Why "Reading the Bill" Won't Matter

USA Today notes that even forcing legislators to read the health care legislation in the House probably wouldn't do much good. The bill is so bogged down with bureaucrat-eze, few of them are likely to understand it.

Take the opening lines of one of the bill's most controversial sections, the one about voluntary "end of life" counseling:

"SEC. 1233. ADVANCE CARE PLANNING CONSULTATION. (a) Medicare. — (1) IN GENERAL. — Section 1861 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x) is amended — (A) in subsection (s)(2) — (i) by striking 'and' at the end of subparagraph (DD); (ii) by adding 'and' at the end of subparagraph (EE); and (iii) adding at the end the following new subparagraph: '(FF) advance care planning consultation (as defined in subsection (hhh)(1) … "

Complex bills like these are generally written with heavy input from the lobbyists and interest groups who have so much at stake in them. The public doesn't find out exactly what the implication of striking "and" from subparapraph (DD) might be until the bill has already been implemented.

This is another argument in favor of posting bills in their final form online for a considerable period of time before voting on them, or before they're signed into law. Crowdsourcing by people who have experience wading through the parentheses and em-dashes might at least help decipher some of the mess to get a clearer picture of what it all means. As it stands, we're left with the few politicians who helped craft the bill saying, "Just trust us."

That rarely works out well.

Comments

[Johnny Longtorso]

Not trusting them is racist.

[J sub D]

This is another argument in favor of posting bills in their final form online for a considerable period of time before voting on them, or before they're signed into law.

Were this to happen the hue and cry from the citizenry would be so deafening that complex bills like this, loaded with special interest favors and unintended consequences as they invariably are, would never get enacted.

That would be a very good thing in that it would at least slow down the intrusion of government into every single aspect of our lives.

Aint.
Gonna.
Happen.

[obi juan]

Duh. That "read the bill" line of attack never made sense to me. And rather than go to a town hall and demand a Congress person name one successful government program, it would have been better to recite a passage of the bill like the one here and ask them to explain what it means.

[Syd Henderson]

"This is another argument in favor of posting bills in their final form online for a considerable period of time before voting on them, or before they're signed into law."

That way millions of people can be baffled rather than just a few hundred congressmen and staffers.

[Elemenope]

Duh. That "read the bill" line of attack never made sense to me. And rather than go to a town hall and demand a Congress person name one successful government program, it would have been better to recite a passage of the bill like the one here and ask them to explain what it means.

QFMFT.

[Rob S]

Meanwhile, half the people that vote to pass this bill maintain that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." is confusing.

[Rich]

Good points, all.

I keep waiting for some congresscreature to claim that the "striking 'and' from subparagraph (DD)" technique is actually an example of gov't efficiency.

[Syd Henderson]

Although I'm in favor of posting them anyway. (PS: Aren't they posted on the Congressional website? I remember reading the projection on future NASA funding a few months ago, but that wasn't from Congress.)

[James Madison]

It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood...

[Elemenope]

The root problem is that the law has become so crufty, the only way to modify it is this "striking 'and' from subparagraph (DD)" crap.

Format, reinstall operating system, go from there.

[juris imprudent]

"Just trust us."

1986 Firearms Ownership Protection Act, in which a Congressman slipped in (literally in the dead of night) the provision which outlawed the sale of new full auto firearms.

[obi juan]

The format and reinstall option is terrible. Can you imagine what an American Constitution would look like if it were created from scratch today?

[SusanM]

Now I'm confused. A strict reading of the second amendment clearly shows that personal ownership of firearms is not at all protected. It seems very straightforward to me.

[Sean W. Malone]

Not to get bogged down in metaphor, but "reinstall" in my mind would mean starting over with the original constitution, not writing a new one.

Either way, there is massive fail down that road. Better to buy a new computer at this point 😉

[Tulpa]

This is another argument in favor of posting bills in their final form online for a considerable period of time before voting on them, or before they're signed into law.

That's a great idea! If only we could elect a president who promised to do just that.

[Elemenope]

The format and reinstall option is terrible. Can you imagine what an American Constitution would look like if it were created from scratch today?

I didn't say scrap the kernel, did I?

[Elemenope]

Not to get bogged down in metaphor, but "reinstall" in my mind would mean starting over with the original constitution, not writing a new one.

Either way, there is massive fail down that road. Better to buy a new computer at this point 😉

Sean has the right of it. Both ways.

[Tulpa]

Rather than a complete reboot, we could enact a version of the Sunset Amendment which would cause all new federal laws and regulations to become null and void five years after their passage or publication, and all existing ones to be null and void five years after the amendment is ratified.

This would be savagely opposed by the lobbying-industrial complex, but it could be sold to politicians as a way for them to brag to their constituents about passing the same feel-good legislation over and over again. I mean, how many legislators now can claim that they sponsored the bill that banned transporting minors across state lines for lewd purposes?

Another good effect of this would be that it would slow, or possibly even reverse, the tendency of politicians to come up with new and innovative legislation to restrict freedom so as to protect children or the environment or some bullshit.

[Choey]

It doesn't matter if they read it or not (most of them anyway). They are not voting for what is or is not in the bill, they are voting for it because 0bama and Nasty Piglosi tell them they had better vote for it or there will be serious consequences.

[Tulpa]

Somebody blinked:

WASHINGTON - Apparently ready to abandon the idea, President Barack Obama's health secretary said Sunday a government alternative to private health insurance is "not the essential element" of the administration's health care overhaul.

The White House indicated it could jettison the contentious public option and settle on insurance cooperatives as an acceptable alternative, a move embraced by some Republicans [sic] lawmakers who have strongly opposed the administration's approach so far.

[obi juan]

I don't think a sunset amendment would work. Revoting for things at time of sunset would become a formality.

[Neu Mejican]

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/abt_thom.html

The issue of clear language in laws is important, but pointing to a paragraph like this isn't really getting to the issue (although a better approach would have been to quote the section being changed, and then put the new language in context). The section (1233) is really pretty clear when looked at in toto.

A bill requiring the final version to be posted on-line prior to being voted on would be nice for complex legislation like this, but there would be times when a waiting period was counter-productive. Meaning the bill to require it would end up 1200 pages long ;^)

[Tulpa]

Senor Quenobi,

There are tens of thousands of federal laws on the books now (no one actually knows the exact number, to give you an idea). It would probably take Congress 10 years just to re-pass all of them.

And I don't think all of them would be guaranteed passage. There are a lot of laws currently on the books that you could get 41 senators to oppose.

[Elemenope]

I don't think a sunset amendment would work. Re-voting for things at time of sunset would become a formality.

Not to mention that a small minority of laws are, y'know, decent, and scrapping them every five years radically increases the probability they would become less decent over time.

[Tulpa]

It's not a perfect solution. But I think the good effects would outweigh the bad (especially since any decent laws can easily be changed in indecent ways under the current system).

[Jack]

Susan, The second amendment has nothing to do with the National Guard. By original definition according to the first dictionary printed by the colonies, the Militia was every able bodied male. In order to ensure that every able bodied male could serve in times of crisis, the right of the people (That means everyone, not just able bodied males) should be protected to ensure that Grampa and Grandma could teach the chillun's how to properly use a firearm in defense of self and country. The founders were not in favor of standing armies, and knew that without standing armies, there could not be a continuous training program, so citizenry would have to be able to train at home in the arts of war.

A reading of history is important.

[Randy]

Hey Jack,

You forgot to mention that the reason the founders were not in favor of standing armies is that standing armies are always eventually used as agents of tyranny among their own populations by oppressive rulers.

[Neu Mejican]

Jack,

I think your sarcasm meter is broken, but maybe it is mine.

[ransom147]

"Not to mention that a small minority of laws are, y'know, decent"

this is bs. like what? most laws at the federal level would be better handled by the states, or not at all.

[Tulpa]

Randy,

That, and having a standing army makes it easier to start unnecessary wars. In fact, the bureaucracy created around the standing army will almost have to get involved in wars to justify its continued existence.

[strike through]

posting bills in their final form online for a considerable period of time before voting on them...

...would turn our republic into a democracy. If you think things are uncivil now, how about town-hall shouting matches 365 days a year?

[Tulpa]

Well, Posse Comitatus is one example of a good federal law (though it's been gutted beyond all recognition post-9/11). FISA is another (ditto). Taft-Hartley is decent, though it's endangered every time the Dems take control of Congress with a Dem president.

So yeah, it's pretty hard to think of good laws off the top of your head. I'm sure there are some obscure ones we'd miss if they were gone.

[Neu Mejican]

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

[submitted without comment]

[Tulpa]

If you think things are uncivil now, how about town-hall shouting matches 365 days a year?

Given that shouting matches appear to lead to non-passage or weakening of the bills in question, that can only be a good thing...

Seriously, no one wants to opine on the administration backing down on the pubic option? This is ball game.

[ransom147]

strike through:

maybe so. so if we're talking pipe dreams here, howabout an amendment clarifying and severely restricting the commerce clause?

[ransom147]

Tulpa:

1. not needed if you eliminate standing armys. the state militias are best run by the states, or why not make the notion an amendment.

2. FISA... blech

3. Taft hartley is an usurpation of state's rights.

[Ken Braun]

"Complex bills like these are generally written with heavy input from the lobbyists and interest groups who have so much at stake in them."

As a former legislative aide, I have to say that this is sort of unfair. Radley fails to note that lawmakers themselves are sometimes given a handful of crayons and allowed into the room to draw cute pictures of what they think the bills should look like.

Seriously, though, a "waiting period" for the masses to take apart these things on their own is a terrific idea. How about a wiki being started for each and every one of these bills and a full month granted for the description to evolve as people who know something about the component parts read it and describe it for the rest of us?

[KingShamus]

Given that shouting matches appear to lead to non-passage or weakening of the bills in question, that can only be a good thing...

------------------

Count me in. If we can't get good legislation, then it's far better to stop everthing. Doing nothing makes more sense than enacting bullshit laws.

[ransom147]

"Given that shouting matches appear to lead to non-passage or weakening of the bills in question, that can only be a good thing..."

ditto. if we cannot constrain govt. it is at least preferable to hamstring it.

[Tulpa]

The militias "regularly" got their asses kicked by professional soldiers in the War of 1812. We escaped with the tie due to home field advantage and the UK being distracted by The Return of Napoleon.

That was one revolutionary idea of the founders that turned out to make no sense in practice. We ain't going back.

[prolefeed]

From years of reading bad legislation, here's a tip to reading legislation:

If you can't understand it -- if it's that hellishly complex -- it's probably a bad idea.

The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are short documents.

[ransom147]

Tulpa:

the BEF got their asses handed to them by a bunch of dutch farmers. anything can happen.

i would prefer private security forces to standing federal forces. the free market is capable of handling these issues.

[Brandybuck]

I think you guys are missing the point. I argued for such a rule twenty years ago, and I'm thrilled that it's now back in fashion. The point isn't to get the legislators to read the bills, the point is to slow down the process!

The proposals I've argued for required the bill submitter to read the entirety of the bill on the floor of his legislative chamber, while a quorum is present. If an amendment is added, the bill needs to be re-read again.

[prolefeed]

posting bills in their final form online for a considerable period of time before voting on them...

...would turn our republic into a democracy. If you think things are uncivil now, how about town-hall shouting matches 365 days a year?

A one year waiting period after public posting for comments on proposed legislation sounds about right to me, with exceptions if, say, there are enemy soldiers about to land on American soil.

And a 90% approval rate needed in both chambers.

And an automatic sunset date on all legislation ending it in five years unless a reauthorization vote is scheduled.

It should be really, really hard to pass a law, because laws are backed by force and coercion.

[ransom147]

i like it brandybuck. the fed. govt. is completely out of bounds w/ most legislation. slow the f down.

[ransom147]

prolefeed: add to that a provision for a lower standard on repealing legislation, and i'm on board.

[Mike M.]

The bill is so bogged down with bureaucrat-eze, few of them are likely to understand it.

That's really great: our elected Representatives are now voting on massive bills that they not only didn't write, but that they're too stupid to even understand.

No wonder things have become so f*cked up in America now.

[Tulpa]

USA Today notes that even forcing legislators to read the health care legislation in the House probably wouldn't do much good. The bill is so bogged down with bureaucrat-eze, few of them are likely to understand it.

...and once it's passed, ignorance of the law will be no defense for you mere citizens. Here's hoping you have more time to read the bills than your representatives (and superior legal expertise than the 80% of them who are lawyers before being elected)

[Jim]

One town-hall participant suggested to Arlen Specter that a referendum be presented to the people instead of having the houses of Congress vote on this and similarly-wordy measures.

It is, of course, impractical -- this is a complex undertaking. People think in bumper-sticker-sized declarative or interrogative statements.

But it is intriguing to think of ways to simplify the issue to a referendum question, isn't it?

[juris imprudent]

That was one revolutionary idea of the founders that turned out to make no sense in practice. We ain't going back.

It wasn't that revolutionary - the Swiss had been doing something similar for some time. The problem is we pussed out (and we got TR as President who was all gung-ho on that imperialism thing that was all the rage in European circles).

However, our military today is still citizen-soldiers, and most don't spend their lives as professional soldiers. This is a good thing, as I trust them as citizens first and soldiers second.

[juris imprudent]

ransom147 sez i would prefer private security forces to standing federal forces.

Praetorian guards for hire? No thanks.

[de stijl]

But it is intriguing to think of ways to simplify the issue to a referendum question, isn't it?

That worked out so well for California, didn't it?

I usually try to not to be a misanthrope, but in my heart of hearts I have to acknowledge that most people are dumbasses.

[ransom147]

juris:

i get ya, but i'm speaking of a solution to the notion of a need for professionial army. obviously we would want to avoid a mercenary force that evolved like the prussian army. personally i would prefer neither standing armys or mercenary forces. but given the choice of one or the other, i would choose the latter.

[Elemenope]

personally i would prefer neither standing armys or mercenary forces. but given the choice of one or the other, i would choose the latter.

You'd take Blackwater over the US Army.

Okaaaay.

[brotherben]

BrandyBuck said:
The proposals I've argued for required the bill submitter to read the entirety of the bill on the floor of his legislative chamber, while a quorum is present. If an amendment is added, the bill needs to be re-read again.

You know, I hate the powermad simple minded bribetaking megalomaniacal douchebag worthless culls as much as the next guy, but what you propose is just mean.

[TallDave]

Hooray! The public option is dead!

We did it. We killed the worst part of this bill, the part that probably meant government would eventually end up taking over 15% of the economy.

Ed urges we not be complacent, and he's right, but nonetheless this is a moment to savor. Congratulations to everyone who spoke out against this monstrosity, whether at a town hall, online, in a letter, at the water cooler... Congress has heard our voices and sanity has prevailed.

God Bless America, the land of the free.

And now I do my happy dance.

[TallDave]

That was one revolutionary idea of the founders that turned out to make no sense in practice. We ain't going back.

It made sense at the time. The history of standing armies was not good in terms of preserving liberty.

Today we have a relatively small, heavily indoctrinated military, which is good because they are very, very powerful. While I don't think it is a possibility to worry about with today's military, the fact that their oaths are the only thing standing between them and a military dictatorship should be cause for sober reflection.

[Plant Immigration Rights Suppo]

TallDave,

I agree this is a moment to celebrate. But this is only one battle in the much larger war on our freedoms. We must not let the politicians think our attention has wavered. We must still watch the politicans like hawks. Also, there is the fact to consider that they are politicans - in other words - they lie. We need to comb through any new proposals to see if it is still there.

[DoDoGuRu]

I support "reading the bill" but not because I think well-informed legislators are going to make better decisions. I want Congress to read their own bills precisely because the bills are so byzantine and opaque... The longer it takes for Senator Dumbass to read, the slower the piece of crap actually moves through the chambers.

Government Shutdown: It's a Feature, Not a Bug.

[Hazel Meade]

This makes me wonder how all these people claiming the passage is innocuous can tell.

Did they actually go back to the original law and insert those 'and's or are they just taking the word of the ... er, whoever wrote that section.

[hmm]

There should be a page limit on bills. If you can't get it said with in a few pages it either consists of too many ideas for one bill or you are shoveling shit to screw someone.

Or we could just fire all the fucking lawyers. Hell even getting rid of half of them in DC would be a good start.

[Mike M.]

Hooray! The public option is dead!

We did it. We killed the worst part of this bill, the part that probably meant government would eventually end up taking over 15% of the economy.

I sure as heck hope it's true, but I flat out simply don't trust these scumbags. Not even Max Baucus, who really isn't all that bad for a Democrat

[Mike M.]

Edit: I meant to say Kent Conrad, not Baucus, and Conrad isn't that bad either.

[The Libertarian Guy]

Is it impolite to shout "tort reform" in a room full of attorneys?

Variation: Is it impolite to shout "enumerated powers docrine" in a room full of Congressmen?

Second variation: Replace "Is it impolite to" with "Will it soon become illegal to". Hilarity will ensue from the left, even as they maneuver themselves into unstoppable power and perpetual re-election/veto-proof majorities by promising every American three hots and a cot, and the chance to stand in line for substandard medical care while Our Glorious Leaders get the good stuff.

Whew, I'm pooped after that. Is coffee still legal?

[Tulpa]

TallDave & PIRS,

A quick survey of the tubez shows that Chuck Shumer is proposing "co-ops" that are still heavily controlled (and potentially heavily financed) by the federal government:

A Democratic aide familiar with Schumer's discussions said that he presented Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and other Senate GOP negotiators four proposals crucial for Democratic support: ensuring co-op insurance plans would be available nationwide, infusing the co-op option with at least $10 billion in federal funds to get started, making sure they have collective bargaining power to keep costs down and creating a federally chartered board to administer the co-op.

Bonus points for Shumer and other Dems bluffing saying that this is the absolute minimum federal involvement they will accept. Keep turning the thumbscrews, fellas.

[Tulpa]

Also it appears that, while the "end of life counseling" part of the bill has also been thrown under the bus by the Dems, the prohibition of insurance companies refusing coverage due to preexisting conditions hasn't been touched.

[mark]

There should be a page limit on bills.
No bill passed by Congress shall take up more than both sides of an 8 1/2 x 11 inch sheet of paper, with single-spaced 12-point font. If you are overriding a veto, it shall be double-spaced.

And Tulpa, did you really think that the health care market would make sense to anyone after they pass health care reform?

[ransom147]

Elemenope:

"You'd take Blackwater over the US Army."

yes. they can be fired. and in an emergency where a large force is needed, it beets the hell out of conscription.

my beef is not w/ the U.S.Army or the soldiers. i distrust the government, especially the executive branch. the state militias serving the will of the state governers are fine, but the presidential ability to make war is completely out of check. i'm not giving the idea on "an all other things being equal" standard. that is just one of many pieces of what i see as broken.

[ransom147]

*beats

[ransom147]

looks like i have some homonym mixed w/ my tripe.

yummy, menudo!

[ransom147]

Tulpa:

"the prohibition of insurance companies refusing coverage due to preexisting conditions hasn't been touched."

isn't that how they're getting the ins. cos on board? force ins. on everybody? i think that's the trade-off.

[IceTrey]

I've always wondered who it is that actually sits down and writes these things.

[James Anderson Merritt]

# ransom147 | August 16, 2009, 4:39pm | #
# looks like i have some homonym mixed
# w/ my tripe.

# yummy, menudo!

Nah, it's killer tofu, dude!

[hmm]

I've always wondered who it is that actually sits down and writes these things.

It's not one person or even a room full of people. It's hundreds if not thousands of rent seeking assholes bellying up to each new trough that is a bill. That is one of the problems. If you told Congress each bill had to be worked on from 9-5 in a single closed room, with no notes other than minutes. You would see one page bills.

[James Anderson Merritt]

# ransom147 | August 16, 2009, 4:42pm | #
## Tulpa:

## "the prohibition of insurance companies
## refusing coverage due to preexisting
## conditions hasn't been touched."

# isn't that how they're getting the
# ins. cos on board? force ins. on
# everybody? i think that's the trade-off.

Bingo. The key here is to force insurance on everybody. That's the essential element of "health insurance overhaul."

Forcing auto insurance on everybody in California didn't really improve the situation of people in California, as far as I can see. It did improve the situation of the insurance companies that did business in California. By a lot. Plus, it turned every cop into a member of the sales force!

The public option was the "escape hatch." Once we all had to have insurance, we would all feel the pain of this broken system; it would collapse anyway, and the public option would be there to allow for an immediate and relatively smooth transition. If there is no public option, then, when the inevitable crash occurs, they will have to hurry up and create one.

Those who want totally socialized health care must actually view the current public option proposal as a way of mitigating the coming pain, and they must be scratching their heads that the public has been frightened into having their freedom amputated without benefit of the anaesthesia of a safety-net program. But hey, if we the public is determined to feel all the pain of this surgery, who are they to deny us?

The real victory here would be to defeat both the public option and the mandatory coverage provisions. But I bet that the supporters of the latter will hold on like grim death.

[Walter E. Wallis]

What we need is a section of general boiler plate akin to the standard forms used in many industries that are adopted by reference, with the actual body in a separate section. Knowing the scope of political minds, that section might encompass a couple hundred words.

[James Anderson Merritt]

Ha ha!

"we the public is determined" definitely expressed my sense of the health care proponents' view of the average voter's intelligence, but that insight was inadvertent...

Of course, I meant to say, "we the public ARE determined..."

[brotherben]

I saw a program the other day(can't remember where, when or who it was) suggesting that with the "OMG socialised medicine" death panels, Stephen Hawking would have been dead decades ago. It apparently escaped their notice that Dr. Hawking is British and has been in the care of the national health service.

[Elemenope]

yes. they can be fired.

Who, exactly, is going to fire them? I see some practical obstacles...

[brotherben]

It was Dr. Rand Paul talking about health care reform. I'm looking for a link.

[Bingo]

I'm not particularly concerned about what happens with the bill because the current health care system is so ridiculous and expensive that the only way to escape it is medical tourism. Nothing that comes from Washington will change the fact that it is much cheaper to get treatment elsewhere (mostly because of the regulations Washington has put in place).

[Tulpa]

Forcing auto insurance on everybody in California didn't really improve the situation of people in California, as far as I can see.

Bullshit. It improves the situation for people who get hit by a driver who would otherwise try to save money and gamble that they won't cause an accident. I don't want to have to squeeze blood from a stone to pay for my medical bills and auto repairs stemming from an accident caused by someone else.

Were the roads privately owned, I'm certain the owner would make sure that the people operating the multi-ton speeding chunks of metal and glass are going to be able to pay the costs of any damage caused by said chunks. The government is acting as a reasonable owner would in this case.

[Tulpa]

I should add that I don't think mandatory health insurance is a good idea. You're only risking your own health by not having insurance, so it's not like auto insurance.

[Elemenope]

I should add that I don't think mandatory health insurance is a good idea. You're only risking your own health by not having insurance, so it's not like auto insurance.

I tend to agree. Mandates in general really blow.

[EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy]

The "big" (read "only, and rather minor") advantage of RTB, would be making it just slightly easier to get people angry when J.Q. Rep III claims that he shouldn't be blamed for something because "he didn't know it was in there".

Why, this should be I don't know. There simply is no excuse whatsoever for exercising the sovereign power on a text you don't understand.

No ever. Not even a little bit. Never any at all.

But for some unfathomable reason people seem inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Which I don't get.

Read The Bill might bring a few of them onto the side of the angles.

[Tulpa]

If they can get away with saying they don't read the bill now, they'll get away with saying they weren't listening to the bill after RTB comes into effect.

[de stijl]

I should add that I don't think mandatory health insurance is a good idea. You're only risking your own health by not having insurance, so it's not like auto insurance.

There is the small issue regarding who is going to be on the hook when you do need medical services and you can't pay.

[Tulpa]

That's not a problem. You just beg or die.

[Elemenope]

That's not a problem. You just beg or die.

This is why, eventually, conservatives are going to lose this argument. It is inevitable.

[de stijl]

I'm sorry, ma'am, the mandatory credit check says we can't let you board the ambulance unless your FICO score is at least 650 or you have liquid assets totalling at least $100,000. Take a poultice, though, they're free. Good luck with the appendix!

[juris imprudent]

Read The Bill might bring a few of them onto the side of the angles.

I think the operators in Congress already have the angles covered.

Was this an RC'z law violation?

[Elemenope]

Was this an RC'z law violation?

Technically, it was perfect conformation to RC'z Law.

[mark]

How about the proposal to have the government provide catastrophic medical insurance, for medical bills greater than $50k in a year? Everyone else could buy insurance to fill the gap, or not. Freedom!

[egoist]

And *they* bitch about the Sup-court writing law from the bench. How could anybody sort out these messes made by these concrete bound primates?

One thing that I think would be nice is a 10:1 rule. Reduce existing laws on the books by 10 pages for every 1 you add.

[JIMV]

I used to live in Maine and was involved in republican city and county politics. When Snowe voted for one of her numerous positions that were not what her base wanted, I talked the City Committee into sending a letter to the good senator advising that her vote was not what we wanted. I next tried to get the larger County committee to do the same. The party leaders rallied and imported every elected official they could find. We had at least twice the normal turnout for a County meeting. When the vote came every elected official voted against the idea. As they advised, the little people had no business in questioning the votes of their betters. Why, those elected officials might be next.

That was the end of my serious participation in party politics in Maine. When the elected folk believe they set the agenda even when it conflicts with the desires of the vast majority of their base, they are too out of control to remain in office.

[Rich Rostrom]

The text of every bill submitted to Congress IS posted online - at the THOMAS website maintained by the Library of Congress (thomas.loc.gov).

The problem with crowdsourcing review of legislation is the sheer volume of material to study. Very few people have the expertise in law and government to do it. And often expertise in the subject area is also required.

The "rational ignorance" principle arises. A citizen could easily expend hundreds of hours in this task without accomplishing anything that would be of significant benefit to him personally.

Then there would have to be some process for reporting and collating the analysis. WIthout such a process public criticism and correction would be crowd noise.

Yet it is very likely that any such process could be "gamed" by determined factions or interest groups.

We would be lucky if the outcome was as good as Wikipedia. (Which has immense value and also great flaws.)

[Hal]

Read the Bills. RTBA (Read the Bills Act): http://www.downsizedc.org/etp/campaigns/27

[24AheadDotCom]

Reading the bill won't matter no matter what because the leaders of the supposed opposition to Obama are incompetent. They're encouraging people to rant and rave and have a tantrum rather than doing something highly effective.

First do something about your incompetent leaders, whether the leadership of the GOP, "consultants", or major bloggers. They're proven failures, and they'll keep on failing until those who are following them choose new leaders.

[Tulpa]

They're encouraging people to rant and rave and have a tantrum rather than doing something highly effective.

If it's so effective, how come you haven't stopped illegal immigration yet?

[Tulpa]

This is why, eventually, conservatives are going to lose this argument. It is inevitable.

"Beg or die" is what we do in regard to food. And shelter. And every other necessity of life -- why not apply it to medical treatment?

And in any case, we're not even talking about people who can't afford health insurance -- such people would still be covered by Medicaid. We're talking about people who could afford health insurance but choose to save some money and play the odds. I'm not going to shed a tear for someone who gets screwed by their own choices.

[Tulpa]

Also, I'm not a conservative. I'm a law-and-order libertarian.

[Aisha 180]

We have already been had by this President. Now maybe you understand why this President pushed the bill so fast, few had a chance to read it. Now we find Ezekiel Emanuel and others of his twisted thinking have 11 Million dollars of it, to advance his perverted thinking on the value life and how in compares to the states goals. This man is the epitome of a bean counter who chooses to pit human worth against financial goals. And we have, it would seem a President of the same caliber. Will not be surprised if further down the road, some other life-demeaning statute is found. Who knows the clunkers for cash might have a hidden clause saying if grannies in the trunk we will give you another $4500. Do not believe most Democrats are of this mindset but the extremists among them are going to attempt to destroy this nation, and they seem just as helpless as the rest of us to stop them.

[Elemenope]

Also, I'm not a conservative. I'm a law-and-order libertarian.

I didn't say you were. But it is a common conservative sentiment, and also happens to be the most damning-sounding soundbyte possible, regardless of how true it is. And when it comes to food and shelter, we emphatically do not as a society treat people in that fashion if we can help it. Food assistance, welfare, project housing, and so forth, for just a few examples. And even if we currently did, the comparable sentiment being vocalized in that manner often would quickly change it. Very few people relish being "that guy".

Nor, by the way, did I say that the inevitability of the loss was a good thing. Only inevitable.

I didn't say I liked the

[prolefeed]

Nor, by the way, did I say that the inevitability of the loss was a good thing. Only inevitable.

You saying something is inevitable doesn't make it so. Are you basing this assertion of inevitability on the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994 after Clinton pushed this rubbish?

Or on the Democrats in Congress backing off on this overreach once again, as they realize once again that the voters aren't on their side?

Your thesis is, every time it's been tried, it failed miserably, so of course it's inevitable?

[Trooper Jones]

"While I don't think it is a possibility to worry about with today's military, the fact that their oaths are the only thing standing between them and a military dictatorship should be cause for sober reflection."

Go to hell then. If you think we're a danger now because a guy you don't like is the President - and you will recall that you were all for us when you were wetting your pants over the massive IraqialQaedaTalibanIslamosfascist invasion fleet - you can go get fucked. We are the soldiers of the Army of the Republic and we will uphold our duty to protect and defend the Constitution. We are not sunshine fucking patriots like your ilk.

[Army of Davids]

Chris Dodd resign Now.

Hey Chris...what happened at OTS?

GET OUT NOW CHRIS...We're tired of the corruption.

[Elemenope]

Your thesis is, every time it's been tried, it failed miserably, so of course it's inevitable?

No.

1. Governments only grow. (Kind of an article of faith around here)
2. Growing governments tend to sustain their taxation by making their people happy by buying them off using the money they've taken.
3. Health care is next.
4. Every other country with a comparable economy has already done it.
5. The opposition party is weak and, apparently, suicidal.

You put it together.

[hmm]

I see the same problems with a standing army the founders did. That said, I think the level of a professional non-conscripted military the US has reached pretty much negates the fears echoed early on. There have been few instances of blatant, and outright, military infringement of the Constitution.(Even in the Civil War a large section officers side for upholding the Constitution rather than fight for the North, that's hand grenade) There have been infringements against citizens though, even in the recent past. All things equal I fear my local officer or drug task fore more than my military. (That goes for grunts and officers.)

The attempted move of equipment from professional soldiers to the local cop via the drug war is a nightmare. (but we all know that)

[hmm]

5. The opposition party is weak and, apparently, suicidal.

The problem is it's not a party issue. At least from the stand point of us v. them. The us are currently their own problem.

[Kev]

No bill passed by Congress shall take up more than both sides of an 8 1/2 x 11 inch sheet of paper, with single-spaced 12-point font. If you are overriding a veto, it shall be double-spaced.

That's a great idea. So is this:

If you told Congress each bill had to be worked on from 9-5 in a single closed room, with no notes other than minutes. You would see one page bills.

Now, how do we get this implemented? Congress won't likely do this willingly, after all....

[Elemenope]

The problem is it's not a party issue. At least from the stand point of us v. them. The us are currently their own problem.

As far as I can tell, that's the only reason the thing is not fait accompli. But, the feel of the thing is shifting nevertheless; people are more desperate, insurance companies more hated, and so forth.

The (relatively) sudden change in gestalt is much like the seismic shift in the gay rights arguments from the early '90s till now, and around the same time-frame. Something nearly imperceptible changed, and all of a sudden things that could not be reasonably contemplated by a few years before became basically a done deal.

[John McCain]

Now, how do we get this implemented? Congress won't likely do this willingly, after all....

I have a pen, I'm not afraid to put it right back into my pocket.

[hmm]

Just today Conrad said the public option was dead in the senate.

Co-op is the new word. The word. The bird is the word.

[Art-P.O.G.]

From the article down through the thread, I think there are a lot of good ideas in this thread about possible changes to the legislative process. I especially like Tulpa's pimping of the sunset clause idea.

and you will recall that you were all for us when you were wetting your pants over the massive IraqialQaedaTalibanIslamosfascist invasion fleet

Trooper Jones, I agree with the spirit of your post, but the people on this board are not neocons*.

*I know, the term is an abomination.

[Fluffy]

I'm sorry, ma'am, the mandatory credit check says we can't let you board the ambulance unless your FICO score is at least 650 or you have liquid assets totalling at least $100,000. Take a poultice, though, they're free. Good luck with the appendix!

You're aware, I hope, that prior to the Reagan administration there was no legal requirement that a hospital accept a patient who could not demonstrate that they could pay - even at an emergency room? That our current system forcing hospitals to bear the cost of people who walk in for treatment with no insurance has a vintage of no earlier than the 80's?

Is it your claim that, because of this, during the Carter administration EMT's were performing credit checks on patients? Or that tens of millions of citizens lay dying on the lawns of our hospitals, with burst appendices and no insurance?

[Craig]

If we really want to be free, we won't just require Congress critters to read the bills, we'll abolish Congress.

[bubba]

This is a bad example.

The change is from AA, BB, CC, DD and EE to

AA, BB, CC, DD, EE and FF ...

And then they spell out FF.

[DADIODADDY]

Why are congresstards exempt from the whole reading/writing/reading comprehension thing. We should test them yearly, anyone scoring less than 70% on the standardized congress person reading comprehension test (we could use the Obmamcare legislation this year or any of the defense appropraition bills or an omibus spending act)goes on congressional probation with a 3 month window to retake the test and improve their score or their out.