are cool with the actual plan it describes?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

This is the same topic as an existing thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=154914

 

[BeAChooser]

Since we're only crying about how the bill was released, can I assume that we are cool with the actual plan it describes?

Yes! Doesn't anyone want to discuss the contents of the so-called *final* bill?

I'll be happy to lead the way with a few (of many possible) comments:

1) From what I gather the bill will tax health care benefits. That just doesn't seem right, does it? By the way, wonder if Congressmen will be subject to tax on their health care plan. Can anyone tell if this one of the little things they will exclude themselves from in that "incomprehensible" final final bill?

2) And I notice that anything to do with malpractice suits has very vague language. Shouldn't the bill be more specific on such an important topic?

3) And the Senate analysis (http://finance.senate.gov/sitepages/leg/LEG 2009/091609 JCT_Analysis.pdf ) appears to indicate an increase in "revenues" as a result of the bills provisions of $349 billion over the next 10 years. But didn't Obama promise no new taxes on anyone making under $250,000? Are we just to assume that none of that new revenue is coming from those people? And isn't it interesting that the bill makes insurers collect some of those taxes so the insurance companies will get at least part of the blame?

4) It appears that the bill will levy a 35% tax on you, if your plan costs over $8000 a year for an individual. I guess democrats don't want anyone getting really good insurance ... except themselves (their plans are worth far more than 8K a year) ... and they won't have to pay this tax or even pay for the insurance ... because they made sure to exclude themselves from the bill's provisions ... and are making the taxpayer pay for their high priced health care insurance. Sound fair?

5) And will the CBO be allowed time to make a comprehensive analysis before the bill is passed? Oh wait ... the CBO says they can't make a comprehensive analysis without the final final language. Oh well. Guess democrats really didn't like the analysis the CBO did of the last bill and Obama's other spending programs.

Enough to start a discussion?

 

[Wowbagger]

Yes! Doesn't anyone want to discuss the contents of the so-called *final* bill?

Maybe we do. But, up until now, all you did was gripe about how and when it was released. If you feel it is more important to talk about its contents, then by all means do so. And, let's end the pettier details of what landed on who's desk, and when, and all that.

 

[BeAChooser]

But, up until now, all you did was gripe about how and when it was released.

No, my gripe (which was made very clear in the OP) is not how and when it was released but WHAT was released and WHY that what was released. What was released was not the final language of the bill, which in a democrat's own words is "incomprehensible". And an additional gripe is that democrat is saying he will not bother reading the final final bill before voting yes on it. And the reason WHY is what I'd now like to discuss ... the contents of the not-so-final, final bill. If you really are interested and don't mind. Or would you like to continue letting the thread focus on the petty detail of democrat/democratic which is where my opponents seemed to want it to go (and which I notice you failed to jump in and complain about)?

 

[The Fool]

Bac...sit back, relax, things are changing and you can't stop it....Muhahahahah!!

 

[BeAChooser]

things are changing

Incomprehensibly?

And that's ok with you?

 

[The Fool]

Incomprehensibly?

And that's ok with you?

I'm sure there are people who find change Incomprehensible, it even provokes irrational panic in some...This bill will, no doubt, go through the usual processes with or without your panic.

as someone who already lives under an evil socialist healthcare system all I can say is lay back and relax, You get used to the pain and suffering after a while.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I did. In the OP. But then you don't appear to want to discuss that.

I'd rather just mock you, if that's all right by you.

But thanks anyway.

 

[BeAChooser]

I'm sure there are people who find change Incomprehensible

Like democrat Senator Thomas Carper?