Tim Daneliuk wrote:
On 08/20/2012 10:20 AM, Han wrote:
What are the "rules" on that, Heybub? Or are there no rules with
respect to irrelevant addenda?

The rules are that the elites on both sides of the aisle think they
are better and smarter than we are and they THEY should run things.
They purposely use obfuscatory language and legal fine points to keep
the people in the dark as much as possible. HeyBub's contention may
be true today but it's absurd. There is no reason whatsoever that
the CongressCritters should not be required to read every bill,
understand it, and thereby vote in an informed way. If nothing else,
it would slow down the explosion of new legislation, the majority of which
is
either outside the enumerated power of the Federal government or
altogether unnecessary.

I don't think trying to hide something is common or even exists. There are
too many "interested parties" that pour over every particular.

A congressman understand every bill? Impossible. Most bills are written by,
or at least have tremendous input by, lobbyists. It is not reasonable to
expect a congressman from Floating Stick, Utah to understand all the
ramifications of a bill attempting to regulate import tariffs on
hydrogenated yak fat, let alone one on the riparian rights of coal slurry.
The people proposing these bills, lobbyists, have their entire lives
invested in the topic and are often backed up by, literally, hundreds of
experts who are likewise experienced.

I am, however, with you on slowing down - or eliminating - as much
legislation as possible.

In article ,
says...

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
On 08/20/2012 10:20 AM, Han wrote:
What are the "rules" on that, Heybub? Or are there no rules with
respect to irrelevant addenda?

The rules are that the elites on both sides of the aisle think they
are better and smarter than we are and they THEY should run things.
They purposely use obfuscatory language and legal fine points to keep
the people in the dark as much as possible. HeyBub's contention may
be true today but it's absurd. There is no reason whatsoever that
the CongressCritters should not be required to read every bill,
understand it, and thereby vote in an informed way. If nothing else,
it would slow down the explosion of new legislation, the majority of which
is
either outside the enumerated power of the Federal government or
altogether unnecessary.

I don't think trying to hide something is common or even exists. There are
too many "interested parties" that pour over every particular.

A congressman understand every bill? Impossible. Most bills are written by,
or at least have tremendous input by, lobbyists. It is not reasonable to
expect a congressman from Floating Stick, Utah to understand all the
ramifications of a bill attempting to regulate import tariffs on
hydrogenated yak fat, let alone one on the riparian rights of coal slurry.
The people proposing these bills, lobbyists, have their entire lives
invested in the topic and are often backed up by, literally, hundreds of
experts who are likewise experienced.

I am, however, with you on slowing down - or eliminating - as much
legislation as possible.

Any bill which cannot be understood by a majority of the legislature
should simply not be passed.

"J. Clarke" wrote in
in.local:

In article ,
says...

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
On 08/20/2012 10:20 AM, Han wrote:
What are the "rules" on that, Heybub? Or are there no rules with
respect to irrelevant addenda?

The rules are that the elites on both sides of the aisle think they
are better and smarter than we are and they THEY should run things.
They purposely use obfuscatory language and legal fine points to
keep the people in the dark as much as possible. HeyBub's
contention may be true today but it's absurd. There is no reason
whatsoever that the CongressCritters should not be required to read
every bill, understand it, and thereby vote in an informed way. If
nothing else, it would slow down the explosion of new legislation,
the majority of which is
either outside the enumerated power of the Federal government or
altogether unnecessary.

I don't think trying to hide something is common or even exists.
There are too many "interested parties" that pour over every
particular.

A congressman understand every bill? Impossible. Most bills are
written by, or at least have tremendous input by, lobbyists. It is
not reasonable to expect a congressman from Floating Stick, Utah to
understand all the ramifications of a bill attempting to regulate
import tariffs on hydrogenated yak fat, let alone one on the riparian
rights of coal slurry. The people proposing these bills, lobbyists,
have their entire lives invested in the topic and are often backed up
by, literally, hundreds of experts who are likewise experienced.

I am, however, with you on slowing down - or eliminating - as much
legislation as possible.

Any bill which cannot be understood by a majority of the legislature
should simply not be passed.

I'm disappointed in you guys. Most of you are in favor of the strictest
possible interpretation of the Constitution, but here and now most of you
say, leave it to the "experts" - lobbyists mostly.

I can see that the nitty gritty of legislation be written by real nitty
gritty experts. But the legislaTORS not the lobbyists, should at least
tightly circumscribe the intent of a piece of legislation. The bill on
hydrogenated yak fat should not be affected by the riparian rights of
coal slurry.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Han wrote:

The bill on hydrogenated yak fat should not be affected by the
riparian rights of coal slurry.

Efficiency.

"HeyBub" wrote in news:LvudnU-rqZU-
:

Han wrote:

The bill on hydrogenated yak fat should not be affected by the
riparian rights of coal slurry.

Efficiency.

Or expediency? If the HYF bill can't get enough support, throw a bone to
the RRCS supporters ...

That may indeed be part and parcel of "compromise", of which I am a
supporter, but sometimes that becomes giving in, or up.

Yes, it is politics, dirty by nature, and indispensable ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 08/21/2012 08:43 AM, HeyBub wrote:
Han wrote:

The bill on hydrogenated yak fat should not be affected by the
riparian rights of coal slurry.

Efficiency.



Which is the last thing you want from government. Efficient governments
typically end up being despotic.

I favor a somewhat different approach. We need a Constitutional
amendment. Instead of the two part legislature modeled after the
English houses of Lords and Commons we have today, we need a
bicameral legislature in which one house passes laws with a required
75% majority, and one house repeals laws with a simple majority.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk

On 8/21/2012 4:30 AM, HeyBub wrote:
A congressman understand every bill? Impossible. Most bills are written by,
or at least have tremendous input by, lobbyists. It is not reasonable to
expect a congressman from Floating Stick, Utah to understand all the
ramifications of a bill attempting to regulate import tariffs on
hydrogenated yak fat, let alone one on the riparian rights of coal slurry.
The people proposing these bills, lobbyists, have their entire lives
invested in the topic and are often backed up by, literally, hundreds of
experts who are likewise experienced.


That's not a fact, it's just your opinion, one with which reasonable
people can and do disagree. Any legislator who does not understand what
he is voting on should not vote in favor of it. If an issue is so
complex that a legislator cannot be expected to understand, he should
not make it a law.

Just Wondering wrote:
On 8/21/2012 4:30 AM, HeyBub wrote:
A congressman understand every bill? Impossible. Most bills are
written by, or at least have tremendous input by, lobbyists. It is
not reasonable to expect a congressman from Floating Stick, Utah to
understand all the ramifications of a bill attempting to regulate
import tariffs on hydrogenated yak fat, let alone one on the
riparian rights of coal slurry. The people proposing these bills,
lobbyists, have their entire lives invested in the topic and are
often backed up by, literally, hundreds of experts who are likewise
experienced.
That's not a fact, it's just your opinion, one with which reasonable
people can and do disagree. Any legislator who does not understand
what he is voting on should not vote in favor of it. If an issue is
so complex that a legislator cannot be expected to understand, he
should not make it a law.

Not an opinion, a fact. Remember, I spent almost two years as an
Administrative Assistant to a senator. Many, in fact most, bills that
crossed my desk were unintelligible to a greater or lesser degree. Most of
this unintelligibility was due to references to other laws or regulations.
These other laws always had references to still other laws and regulations.
For the non-expert, chasing down all these interactions is unbelievable and
left up to the staff.

In article ,
says...

Just Wondering wrote:
On 8/21/2012 4:30 AM, HeyBub wrote:
A congressman understand every bill? Impossible. Most bills are
written by, or at least have tremendous input by, lobbyists. It is
not reasonable to expect a congressman from Floating Stick, Utah to
understand all the ramifications of a bill attempting to regulate
import tariffs on hydrogenated yak fat, let alone one on the
riparian rights of coal slurry. The people proposing these bills,
lobbyists, have their entire lives invested in the topic and are
often backed up by, literally, hundreds of experts who are likewise
experienced.
That's not a fact, it's just your opinion, one with which reasonable
people can and do disagree. Any legislator who does not understand
what he is voting on should not vote in favor of it. If an issue is
so complex that a legislator cannot be expected to understand, he
should not make it a law.

Not an opinion, a fact. Remember, I spent almost two years as an
Administrative Assistant to a senator.

Oh, now we get it. You want to preserve your own power.

Many, in fact most, bills that
crossed my desk were unintelligible to a greater or lesser degree. Most of
this unintelligibility was due to references to other laws or regulations.
These other laws always had references to still other laws and regulations.
For the non-expert, chasing down all these interactions is unbelievable and
left up to the staff.

If the legislator had to do it he would have an incentive to simplify
the law.

On 8/22/2012 2:17 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:
On 8/21/2012 4:30 AM, HeyBub wrote:
A congressman understand every bill? Impossible. Most bills are
written by, or at least have tremendous input by, lobbyists. It is
not reasonable to expect a congressman from Floating Stick, Utah to
understand all the ramifications of a bill attempting to regulate
import tariffs on hydrogenated yak fat, let alone one on the
riparian rights of coal slurry. The people proposing these bills,
lobbyists, have their entire lives invested in the topic and are
often backed up by, literally, hundreds of experts who are likewise
experienced.
That's not a fact, it's just your opinion, one with which reasonable
people can and do disagree. Any legislator who does not understand
what he is voting on should not vote in favor of it. If an issue is
so complex that a legislator cannot be expected to understand, he
should not make it a law.
Not an opinion, a fact.

Calling an onion a rose does not make it so.

Remember, I spent almost two years as an Administrative Assistant to a senator.

Which entitles you to form an opinion, nothing more.

Many, in fact most, bills that crossed my desk were unintelligible to a greater or lesser degree.

Then your senator should have voted against them.

Most of this unintelligibility was due to references to other laws or regulations.


Cross references indeed make a statute difficult to parse, but do not
without more make a statute unintelligible.

These other laws always had references to still other laws and regulations.
For the non-expert, chasing down all these interactions is unbelievable and
left up to the staff.


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.

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.

On 8/23/2012 7:33 AM, HeyBub wrote:
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.


By that, Peter the Great meant the "ten thousand clerks" handled the
nuts-and-bolts administration of the government. But those clerks did
not write the laws.

Just Wondering wrote in
:

On 8/23/2012 7:33 AM, HeyBub wrote:
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.


By that, Peter the Great meant the "ten thousand clerks" handled the
nuts-and-bolts administration of the government. But those clerks did
not write the laws.

Come on. We elect a new rep every once in a while. You think he is
going to be an instant encyclopedic source of all law that pases by him?
He is charged (IMO) with directing the staff in what the electorate has
elected him to do, in a philosophy so to speak. Not the itty bitty
gritty details of writing law.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

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.

On 8/23/2012 1:08 PM, Han wrote:
Just Wondering wrote in
:

On 8/23/2012 7:33 AM, HeyBub wrote:
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.


By that, Peter the Great meant the "ten thousand clerks" handled the
nuts-and-bolts administration of the government. But those clerks did
not write the laws.
Come on. We elect a new rep every once in a while. You think he is
going to be an instant encyclopedic source of all law that pases by him?
He is charged (IMO) with directing the staff in what the electorate has
elected him to do, in a philosophy so to speak. Not the itty bitty
gritty details of writing law.

I didn't say a representative should be an "instant" anything. I also
didn't see he should be the only one to draft a bill. But if he's going
to vote for something to be a law, he'd darn well read the thing, and
take enough time to educate himself if necessary to understand it, and
by those means know what it is he's voting for before he casts his vote.

Just Wondering wrote in
:

On 8/23/2012 1:08 PM, Han wrote:
Just Wondering wrote in
:

On 8/23/2012 7:33 AM, HeyBub wrote:
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.


By that, Peter the Great meant the "ten thousand clerks" handled the
nuts-and-bolts administration of the government. But those clerks
did not write the laws.
Come on. We elect a new rep every once in a while. You think he is
going to be an instant encyclopedic source of all law that pases by
him? He is charged (IMO) with directing the staff in what the
electorate has elected him to do, in a philosophy so to speak. Not
the itty bitty gritty details of writing law.

I didn't say a representative should be an "instant" anything. I also
didn't see he should be the only one to draft a bill. But if he's
going to vote for something to be a law, he'd darn well read the
thing, and take enough time to educate himself if necessary to
understand it, and by those means know what it is he's voting for
before he casts his vote.

Of course, but the problem is that the devil is in the details, and did
he really mean that thing? He thought it meant green, but now it seems
the law says black ... Of course could be all part of "plausible
deniability" and now he has the capaign contribution in his pocket ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Just Wondering wrote:

I didn't say a representative should be an "instant" anything. I also
didn't see he should be the only one to draft a bill. But if he's
going to vote for something to be a law, he'd darn well read the
thing, and take enough time to educate himself if necessary to
understand it, and by those means know what it is he's voting for
before he casts his vote.

Sounds good, but 5,000 years of precedent says otherwise.

Moses told the assembled: "If a matter comes before you which is too hard
for you to judge, place the matter before the sages of the generation and by
guided by them."

Have you ever used a torque wrench? Do you take the manual's advice for the
amount of torque necessary on a bolt or do you insist on knowing all the
mechanical details on how that value was determined?

You probably take the expert's (from the repair manual) advice.

On 8/24/2012 6:55 AM, HeyBub wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:
I didn't say a representative should be an "instant" anything. I also
didn't see he should be the only one to draft a bill. But if he's
going to vote for something to be a law, he'd darn well read the
thing, and take enough time to educate himself if necessary to
understand it, and by those means know what it is he's voting for
before he casts his vote.
Sounds good, but 5,000 years of precedent says otherwise.

Funny, but you haven't cited a precedent of any age for the proposition
that it is proper for a lawmaker to be ignorant of the laws he makes.
Moses told the assembled: "If a matter comes before you which is too hard
for you to judge, place the matter before the sages of the generation and by
guided by them."

You're comparing apples to oranges. Moses was not talking about passing
laws here. According to Exodus and Deuteronomy, the one who gave the
nation of Israel their laws was God. I rather think God understood a
law when he passed it.

Have you ever used a torque wrench? Do you take the manual's advice for the
amount of torque necessary on a bolt or do you insist on knowing all the
mechanical details on how that value was determined?

You probably take the expert's (from the repair manual) advice.

More apples and oranges. I presume that the person who write the manual
understood what he was writing, and if the manual is properly written, I
will understand it. If Congressmen actually understood the laws they
voted on, and if the average voter could understand the laws on a first
reading, the situation would be the way it should be.

Just Wondering wrote:
Moses told the assembled: "If a matter comes before you which is too
hard for you to judge, place the matter before the sages of the
generation and by guided by them."

You're comparing apples to oranges. Moses was not talking about
passing laws here. According to Exodus and Deuteronomy, the one who
gave the nation of Israel their laws was God. I rather think God
understood a law when he passed it.

Moses got more than the first five books of the Bible. He also got the
Mishna - the oral law. Over the centuries, the oral law has been expanded
and codified in the Talmud. For those not familiar, the Talmud consists of
22 tractates, or books, any one of which is larger than the Encyclopedia
Britannica. It's still growing.



The reason for growth is that new things come up all the time. Consider
Pampers. "On the Sabbath, you shall do no work" is a positive commandment of
God. The early rabbis defined "work" as any of the seven activities involved
in erecting the Tabernacle in the desert. Among these seven prohibited
activities is "sewing." Now the question before "the sages of the
generation" is whether the press-apply tabs on commercial diapers
constitutes "sewing," and hence would be prohibited. (Spoiler: press-apply
tabs are not "sewing" and, hence, are permitted.)

Here's another: God listed seven birds a Jew could not eat, but was silent
on what WAS permitted. The rabbis studied the seven birds in an attempt to
find a common characteristic; they failed. So, they fell back on the birds
that were permitted as sacrifices in the Temple (quail, chicken, duck,
etc.). Problem solved. For over a thousand years, every Jew in the world
knew what birds were kosher.

Hold that thought.

Some historians compute that the chief navigator on Columbus's ships was
Jewish. For sure, the Columbus expedition sailed the day after the Jews were
expelled from Spain. Point is, Jews were early in the New World. What did
they find here?

Turkeys.

Letters went back and forth to the Jewish sages of Europe: Is a turkey
kosher? What's a turkey? Well, it's like a big chicken (permitted), but it
has this red thing hanging down like a vulture (prohibited). Does it eat
carrion? We don't know, but it does eat grain...

Eventually, it was decided that a turkey was more like a chicken than a
vulture.

Whew!

Another 500 or so years pass, and the Antartic was explored.

Penguins!

Ah, well. Back to the drawing board.



Have you ever used a torque wrench? Do you take the manual's advice
for the amount of torque necessary on a bolt or do you insist on
knowing all the mechanical details on how that value was determined?

You probably take the expert's (from the repair manual) advice.

More apples and oranges. I presume that the person who write the
manual understood what he was writing, and if the manual is properly
written, I will understand it. If Congressmen actually understood
the laws they voted on, and if the average voter could understand the
laws on a first reading, the situation would be the way it should be.

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"). That's all
the congressman needs to know.

On 8/24/2012 4:58 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:
Moses told the assembled: "If a matter comes before you which is too
hard for you to judge, place the matter before the sages of the
generation and by guided by them."
You're comparing apples to oranges. Moses was not talking about
passing laws here. According to Exodus and Deuteronomy, the one who
gave the nation of Israel their laws was God. I rather think God
understood a law when he passed it.
Moses got more than the first five books of the Bible. He also got the
Mishna - the oral law. Over the centuries, the oral law has been expanded
and codified in the Talmud. For those not familiar, the Talmud consists of
22 tractates, or books, any one of which is larger than the Encyclopedia
Britannica. It's still growing.


All of which has nothing to do with whether members of Congress should
read and understand the bills they vote on.
Have you ever used a torque wrench? Do you take the manual's advice
for the amount of torque necessary on a bolt or do you insist on
knowing all the mechanical details on how that value was determined?

You probably take the expert's (from the repair manual) advice.

More apples and oranges. I presume that the person who write the
manual understood what he was writing, and if the manual is properly
written, I will understand it. If Congressmen actually understood
the laws they voted on, and if the average voter could understand the
laws on a first reading, the situation would be the way it should be.
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.


That's all the congressman needs to know.

I want my elected representative to know what he's voting on. To that
end, it's not enough for some unelected bureaucrat tells him "it's
good." Maybe the aide thinks he understands the bill but really
doesn't. Maybe he emphasizes what he thinks are good provisions and
minimizes the warts of a bill. Maybe he's simply lying. The
responsibility is not his, it's his boss's. I expect my congressman to
shoulder the responsibility of understanding the bill himself -- the
whole bill, warts and all, not foist that serious responsibility of on
some unknown hireling. It's that king of wrong-thinking mindset that in
large part has created the unholy mess that we call the United States
Code. It's that wrong-thing mindset that led the then Speaker of the
House to stupidly declare from her bully pulpit, "But we have to pass
the care bill so that you can find out what is in it." If you are so
____________ (you pick the negative adjective) that you think that crass
attitude is appropriate, then there's not much more to say.

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...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.

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

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...S-111hr3590enr.
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.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 8/25/2012 5:18 AM, HeyBub wrote:
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...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.

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."

On 8/25/2012 5:59 AM, Han wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

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...S-111hr3590enr.
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.

It is wrong for government to expect its citizens to comply with laws
they don't understand. If you can't understand it, if I can't
understand it, if my representative and Senators can't understand it, if
we need experts to explain it to us, it should either be rewritten in
plain enough terms that we can understand it, or it should not be made
into law at all.

Just Wondering wrote in
:

On 8/25/2012 5:59 AM, Han wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

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...LS-111hr3590en
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.

It is wrong for government to expect its citizens to comply with laws
they don't understand. If you can't understand it, if I can't
understand it, if my representative and Senators can't understand it,
if we need experts to explain it to us, it should either be rewritten
in plain enough terms that we can understand it, or it should not be
made into law at all.

There is a difference between not understanding the purposes of a bill,
and fully understanding the nitty gritty. I do not have to know all the
laws of electromagnetism to know how to handle my vacuum cleaner (though
I wish I knew exactly what broke in my dust collector). I may need a
repair person ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

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

"HeyBub" wrote in
om:

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...S-111hr3590enr.
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.

" wrote in
:

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

"HeyBub" wrote in
news:X7CdnfOhNtIPLqXNnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@earthlink. 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...LS-111hr3590en
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.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

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

" wrote in
:

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

"HeyBub" wrote in
news:X7CdnfOhNtIPLqXNnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@earthlink .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...LS-111hr3590en
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.

" wrote in
:

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@earthlin k.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...ILLS-111hr3590
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.

All legalistic details will be set forth in Appendix B.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

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

" wrote in
:

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

" wrote in
:

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

"HeyBub" wrote in
news:X7CdnfOhNtIPLqXNnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@earthli nk.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...ILLS-111hr3590
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?

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.

All legalistic details will be set forth in Appendix B.

The devil is *always* in the details.

" 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

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?

On 8/25/2012 10:36 AM, Han wrote:
Just Wondering wrote in
:

On 8/25/2012 5:59 AM, Han wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

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...LS-111hr3590en
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.
It is wrong for government to expect its citizens to comply with laws
they don't understand. If you can't understand it, if I can't
understand it, if my representative and Senators can't understand it,
if we need experts to explain it to us, it should either be rewritten
in plain enough terms that we can understand it, or it should not be
made into law at all.
There is a difference between not understanding the purposes of a bill,
and fully understanding the nitty gritty. I do not have to know all the
laws of electromagnetism to know how to handle my vacuum cleaner (though
I wish I knew exactly what broke in my dust collector). I may need a
repair person ...

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.

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. 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.

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."

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)."

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.

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.

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.

"HeyBub" wrote in
:

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.

rant
Many Catholic church-supported hospitals etc were already providing this
coverage prior to ACA. I am not going to scour the nitty gritty of ACA
to find where it says all employers will ..., but I would guess it is in
there.

It seems to come down (pardon my English) to the very hypocritical notion
that if it isn't forbidden by the government, us catholics can indeed go
and use birth control. And with hypocritical I mean 2 things: Firstly
it means that the catholic church has determined apparently that plain
Janes can't think for themselves and follow the rules that the church has
laid down unless the government prohibits it, and secondly that the party
that ostensibly wants less government interference now wants the
government to stand guard in the bedroom. I thought that was over with
when sodomy laws were repealed.

Again, if Jane doesn't want to use birth control, that's her business,
for whatever reason she decides that. But IMO it is just good economic
and humane policy to offer it as part of ACA. We have already discussed
that it is economically "better" for insurance companies to offer birth
control than to cover unwanted pregnancies, births and kids.
/rant
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"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.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 27 Aug 2012 03:15:54 GMT, Han wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in
:

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.

rant
Many Catholic church-supported hospitals etc were already providing this
coverage prior to ACA. I am not going to scour the nitty gritty of ACA
to find where it says all employers will ..., but I would guess it is in
there.

I don't see what the big problem is, if just one hospital in town,
which happens to be Catholic, doesn't do abortions. The rest will
cover the thousands of daily abortions in any given city, eh?

Is this really an issue? No, it's merely more distraction from the
real issues: TOTAL corruption in our government, and their failure to
fix anything or keep their/our damned wallets pocketed.



It seems to come down (pardon my English) to the very hypocritical notion
that if it isn't forbidden by the government, us catholics can indeed go
and use birth control. And with hypocritical I mean 2 things: Firstly
it means that the catholic church has determined apparently that plain
Janes can't think for themselves and follow the rules that the church has
laid down unless the government prohibits it, and secondly that the party
that ostensibly wants less government interference now wants the
government to stand guard in the bedroom. I thought that was over with
when sodomy laws were repealed.

Butt, butt...never mind.


Again, if Jane doesn't want to use birth control, that's her business,
for whatever reason she decides that. But IMO it is just good economic
and humane policy to offer it as part of ACA. We have already discussed
that it is economically "better" for insurance companies to offer birth
control than to cover unwanted pregnancies, births and kids.
/rant

Abso BIRTHING lutely. It's much better for society. Remember the
"coincidence" of drastic reductions in crime the decade following Roe
v. Wade?

--
The human brain is unique in that it is the only container of which
it can be said that the more you put into it, the more it will hold.
-- Glenn Doman

Han wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in
:

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.

rant
Many Catholic church-supported hospitals etc were already providing
this coverage prior to ACA. I am not going to scour the nitty gritty
of ACA to find where it says all employers will ..., but I would
guess it is in there.

It's NOT in there, at least not directly. "The Secretary shall develop
standards..." or language to that effect IS in the bill, but it's the
Secretary of HHS that devised the regulation.


It seems to come down (pardon my English) to the very hypocritical
notion that if it isn't forbidden by the government, us catholics can
indeed go and use birth control. And with hypocritical I mean 2
things: Firstly it means that the catholic church has determined
apparently that plain Janes can't think for themselves and follow the
rules that the church has laid down unless the government prohibits
it, and secondly that the party that ostensibly wants less government
interference now wants the government to stand guard in the bedroom.
I thought that was over with when sodomy laws were repealed.

First, what an individual Catholic does is between the individual and God.
When the government mandates that a Catholic violate the teaching of the
Church or facilitate violating the teachings of the Church, is where the
problem lies.


Again, if Jane doesn't want to use birth control, that's her business,
for whatever reason she decides that. But IMO it is just good
economic and humane policy to offer it as part of ACA. We have
already discussed that it is economically "better" for insurance
companies to offer birth control than to cover unwanted pregnancies,
births and kids. /rant

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.