Posted by Napoleon on December 10, 2009, 10:07 am
wrote:
>There is absolutely no reason why the health bill can't be a 20 page
>document with tables that clearly define the scope. Anything more is an
>insult to us. No one would accept a 650 page mortgage or a 550 page car
>rental agreement.
You are absolutely correct. But then, how are our lords and masters
(piece of shit congress) going to satisfy their lords and masters
(lobbyists) without having at least 2-3 pages a piece for each
lobbyist's concern? Congress isn't "giving us" anything. They are
writing legislation for the corporate overlords - it can be as long
and obfuscated as needed.
Posted by Cindy Hamilton on December 10, 2009, 2:08 pm
> On 12/9/2009 15:46, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> >>>http://www.scribd.com/doc/18280675/Principles-for-Allocation-of-Scarc ...
> >> That's not a link to the health care bill, dumbass. It's a link to a
> >> paper
> >> that was published in the British medical journal, The Lancet.
> >> I did not state it was the healthcare bill link
> >> we are following Europe , have you noticed?
> > No, I haven't noticed. Even if we are following
> > Europe, I haven't seen any compelling argument
> > to believe that's a bad idea. It might be a bad idea;
> > it might be a good idea. Running in circles
> > screaming "The sky is falling! We're following Europe!"
> > does not form a reasoned argument.
> > Look, if the health care bill is going to
> > do the things you say, then it says so somewhere in the
> > bill. Quoting unrelated journal articles doesn't support your
> > position. Find where in the health care bill that it says
> > "government will have access to citizen's bank accounts",
> > and you will be more believable. Otherwise, you're just
> > fear-mongering.
> > Cindy Hamilton
> Hardly fear mongering. It is a critical comment on how bureaucratic,
> inefficient and insulting the Federal government is. Congress should be
> totally absolutely embarrassed and ashamed of themselves for creating a
> work product that absolutely no one can understand.
Yes, but that doesn't contradict my point that only the health care
bill
defines what's in the health care bill. To point to an article in The
Lancet
and say that's what the health care bill will bring us is illogical.
> There is absolutely no reason why the health bill can't be a 20 page
> document with tables that clearly define the scope. Anything more is an
> insult to us. No one would accept a 650 page mortgage or a 550 page car
> rental agreement
Congress, for the most part, is made of lawyers. They love to hear
themselves
talk. I believe they think that 2000 pages will bring them something
that will
withstand legal challenge.
Cindy Hamilton
Posted by Rod Speed on December 10, 2009, 3:47 pm
Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>> On 12/9/2009 15:46, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> http://www.scribd.com/doc/18280675/Principles-for-Allocation-of-Scarc ...
>>
>>>> That's not a link to the health care bill, dumbass. It's a link to
>>>> a paper
>>>> that was published in the British medical journal, The Lancet.
>>
>>>> I did not state it was the healthcare bill link
>>>> we are following Europe , have you noticed?
>>
>>> No, I haven't noticed. Even if we are following
>>> Europe, I haven't seen any compelling argument
>>> to believe that's a bad idea. It might be a bad idea;
>>> it might be a good idea. Running in circles
>>> screaming "The sky is falling! We're following Europe!"
>>> does not form a reasoned argument.
>>
>>> Look, if the health care bill is going to
>>> do the things you say, then it says so somewhere in the
>>> bill. Quoting unrelated journal articles doesn't support your
>>> position. Find where in the health care bill that it says
>>> "government will have access to citizen's bank accounts",
>>> and you will be more believable. Otherwise, you're just
>>> fear-mongering.
>>
>>> Cindy Hamilton
>>
>> Hardly fear mongering. It is a critical comment on how bureaucratic,
>> inefficient and insulting the Federal government is. Congress should
>> be totally absolutely embarrassed and ashamed of themselves for
>> creating a work product that absolutely no one can understand.
> Yes, but that doesn't contradict my point that only the health care
> bill
> defines what's in the health care bill. To point to an article in The
> Lancet
> and say that's what the health care bill will bring us is illogical.
>> There is absolutely no reason why the health bill can't be a 20 page
>> document with tables that clearly define the scope. Anything more is
>> an insult to us. No one would accept a 650 page mortgage or a 550
>> page car rental agreement
> Congress, for the most part, is made of lawyers. They love to hear
> themselves
> talk. I believe they think that 2000 pages will bring them something
> that will
> withstand legal challenge.
Nope, its much more about a very large number of lawyers with
silly ideas about what should be in the legislation policy wise.
Posted by jeff on December 10, 2009, 3:00 pm
George wrote:
> On 12/9/2009 15:46, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> http://www.scribd.com/doc/18280675/Principles-for-Allocation-of-Scarc ...
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's not a link to the health care bill, dumbass. It's a link to a
>>> paper
>>> that was published in the British medical journal, The Lancet.
>>
>>>
>>> I did not state it was the healthcare bill link
>>> we are following Europe , have you noticed?
>>
>> No, I haven't noticed. Even if we are following
>> Europe, I haven't seen any compelling argument
>> to believe that's a bad idea. It might be a bad idea;
>> it might be a good idea. Running in circles
>> screaming "The sky is falling! We're following Europe!"
>> does not form a reasoned argument.
>>
>> Look, if the health care bill is going to
>> do the things you say, then it says so somewhere in the
>> bill. Quoting unrelated journal articles doesn't support your
>> position. Find where in the health care bill that it says
>> "government will have access to citizen's bank accounts",
>> and you will be more believable. Otherwise, you're just
>> fear-mongering.
>>
>> Cindy Hamilton
>>
> Hardly fear mongering. It is a critical comment on how bureaucratic,
> inefficient and insulting the Federal government is. Congress should be
> totally absolutely embarrassed and ashamed of themselves for creating a
> work product that absolutely no one can understand.
>
> There is absolutely no reason why the health bill can't be a 20 page
> document with tables that clearly define the scope.
Have you read this, or for that matter, any bill?
Every bill has the same format, with wide margins and 24 numbered
lines per page of perhaps 5 words per line.
It's not hard to read. Really. Not quite a picture book, but not
complex. Much easier to read than a mortgage agreement.
As far as length, George W Bush's last budget bill ran far longer.
Were you complaining about that?
You guys take some one else's opinion instead of actually looking at
the product. Try thinking for yourself instead of taking someone else's
opinion. Unlike any of George W Bush's legislation, you can actually
find drafts of this online. Easily.
Jeff
Anything more is an
> insult to us. No one would accept a 650 page mortgage or a 550 page car
> rental agreement.
Posted by ChairMan on December 10, 2009, 6:23 pm
> George wrote:
>> On 12/9/2009 15:46, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.scribd.com/doc/18280675/Principles-for-Allocation-of-Scarc ...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's not a link to the health care bill, dumbass. It's a link
>>>> to a paper
>>>> that was published in the British medical journal, The Lancet.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I did not state it was the healthcare bill link
>>>> we are following Europe , have you noticed?
>>>
>>> No, I haven't noticed. Even if we are following
>>> Europe, I haven't seen any compelling argument
>>> to believe that's a bad idea. It might be a bad idea;
>>> it might be a good idea. Running in circles
>>> screaming "The sky is falling! We're following Europe!"
>>> does not form a reasoned argument.
>>>
>>> Look, if the health care bill is going to
>>> do the things you say, then it says so somewhere in the
>>> bill. Quoting unrelated journal articles doesn't support your
>>> position. Find where in the health care bill that it says
>>> "government will have access to citizen's bank accounts",
>>> and you will be more believable. Otherwise, you're just
>>> fear-mongering.
>>>
>>> Cindy Hamilton
>>>
>> Hardly fear mongering. It is a critical comment on how bureaucratic,
>> inefficient and insulting the Federal government is. Congress should
>> be totally absolutely embarrassed and ashamed of themselves for
>> creating a work product that absolutely no one can understand.
>>
>> There is absolutely no reason why the health bill can't be a 20 page
>> document with tables that clearly define the scope.
> Have you read this, or for that matter, any bill?
> Every bill has the same format, with wide margins and 24 numbered
> lines per page of perhaps 5 words per line.
> It's not hard to read. Really. Not quite a picture book, but not
> complex. Much easier to read than a mortgage agreement.
> As far as length, George W Bush's last budget bill ran far longer.
> Were you complaining about that?
> You guys take some one else's opinion instead of actually looking at
> the product. Try thinking for yourself instead of taking someone
> else's opinion. Unlike any of George W Bush's legislation, you can
> actually find drafts of this online. Easily.
> Jeff
bottom line is, if it's good enough for us, why is obammy and congress
exempt?
And not only exempt , but also exempt from the "cadillac plan" tax.
wanna buy a bridge?
XML site map
>document with tables that clearly define the scope. Anything more is an
>insult to us. No one would accept a 650 page mortgage or a 550 page car
>rental agreement.