Han wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Just Wondering wrote:
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but are you proposing a
bill must fail, no matter how good it is, if a legislator can't
understand it? Or are you just complaining of the ACA?


If a legislator can't understand it, he can't know if it it a good
bill or not. In a case like that, he votes on a pig in a poke. And
no, it's not just the ACA, it's the massively bloated tax code, the
obtuse environmental protection laws, and on and on. And it's not
enough to say the legislator can and should rely on staff or
so-called experts to tell him what he's voting on. They may not
understand the legal ramifications themselves, or may have an agenda
of their own that colors their explanation, or may have no ideal
about unintended consequences. Their explanations of a complex law
will necessarily be so incomplete that the legislator may come away
thinking he understands what he is voting for when he is really
clueless after all. And if the legislator must hire an expert to
understand it, that means everyone affected by it must hire their
own expert. In a nation the size of the USA, the result is
millions of wasted hours and billions of wasted dollars. The
solution is to keep a bill brief and clear enough that any person
who must comply with it can read it and understand what he must do
to comply without spending thousands on an expert.

Very few, very, very few, people are affected by laws in the United
States Code.

Millions upon millions more are affected by regulations established
by various agencies and departments. These regulations are never
seen or voted upon by legislators.

I'd assume that if anyone has a problem with a regulation, he'd check
(pun intended) with his friendly neighborhood constitutional lawyer.
After all, we are the most litiginous (sp?) nation in the world.

Yep. And sometimes that works. Just this past week, Texas won a suit against
the EPA on downwind pollution regulations. The EPA issued regulations
clearly outside their area of competence/ The US Court for the District of
Columbia vacated the regulations and told the EPA to go pound sand.

"HeyBub" wrote in
:

Birth control may be economically better for the insurance companies
than unplanned pregnancies, but the fundamental teaching of the Church
is that no good can come from an immoral act. In the view of the
Church, the government is forcing it to perform an immoral act, and
that it will not do.

We already discussed that. No skin off the church's conscience, they
just have to stipulate that they don't pay for it, but that it is
included in the package. Schizophrenic, but religious laws are almost by
definition not logical.

And please be careful for what you wish for. If we let religion dictate
what can or cannot be done, we'll have to give equal time to all
religions, since we cannot discriminate. We aren't letting store hours
be dictated by Jewish law (my area is 50% Jewish), but if the kosher
store isn't open on Saturdays, that's fine with all around here. It
would then also include permitting Islamic "honor" killings, as is common
among some of the savages (my opinion peeking through). The liberal,
ultrapermissive Dutch did not really prosecute those crimes much, but
even they have come back from that.

Let's go with the (civil) law, please. Any individual can act like he or
she may damn well please, whether or not that agrees with religious law,
as long as it conforms to civil law. And regarding morality, I
personally think it is immoral that catholics cannot avail themselves of
ALL medical technology if they want to fully follow catholic teachings.
So the difference is that I will leave it up to the individual to decide,
not up to government to take the place of a religious official dictating
civil law.

Btw, I would have much more respect for catholic doctrine if the church
would come into the 19th century and permit marriage of priests, and
birth control.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"HeyBub" wrote in
:

Han wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Just Wondering wrote:
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but are you proposing a
bill must fail, no matter how good it is, if a legislator can't
understand it? Or are you just complaining of the ACA?


If a legislator can't understand it, he can't know if it it a good
bill or not. In a case like that, he votes on a pig in a poke.
And no, it's not just the ACA, it's the massively bloated tax code,
the obtuse environmental protection laws, and on and on. And it's
not enough to say the legislator can and should rely on staff or
so-called experts to tell him what he's voting on. They may not
understand the legal ramifications themselves, or may have an
agenda of their own that colors their explanation, or may have no
ideal about unintended consequences. Their explanations of a
complex law will necessarily be so incomplete that the legislator
may come away thinking he understands what he is voting for when he
is really clueless after all. And if the legislator must hire an
expert to understand it, that means everyone affected by it must
hire their own expert. In a nation the size of the USA, the result
is millions of wasted hours and billions of wasted dollars. The
solution is to keep a bill brief and clear enough that any person
who must comply with it can read it and understand what he must do
to comply without spending thousands on an expert.

Very few, very, very few, people are affected by laws in the United
States Code.

Millions upon millions more are affected by regulations established
by various agencies and departments. These regulations are never
seen or voted upon by legislators.

I'd assume that if anyone has a problem with a regulation, he'd check
(pun intended) with his friendly neighborhood constitutional lawyer.
After all, we are the most litiginous (sp?) nation in the world.

Yep. And sometimes that works. Just this past week, Texas won a suit
against the EPA on downwind pollution regulations. The EPA issued
regulations clearly outside their area of competence/ The US Court for
the District of Columbia vacated the regulations and told the EPA to
go pound sand.

Yes, sometimes law takes precedence over common sense. We discussed that
elsewhere - as long as your pollution goes to the next state, that state
can't do a thing about it. If it is indeed the law, it's antediluvial.
The Swiss, French and Germans used the Rhine as a sewer, not just for
human waste, but also industrial chemical waste. It's a lot better than
it was decades ago, but the salmon hasn't returned yet, as far as I know.
So now more advertisements of domestic help for hire specifying no more
than 3x/week salmon to be served to them.


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 8/26/2012 7:52 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:
That's not a valid comparison. If Congress passes a law that affects
me, I have to comply with the "nitty gritty," and am subject to
penalties if I do not. I cannot comply with that which I do not
understand. If I can understand the law, so can, and should, my
congressman. If he can't understand the "nitty gritty," I should not
be required to understand or obey it, and so it should not be law.
No, Pelosi was right when she said "we have to pass this bill to find out
what's in it."

That was about the stupidest thing a legislator has ever said, and you
approve of it? Well, that explains a lot.
The Affordable Care Act contains very few (relatively) things we would call
"laws." Over and over again you see the phrase "The Secretary (director,
administrator, etc.) shall develop regulations (standards, departements,
offices, etc.) to (do something)."

What do you think a law is, anyway? Your example of a "non-law" is in
fact a law. It is a law that delegates the legislative power to the
head of an administrative agency.

Virtually no one, at the time of passage, had any comprehensive inkling of
what all the future regulations, requirements, standards, and so forth would
be.

Now you're changing the subject. The question is not what a future
regulation might say, it's what a bill sitting on a Congressman's desk
already says. And BTW, proposed regulations are published in the
Federal Register before adoption. Anyone is free to submit formal
comments, including comments on whether or not the proposed regulation
is good or bad or even understandable. The whole process of adopting a
regulation is completely different from the process of enacting a law.

For example, I'd wager nobody had a glimmer of the regulation requiring
Catholic organizations would be compelled to provide contraceptive and
abortion coverage. Had that requirement been ANYWHERE in the 2500 pages, the
bill would not have passed.

Are you really that naive?

On 8/26/2012 7:55 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but are you proposing a
bill must fail, no matter how good it is, if a legislator can't
understand it? Or are you just complaining of the ACA?


If a legislator can't understand it, he can't know if it it a good
bill or not. In a case like that, he votes on a pig in a poke. And
no, it's not just the ACA, it's the massively bloated tax code, the
obtuse environmental protection laws, and on and on. And it's not
enough to say the legislator can and should rely on staff or
so-called experts to tell him what he's voting on. They may not
understand the legal ramifications themselves, or may have an agenda
of their own that colors their explanation, or may have no ideal
about unintended consequences. Their explanations of a complex law
will necessarily be so incomplete that the legislator may come away
thinking he understands what he is voting for when he is really
clueless after all. And if the legislator must hire an expert to
understand it, that means everyone affected by it must hire their own
expert. In a nation the size of the USA, the result is millions of
wasted hours and billions of wasted dollars. The solution is to keep
a bill brief and clear enough that any person who must comply with it
can read it and understand what he must do to comply without spending
thousands on an expert.
Very few, very, very few, people are affected by laws in the United States
Code.

Millions upon millions more are affected by regulations established by
various agencies and departments. These regulations are never seen or voted
upon by legislators.


You say that like you think it's a good thing. There is no federal
regulation that is not the result of federal legislation, and every
regulation is a "law" for enforcement purposes. You basic premise
appears to be that the current system is fine and dandy. If so, you are
in a distinct minority.

Every person who has a social security number, attends a private school,
pays income taxes, uses a bank, buys stock in public corporations, has
an IRA, posts anything on the internet (think copyright), drives on the
interstate highway system, uses electricity and clean water, is an
employee of any but the smallest business, is directly affected by laws
in the U.S. Code. You probably cannot go a month without violating some
federal law. The only reason you aren't caught and punished is that
there are so many laws and so few enforcement personnel that it would be
impractical to pursue every violation.

On 8/27/2012 5:05 AM, HeyBub wrote:
Han wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Just Wondering wrote:
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but are you proposing a
bill must fail, no matter how good it is, if a legislator can't
understand it? Or are you just complaining of the ACA?


If a legislator can't understand it, he can't know if it it a good
bill or not. In a case like that, he votes on a pig in a poke. And
no, it's not just the ACA, it's the massively bloated tax code, the
obtuse environmental protection laws, and on and on. And it's not
enough to say the legislator can and should rely on staff or
so-called experts to tell him what he's voting on. They may not
understand the legal ramifications themselves, or may have an agenda
of their own that colors their explanation, or may have no ideal
about unintended consequences. Their explanations of a complex law
will necessarily be so incomplete that the legislator may come away
thinking he understands what he is voting for when he is really
clueless after all. And if the legislator must hire an expert to
understand it, that means everyone affected by it must hire their
own expert. In a nation the size of the USA, the result is
millions of wasted hours and billions of wasted dollars. The
solution is to keep a bill brief and clear enough that any person
who must comply with it can read it and understand what he must do
to comply without spending thousands on an expert.
Very few, very, very few, people are affected by laws in the United
States Code.

Millions upon millions more are affected by regulations established
by various agencies and departments. These regulations are never
seen or voted upon by legislators.
I'd assume that if anyone has a problem with a regulation, he'd check
(pun intended) with his friendly neighborhood constitutional lawyer.
After all, we are the most litiginous (sp?) nation in the world.
Yep. And sometimes that works. Just this past week, Texas won a suit against
the EPA on downwind pollution regulations. The EPA issued regulations
clearly outside their area of competence/ The US Court for the District of
Columbia vacated the regulations and told the EPA to go pound sand.

At what financial cost to the Plaintiff? Is that something you could
afford to do? More likely, you'd just have to knuckle under to the
regulation.

Han wrote:

Btw, I would have much more respect for catholic doctrine if the
church would come into the 19th century and permit marriage of
priests, and birth control.

Priests used to be married, even Popes. The ban on marriage came about
because those in the hierarchy were showing favoritism to their spouses and
children.

You may be interested to know that there ARE married priests within the
Roman Catholic fold. Married Episcopalian priests who convert to RC are not
required to divorce their wives.

On 8/27/2012 2:03 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Han wrote:

Btw, I would have much more respect for catholic doctrine if the
church would come into the 19th century and permit marriage of
priests, and birth control.

Priests used to be married, even Popes. The ban on marriage came about
because those in the hierarchy were showing favoritism to their spouses and
children.

You may be interested to know that there ARE married priests within the
Roman Catholic fold. Married Episcopalian priests who convert to RC are not
required to divorce their wives.




well, that and inheritance laws would have sucked too much $ out of the
religion.

"HeyBub" wrote in
:

Han wrote:

Btw, I would have much more respect for catholic doctrine if the
church would come into the 19th century and permit marriage of
priests, and birth control.

Priests used to be married, even Popes. The ban on marriage came about
because those in the hierarchy were showing favoritism to their
spouses and children.

You may be interested to know that there ARE married priests within
the Roman Catholic fold. Married Episcopalian priests who convert to
RC are not required to divorce their wives.

Yes, I know both those points. Even more reason not to discriminate
against the home folk grin.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Just Wondering wrote in
:

On 8/27/2012 5:05 AM, HeyBub wrote:
Han wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Just Wondering wrote:
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but are you proposing a
bill must fail, no matter how good it is, if a legislator can't
understand it? Or are you just complaining of the ACA?


If a legislator can't understand it, he can't know if it it a good
bill or not. In a case like that, he votes on a pig in a poke.
And no, it's not just the ACA, it's the massively bloated tax
code, the obtuse environmental protection laws, and on and on.
And it's not enough to say the legislator can and should rely on
staff or so-called experts to tell him what he's voting on. They
may not understand the legal ramifications themselves, or may have
an agenda of their own that colors their explanation, or may have
no ideal about unintended consequences. Their explanations of a
complex law will necessarily be so incomplete that the legislator
may come away thinking he understands what he is voting for when
he is really clueless after all. And if the legislator must hire
an expert to understand it, that means everyone affected by it
must hire their own expert. In a nation the size of the USA, the
result is millions of wasted hours and billions of wasted dollars.
The solution is to keep a bill brief and clear enough that any
person who must comply with it can read it and understand what he
must do to comply without spending thousands on an expert.
Very few, very, very few, people are affected by laws in the United
States Code.

Millions upon millions more are affected by regulations established
by various agencies and departments. These regulations are never
seen or voted upon by legislators.
I'd assume that if anyone has a problem with a regulation, he'd
check (pun intended) with his friendly neighborhood constitutional
lawyer. After all, we are the most litiginous (sp?) nation in the
world.
Yep. And sometimes that works. Just this past week, Texas won a suit
against the EPA on downwind pollution regulations. The EPA issued
regulations clearly outside their area of competence/ The US Court
for the District of Columbia vacated the regulations and told the EPA
to go pound sand.

At what financial cost to the Plaintiff? Is that something you could
afford to do? More likely, you'd just have to knuckle under to the
regulation.

That is the system, and sometimes it results in terrible decisions. Just
recently I was made aware of the ending of a suit about liability.
Someone claimed to have been hurt by falling on ice on a public walkway
that is to some extent maintained by a not-for-profit corporation. The
lawyer for the insurance company of the corporation told the corporation
that it was better to settle the suit, rather than litigate any further,
and the judge here in Bergen County, NJ very much encouraged settling.
That leaves some aspects of this occurrence without legal resolution, or
with a resolution that is detrimental to my feeling of what's right. BUt
the insurance company apparently is making the decision.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Aug 26, 9:27*pm, Just Wondering wrote:
On 8/25/2012 8:44 PM, HeyBub wrote: Just Wondering wrote:
Tell us what it means. Take as much space - and time - as you need.

I can't. *You can't. *Your federal Representative and Senators can't.
Nobody can. *That's exactly my point. *Something like that should not
be made into law. *Every congressperson whose desk that monstrosity
came to should have said, "I can't understand this, therefore I won't
vote for it."
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but are you proposing a bill must
fail, no matter how good it is, if a legislator can't understand it? Or are
you just complaining of the ACA?

If a legislator can't understand it, he can't know if it it a good bill
or not. *In a case like that, he votes on a pig in a poke. *And no, it's
not just the ACA, it's the massively bloated tax code, the obtuse
environmental protection laws, and on and on.


Just wondering, if you know how to read English? I rather doubt it.
Twenty percent of the population does NOT realize how dumb and
uneducated they truly are.

Just wondering, if you can read without getting bored?

Just wondering, if you can read fast with excellent comprehension?

Just wondering, if you are truly the total idiot that you pretend to
be?

On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 04:02:17 -0700 (PDT), "John H. Gohde"
wrote:

On Aug 26, 9:27*pm, Just Wondering wrote:
On 8/25/2012 8:44 PM, HeyBub wrote: Just Wondering wrote:
Tell us what it means. Take as much space - and time - as you need.

I can't. *You can't. *Your federal Representative and Senators can't.
Nobody can. *That's exactly my point. *Something like that should not
be made into law. *Every congressperson whose desk that monstrosity
came to should have said, "I can't understand this, therefore I won't
vote for it."
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but are you proposing a bill must
fail, no matter how good it is, if a legislator can't understand it? Or are
you just complaining of the ACA?

If a legislator can't understand it, he can't know if it it a good bill
or not. *In a case like that, he votes on a pig in a poke. *And no, it's
not just the ACA, it's the massively bloated tax code, the obtuse
environmental protection laws, and on and on.


Just wondering, if you know how to read English? I rather doubt it.
Twenty percent of the population does NOT realize how dumb and
uneducated they truly are.

Just wondering, if you can read without getting bored?

Just wondering, if you can read fast with excellent comprehension?

Just wondering, if you are truly the total idiot that you pretend to
be?

Just wondering what kind of Troll you are John.

On 8/28/2012 5:02 AM, John H. Gohde wrote:
On Aug 26, 9:27 pm, Just Wondering wrote:
On 8/25/2012 8:44 PM, HeyBub wrote: Just Wondering wrote:
Tell us what it means. Take as much space - and time - as you need.
I can't. You can't. Your federal Representative and Senators can't.
Nobody can. That's exactly my point. Something like that should not
be made into law. Every congressperson whose desk that monstrosity
came to should have said, "I can't understand this, therefore I won't
vote for it."
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but are you proposing a bill must
fail, no matter how good it is, if a legislator can't understand it? Or are
you just complaining of the ACA?
If a legislator can't understand it, he can't know if it it a good bill
or not. In a case like that, he votes on a pig in a poke. And no, it's
not just the ACA, it's the massively bloated tax code, the obtuse
environmental protection laws, and on and on.

Just wondering, if you know how to read English? I rather doubt it.
Twenty percent of the population does NOT realize how dumb and
uneducated they truly are.

Just wondering, if you can read without getting bored?

Just wondering, if you can read fast with excellent comprehension?

Just wondering, if you are truly the total idiot that you pretend to
be?
When you stop discussing the merits and resort to ad hominem personal
attacks, the usual reason is that you've run out of anything meaningful
to say.

in 1536796 20120828 120217 "John H. Gohde" wrote:
On Aug 26, 9:27=A0pm, Just Wondering wrote:
On 8/25/2012 8:44 PM, HeyBub wrote: Just Wondering wrote:
Tell us what it means. Take as much space - and time - as you need.

I can't. =A0You can't. =A0Your federal Representative and Senators can=
't.
Nobody can. =A0That's exactly my point. =A0Something like that should =
not
be made into law. =A0Every congressperson whose desk that monstrosity
came to should have said, "I can't understand this, therefore I won't
vote for it."
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but are you proposing a bill m=
ust
fail, no matter how good it is, if a legislator can't understand it? Or=
are
you just complaining of the ACA?

If a legislator can't understand it, he can't know if it it a good bill
or not. =A0In a case like that, he votes on a pig in a poke. =A0And no, i=
t's
not just the ACA, it's the massively bloated tax code, the obtuse
environmental protection laws, and on and on.


Just wondering, if you know how to read English? I rather doubt it.
Twenty percent of the population does NOT realize how dumb and
uneducated they truly are.

"Twenty percent of the population" is singular??

On Aug 28, 3:46*pm, Just Wondering wrote:
On 8/28/2012 5:02 AM, John H. Gohde wrote:







On Aug 26, 9:27 pm, Just Wondering wrote:
On 8/25/2012 8:44 PM, HeyBub wrote: Just Wondering wrote:
Tell us what it means. Take as much space - and time - as you need.
I can't. *You can't. *Your federal Representative and Senators can't.
Nobody can. *That's exactly my point. *Something like that should not
be made into law. *Every congressperson whose desk that monstrosity
came to should have said, "I can't understand this, therefore I won't
vote for it."
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but are you proposing a bill must
fail, no matter how good it is, if a legislator can't understand it? Or are
you just complaining of the ACA?
If a legislator can't understand it, he can't know if it it a good bill
or not. *In a case like that, he votes on a pig in a poke. *And no, it's
not just the ACA, it's the massively bloated tax code, the obtuse
environmental protection laws, and on and on.

Just wondering, if you know how to read English? *I rather doubt it.
Twenty percent of the population does NOT realize how dumb and
uneducated they truly are.

Just wondering, if you can read without getting bored?

Just wondering, if you can read fast with excellent comprehension?

Just wondering, if you are truly the total idiot that you pretend to
be?

When you stop discussing the merits and resort to ad hominem personal
attacks, the usual reason is that you've run out of anything meaningful
to say.


Thanks for fessing up about NOT being able to read.

Your puny aging brain has my condolences.

On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 03:59:05 -0700 (PDT), "John H. Gohde"
wrote:

On Aug 28, 3:46*pm, Just Wondering wrote:
On 8/28/2012 5:02 AM, John H. Gohde wrote:







On Aug 26, 9:27 pm, Just Wondering wrote:
On 8/25/2012 8:44 PM, HeyBub wrote: Just Wondering wrote:
Tell us what it means. Take as much space - and time - as you need.
I can't. *You can't. *Your federal Representative and Senators can't.
Nobody can. *That's exactly my point. *Something like that should not
be made into law. *Every congressperson whose desk that monstrosity
came to should have said, "I can't understand this, therefore I won't
vote for it."
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but are you proposing a bill must
fail, no matter how good it is, if a legislator can't understand it? Or are
you just complaining of the ACA?
If a legislator can't understand it, he can't know if it it a good bill
or not. *In a case like that, he votes on a pig in a poke. *And no, it's
not just the ACA, it's the massively bloated tax code, the obtuse
environmental protection laws, and on and on.

Just wondering, if you know how to read English? *I rather doubt it.
Twenty percent of the population does NOT realize how dumb and
uneducated they truly are.

Just wondering, if you can read without getting bored?

Just wondering, if you can read fast with excellent comprehension?

Just wondering, if you are truly the total idiot that you pretend to
be?

When you stop discussing the merits and resort to ad hominem personal
attacks, the usual reason is that you've run out of anything meaningful
to say.


Thanks for fessing up about NOT being able to read.

Your puny aging brain has my condolences.

Ah another reason to filter out google groups

On 8/23/2012 3:34 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article ,
says...

Just Wondering wrote:

Your Senator was supposed to be the expert. That's what he was
elected for and was paid the big bucks for. You're basically saying
that your Senator, and perhaps all of them, surrendered non-delegable
duties to staff, and that it is an unelected nameless bureaucratic
staff who controls what bills are made into law. If that's true, we
need a couple of hundred impeachment proceedings.

"I don't rule Russia; ten thousand clerks rule Russia" - Peter the Great.

It has always been thus.

Well, one thing I will say is that you're giving us a clear
demonstration of the reason that the problem won't get fixed without
watering the tree.

Exactly wrong, unless you water the tree with tainted water. The tree
is WAY too big and needs chopped a great deal so it is more in
compliance with the intent of the founding fathers.

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong
enough to take everything you have".
- Thomas Jefferson

--
Jack
Right Wing Extremist: Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Madison, ME!
http://jbstein.com

On 8/25/2012 7:18 AM, HeyBub wrote:

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...1hr3590enr.pdf

It's the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

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

It means gov't shouldn't be involved with this crap in a free market
society, particularly the one handed to us by the founding fathers, and
one that had worked quite well, proven by all the folks sneaking in
rather than sneaking out.

--
Jack
Right Wing Extremist: Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Madison, ME!
http://jbstein.com

On 8/25/2012 11:26 AM, Just Wondering wrote:

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

I can't. You can't. Your federal Representative and Senators can't.
Nobody can. That's exactly my point. Something like that should not be
made into law. Every congressperson whose desk that monstrosity came to
should have said, "I can't understand this, therefore I won't vote for it."

My rep should have asked his aide what is this bill, the aide should
have said it moves health care from the private sector to the gov't
sector, and my rep should have immediately set fire to it.

--
Jack
If You Think Health Care is Expensive now, Wait Until it's FREE!
http://jbstein.com