" wrote in
:

On 25 Aug 2012 19:04:49 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
m:

On 25 Aug 2012 17:51:30 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
m:

On 25 Aug 2012 11:59:20 GMT, Han wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in
news:X7CdnfOhNtIPLqXNnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@earthl ink.com:

Just Wondering wrote:
And the aide who writes the bill understands its provisions.
The congressman will have the bill explained to him by the
aide ("It's good").

It's NOT all good. You're giving your explanation of the way
things are. I'm saying that the way things are are wrong and
should be changed. I never voted for a congressional aide. My
congressman is supposed to represent ME, not some aide and
certainly not some special-interest group that asks him to
sponsor a bill he can't understand. If I was there myself, I
would need to know what a bill said before I could vote Yea or
Nay on it. My elected representative should be no less
diligent.

Obviously things don't work the way you suggest they should. And
for good reason: they CAN'T work the way you suggest they
should. But you don't have to take my word for it.

Go he
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-1.../BILLS-111hr35
90 en r. pdf

It's the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Tell us what it means. Take as much space - and time - as you
need.

I agree with you on this point - a "normal" human being can't
fully understand this, and we need experts to write and explain
it. Sometimes the problem is simply that it is so dang complicated
to (try to) avoid unintended consequences because of the
complexity of the whole thing.

As you all know, I am in favor of the gist of the law. I'm
surethere is nitty gritty that could, should, will be modified.

An explanation isn't good enough, Han. In order to comply with a
law we need to understand *it*, not some congresscritter's opinion
of what's in it. If it can be faithfully be put into
understandable language, why wasn't it? The only obvious answer
is that it was obfuscation.

Well, Keith, I must adamit that I never tried to really read a bill,
IIRC. The legalistic complexities just make my eyelids close. I
have heard a lot about the unintended consequences in even the
simplest bills. So I really have to rely on the explanations of
experts. Especially something as technical and complex as the ACA.

Perhaps there shouldn't be 2700 page bills? ...and that doesn't
even touch the problem. It references perhaps another hundred
thousand pages. Obfuscation or "We have to pass the bill to see
what's in it". You do like that, though.

As a matter of fact, Keith, I don't like it. I would like to have
bills of 1 page. Something like. Congress agrees that everyone
should have health insurance. Everyone should pay to spread the
risks. Price should be 10% (whatever) higher than cheapest policy in
effect before this date covering the risks as set forth in Appendix A.
Conscientious objectors to the birth control coverage requirements
will not have to pay for that coverage as it will be born by the
insurance companies. No reduction in premium for the absence of this
feature.

Great. You leave the implementation details to bureaucrats. What
about your bums who can't pay for the coverage?

Yes, I would leave technical details to those who do that kind of thing.
And they better do it right, because patronage jobs have no protection
against firing. I didn't address the bums, as you call them. I believe
the real laws do address that. People without sufficient wages would pay
less than some others. Just likein real life.

Hell, why don't you do the same to wipe out poverty and end war? With
that platform, you could even enter a beauty pageant.

Well, thanks for the compliment. If your newsreader can show Xfaces, you
know how pretty I am.

All legalistic details will be set forth in Appendix B.

The devil is *always* in the details.

Of course.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid