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

[JoeTheJuggler]

MHaze, I'd very much like you to answer these questions:

How come this wasn't an issue, for example, when the Republican controlled Congress passed the industry-friendly Energy Bill or the industry-friendly Medicare Reform Act (2003)? Are you suggesting that the legislative process is less transparent now than it was then?

 

[Beerina]

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"​

This is an argument that it should not be passed!!!

2. "It would take staffers at least two weeks to put it on line."​

Yes! Exactly!

3. "We're voting on it before we've seen the legislative language"​

Yes! Arguments that it's too long to review are more reason it should not be allowed as a law, just on the face of it!

 

[mhaze]

MHaze, I'd very much like you to answer these questions:

Sure 'nuff.

I'm for above board disclosure of final committee work and have been for a long time .... had the rude awaking on this in October 2004, to be exact. It has nothing to do with the (D) or (R) after someone's name. You've asked about why this and that in 2003 or so.

Well, many of these legislators are slow to wake up to the wonders of the Internet - you know it's just a bunch of tubes, right? So the first response I have is that 2003 is six years and six years of technological awareness back from 2009. The second is that yeah, it is possible that party A would benefit when in power from secrecy as would party B.

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.

Here is an update on this issue.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/200...-against-hasty-votes/?feat=article_top10_read

An excerpt (highlighting is mine):

Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee on Wednesday turned back a Republican amendment to wait 72 hours and require a full cost estimate before the final committee vote on the health care reform bill.


It was the committee's first vote out of more than 500 amendments awaiting them, in what has already been a contentious mark-up session.
The amendment would have delayed a vote on the final bill for about two weeks to allow the Congressional Budget Office to complete its final analysis on the cost and implications of the legislation.
...
Instead, the panel passed an alternative amendment that would require the committee to post the full bill, in "conceptual" instead of legal language, as well as as a CBO cost estimate.


Separately, a bipartisan group of House lawmakers on Wednesday announced their own effort to force Democratic leaders to give members of Congress -- and the public -- 72 hours to review legislation before any bill is brought to the floor for a vote.

​

I'm curious. In the real world, have you ever tried to restrain a fully grown hog from the feeding trough?

 

[mhaze]

This is an argument that it should not be passed!!!

Yes! Exactly!

Yes! Arguments that it's too long to review are more reason it should not be allowed as a law, just on the face of it!

HAAHAHA...

The light went on upstairs, did it?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Sure 'nuff.

I read your post, and I did not see an answer to my two questions.

They are again (numbered for your convenience):

1. How come this wasn't an issue, for example, when the Republican controlled Congress passed the industry-friendly Energy Bill or the industry-friendly Medicare Reform Act (2003)?

2. Are you suggesting that the legislative process is less transparent now than it was then?

The closest I saw you come to answering was your observation that 6 years ago technology was different than it is now. I'm not sure which technology you mean (the ability to write a huge legal document hasn't become dramatically--or even noticeably--faster), or how that answers either of my questions.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

This is an argument that it should not be passed!!!

So do you think no large bills that are difficult to convert into legal language and post on-line while they're still in committee should ever be passed?

Can you answer the same two questions I've asked Mhaze?

You do know the Energy Bill and the Medicare Reform Bill (2003) were both tremendously large pieces of legislation that were very difficult--especially when they were still in committee--to write up in legal language, don't you?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

So I'm for the "common sense, put it on the internet, let us all look at it" approach.

No you're not.

I showed you in my first post on this thread that the common sense contents of the proposal have already been posted on the internet.

You're asking for a legalese finished version of the bill to be posted on the internet. I've shown you that such a thing is logistically impractical (a huge cost in time and resources) and not remotely helpful.

 

[mhaze]

I read your post, and I did not see an answer to my two questions.
....

That's your questions' problem, not mine.



As for your question #1, You have asked "How come something wasn't an issue at time xyz?". Gee, beats me. Nobody thought of it? Rebublicans preferred secrecy? They thought it could not be done? Does anyone have a history of requests for more disclosure of final bills in committees? I do not.

I could do an email and get some input from people up there.

I speculated not that the technology was so different but that perhaps the understanding of it in the (older generation of legislators) had progressed somewhat. Maybe.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

That's your questions' problem, not mine.

That's nonsense. If you cannot or will not answer, you should say so.

Your OP implies that this is a new issue that has just arisen, even though it's been explained to you that this is the procedure that's been used all along, and that the proposals to change the rules are nothing more than delay tactics.

As for your question #1, You have asked "How come something wasn't an issue at time xyz?". Gee, beats me. Nobody thought of it? Rebublicans preferred secrecy? They thought it could not be done?

Or possibly the proposals to change the rules were nothing more than delaying tactics? Seems like the most realistic answer to my question.


So how about my question number 2? Do you think the legislative process is less transparent now than it was when Republicans controlled Congress?

Your OP implies that Baucus is trying to pull a fast one (at least with regard to not having a final legalese version of the bill published on line), when that's simply not the case.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Because it is that last stage before the vote in the committee when the 500 pieces of pork are slapped on.

Can you substantiate your claim that the amendments to this bill being considered in the Finance Committee are "pork"?

Just today they voted on two of those amendments that were both proposals to add a public option into the bill.

According to your complaint, they should have stopped debate and votes on these amendments until the whole thing (in its multiple versions) is written up into final legal language and posted on the web for a couple of days.

 

[mhaze]

Do you understand that if I answer your questions, I will commence repeating exactly, word for word, things I have said previously on this thread?

That being the case, who is lacking in clarity?

 

[psychictv]

Do you understand that if I answer your questions, I will commence repeating exactly, word for word, things I have said previously on this thread?

That being the case, who is lacking in clarity?

LOL! What an admission!

"Don't you understand that I have no answer to your questions and know I have lost the argument so I'll just keep repeating the same bulls*** and talking points over and over until you go away?

That being the case, you are clearly the idiot JoeTheJuggler for continuing to respond to my trolling as though it were an actual argument put forth in good faith."

Just...wow.

 

[uk_dave]

I think, though am not 100% sure, that mhaze actually defended the republicans behaving exactly the same way as the democrats because....they didn't have such a grasp of the internet when republicans were in power..... or something.

I didn't realise that mhaze was so wedded to the republican party that he would attempt to construct such a lame excuse.

 

[mhaze]

I think, though am not 100% sure, that mhaze actually defended the republicans behaving exactly the same way as the democrats because....they didn't have such a grasp of the internet when republicans were in power..... or something.

I didn't realise that mhaze was so wedded to the republican party that he would attempt to construct such a lame excuse.

I do have a pretty good idea of what level and style of information disclosure via the internet is advantageous to the people in 2009 and I really can't see where that has anything to do at all with political parties, except to put the interests of the average guy above the interests of both/all the parties. Pork is bipartian.

So no, the derail won't work. Good try, though.

 

[psychictv]

I think, though am not 100% sure, that mhaze actually defended the republicans behaving exactly the same way as the democrats because....they didn't have such a grasp of the internet when republicans were in power..... or something.

What do you want to bet that mhaze didn't have internet access yet in 2003?

 

[Dancing David]

Public option as in another Medicare?

Yeah, that didn't cost 150x more than it was supposed too.

It already cost us , all the time. One of the reasons Medicaid keeps going up, the elederly in nursing homes. But again shifting the burden to nursing homes and hospitals is okay.

The lack of coverage is a huge problem.

 

[mhaze]

What do you want to bet that mhaze didn't have internet access yet in 2003?

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.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Do you understand that if I answer your questions, I will commence repeating exactly, word for word, things I have said previously on this thread?

That being the case, who is lacking in clarity?

I realize that you're doing your best to evade my question.

Your OP suggested that the Dems in the Senate Finance Committee are trying to pull a fast one because they don't have final legal-language versions of the proposal they're debating right now.

It has been pointed out to you that that's the normal process and it would be a tremendous waste of time and taxpayer money to change the process as suggested by the Republican proposed rule change, which we all recognize as merely a delaying tactic.

So again, do you think the people supporting the Baucus proposal (and I'm not one of them BTW) are trying to pull a fast one? If so, why don't you think that about every large bill, especially the large ones passed by Republican controlled Congress in the past?

Your only response was some vague mention of how much technology has changed in the last 6 years. You know full well that it was not signigicantly more difficult to put a text or pdf document on the web in 2003 than it is now and that the real obstacle is the business of writing up a final version in legalese (when the bill is still being debated and amended), don't you?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Also, Beerina suggested that no bill that is complicated and that would take time to write up into legalese to post on the web should be passed.

Same question--did you feel the same way about large, complex legislation that was passed when Republicans controlled Congress? If not, why not?

 

[willhaven]

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.