• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Confirmed: Nobody Read the Bill

Dav

Dav

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2009
Messages
5,536
Reaction score
1,813
Location
Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Hot Air Blog Archive Oh, by the way, O-Care lets states opt out of the individual mandate

From HuffPo:

It’s called the “Empowering States to be Innovative” amendment. And it would, quite literally, give states the right to set up their own health care system — with or without an individual mandate or, for that matter, with or without a public option — provided that, as Wyden puts it, “they can meet the coverage requirements of the bill.”
Click to expand...

From HotAir:

I went looking on Google to find out how Ed and I could have missed this, and it turns out we didn’t. Everyone missed it. There were precisely two pages of results for “Empowering States to be Innovative” when I searched earlier this afternoon; one of the most comprehensive treatments of the subject, posted six months ago, was this piece, which devoted a paragraph to it. Good work, media. So which “coverage requirements” would a state have to meet to qualify for an O-Care waiver? Here’s the relevant section from the Senate bill; skip ahead to page 212.
Click to expand...

From the bill:

(A) will provide coverage that is at least as comprehensive as the coverage defined in section 1302(b) and offered through Exchanges established under this title as certified by Office of the Actuary of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services based on sufficient data from the State and from comparable States about their experience with programs created by this Act and the provisions of this Act that would be waived;

(B) will provide coverage and cost sharing protections against excessive out-of-pocket spending that are at least as affordable as the provisions of this title would provide;

(C) will provide coverage to at least a comparable number of its residents as the provisions of this title would provide; and

(D) will not increase the Federal deficit.
Click to expand...


It's unlikely that states will actually be deemed to have met the requirements and get to opt out, but the fact that this wasn't played up for political points one bit, when so much attention was given to the idea of being able to opt out, is a pretty hilarious piece of evidence that nobody - in Congress or otherwise - actually read through the bill, which is longer than the last two Harry Potter books combined.
 
Dav said:
Hot Air Blog Archive Oh, by the way, O-Care lets states opt out of the individual mandate

It's unlikely that states will actually be deemed to have met the requirements and get to opt out, but the fact that this wasn't played up for political points one bit, when so much attention was given to the idea of being able to opt out, is a pretty hilarious piece of evidence that nobody - in Congress or otherwise - actually read through the bill, which is longer than the last two Harry Potter books combined.
Click to expand...

An assembly of morons, thieves and con men, why am I not surprised.
 
Dav said:
Hot Air Blog Archive Oh, by the way, O-Care lets states opt out of the individual mandate



It's unlikely that states will actually be deemed to have met the requirements and get to opt out, but the fact that this wasn't played up for political points one bit, when so much attention was given to the idea of being able to opt out, is a pretty hilarious piece of evidence that nobody - in Congress or otherwise - actually read through the bill, which is longer than the last two Harry Potter books combined.
Click to expand...

I think your conclusion is faulty. Neither side had a lot of interest in talking up this part of the bill. It's a right-leaning portion of the bill. Democrats don't want to talk up the right-leaning parts because it's a compromise they made (or tried to make) with the Republicans and right-leaning Democrats. The Republicans don't want to talk up that part of the bill because, well, they were standing in a unified bloc against the bill and talking up state opt-outs wouldn't help them get the public in their court.
 
Wait until the maroons see the $140 deduction from every pay check because of this PHONY Health Plan.

I hope no one is claiming surprise to find that no one not one single person on either side of the isle read this anti-American Obamination.
 
Dav said:
Hot Air Blog Archive Oh, by the way, O-Care lets states opt out of the individual mandate

From HuffPo:



From HotAir:



From the bill:




It's unlikely that states will actually be deemed to have met the requirements and get to opt out, but the fact that this wasn't played up for political points one bit, when so much attention was given to the idea of being able to opt out, is a pretty hilarious piece of evidence that nobody - in Congress or otherwise - actually read through the bill, which is longer than the last two Harry Potter books combined.
Click to expand...

I'm not surprised, I don't think they read the vast majority of the bills they pass.
 
Dav said:
which is longer than the last two Harry Potter books combined.
Click to expand...

Misconception. It may have more pages then the Harry Potter Books, but it has a much larger font, and it has much more space on the pages that are just blank. In number of words, it doesn't even come close to half a Harry Potter book.
 
ScottD said:
Misconception. It may have more pages then the Harry Potter Books, but it has a much larger font, and it has much more space on the pages that are just blank. In number of words, it doesn't even come close to half a Harry Potter book.
Click to expand...

The health care bill is between 384,000 and 411,000 words:
PolitiFact | Hatch says Senate health care bill is longer than 'War and Peace'

The last two Harry Potter books are 167,000 and 198,000 words, respectively:
Harry Potter-Word count? - Yahoo! Answers

So yes, it does. In fact, it probably is longer than the longest two Harry Potters combined.
 
Last edited:
Dav said:
The health care bill is between 384,000 and 411,000 word:
PolitiFact | Hatch says Senate health care bill is longer than 'War and Peace'

The last two Harry Potter books are 167,000 and 198,000 words, respectively:
Harry Potter-Word count? - Yahoo! Answers

So yes, it does. In fact, it probably is longer than the longest two Harry Potters combined.
Click to expand...

It didn't seem that long when I read it. I do confess to just glossing through some of the thicker language, though.

I don't see how anyone can fully understand this beast.
 
jallman said:
It didn't seem that long when I read it. I do confess to just glossing through some of the thicker language, though.

I don't see how anyone can fully understand this beast.
Click to expand...
I doubt anyone can.

Probably required specialist staffers to read each section, if they bothered at all

:mrgreen:
 
No one reads any full bill.

It's impossible to expect every Congressee to read every word of every bill that comes through and is voted on.

Do people honestly, truly believe that members of Congress *usually* sit down and read through every bill and come to fully understand it before forming an opinion? I'm abashed to think that people are really suckered into this idea.

Read up on how a bill is proposed, processed and voted on - as well as how our Congress is organized in it's group and all other such things and then come to a full understanding of how the process works before really getting panties all a-twist over something that isn't usually done, anyway.

However, the only real point to nark on is that people don't *know* the bill - not that they haven't *read* the bill. They all should be privy to information in the bill through the basic outline of the bill that's produced by the Congressional Library - as well as any and all updates that are typed up and given out when the bill goes through office.

And believe it or not, Obama didn't read the whole damn bill, either.
 
The Mark said:
I doubt anyone can.

Probably required specialist staffers to read each section, if they bothered at all

:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

That's about the only way I can see making an informed decision about this bill. Have different staffers read each part and then report it, in piece, and make a decision about each part.

I still don't know how it all ties together.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
No one reads any full bill.

It's impossible to expect every Congressee to read every word of every bill that comes through and is voted on.

Do people honestly, truly believe that members of Congress *usually* sit down and read through every bill and come to fully understand it before forming an opinion? I'm abashed to think that people are really suckered into this idea.

Read up on how a bill is proposed, processed and voted on - as well as how our Congress is organized in it's group and all other such things and then come to a full understanding of how the process works before really getting panties all a-twist over something that isn't usually done, anyway.

However, the only real point to nark on is that people don't *know* the bill - not that they haven't *read* the bill. They all should be privy to information in the bill through the basic outline of the bill that's produced by the Congressional Library - as well as any and all updates that are typed up and given out when the bill goes through office.

And believe it or not, Obama didn't read the whole damn bill, either.
Click to expand...

I read every word of HR3200 (the first publicized version of the bill)

It doesn't take all that long. 2000 pages may seem like a lot, but a "page" in bill-terms doesn't actually contain that much text. They're essentially quadruple spaced with a lot of index/formatting stuff going on.

edit: Although you're right that reading a bill and understanding it are not the same thing. There's a lot of e-mail forwards/youtube videos about the "TRUTH ABOUT THE BILL" that are so grossly misunderstanding/misrepresenting that it's sickening.
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
I read every word of HR3200 (the first publicized version of the bill)

It doesn't take all that long. 2000 pages may seem like a lot, but a "page" in bill-terms doesn't actually contain that much text. They're essentially quadruple spaced with a lot of index/formatting stuff going on.

edit: Although you're right that reading a bill and understanding it are not the same thing. There's a lot of e-mail forwards/youtube videos about the "TRUTH ABOUT THE BILL" that are so grossly misunderstanding/misrepresenting that it's sickening.
Click to expand...

I've read 1/2 the finalized bill - but that's not the point.

The point is that there's no way in hell any Congressee is going to have/take the time to do so. . . it's never been done that way.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
I've read 1/2 the finalized bill - but that's not the point.

The point is that there's no way in hell any Congressee is going to have/take the time to do so. . . it's never been done that way.
Click to expand...

Which is very probably why the USA is in the SH*T up to it's shoulders right now.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
I've read 1/2 the finalized bill - but that's not the point.

The point is that there's no way in hell any Congressee is going to have/take the time to do so. . . it's never been done that way.
Click to expand...

They have 8 hours a day in which they are basically paid to do this sort of thing, I did it in my free time. On legislation this important, you really think nobody read it?

What about the guys who wrote it? That clearly takes longer than reading it, where did they find the time?
 
Deuce said:
They have 8 hours a day in which they are basically paid to do this sort of thing, I did it in my free time. On legislation this important, you really think nobody read it?

What about the guys who wrote it? That clearly takes longer than reading it, where did they find the time?
Click to expand...

Sure, a few people have probable read the entire thing OR (more likely) at least understand and comprehend the entire thing based on truncated reports and so forth (this is standard practice).

However, it's not the norm - which is why it's so atrocious that they made the bill so damn big to begin with. The mere size of it alone led to more problems with overall (or partial) knowledge.
 
Dav said:
Hot Air Blog Archive Oh, by the way, O-Care lets states opt out of the individual mandate

From HuffPo:



From HotAir:



From the bill:




It's unlikely that states will actually be deemed to have met the requirements and get to opt out, but the fact that this wasn't played up for political points one bit, when so much attention was given to the idea of being able to opt out, is a pretty hilarious piece of evidence that nobody - in Congress or otherwise - actually read through the bill, which is longer than the last two Harry Potter books combined.
Click to expand...

No single person needs to read the entire bill because most of it is directives are for agencies; only congressmen who specialize in the operations of one or more of these agencies need to read the directives, to ensure they are plausible and inform their peers if they are or are not. Everybody else needs to read (and be able to understand) the overviews and summaries.

Furthermore, I'm not sure on what grounds you think it is 'unlikely' states will not be able to opt out; at least most of them have the capability and it is unlikely the Supreme Court won't rule in their favor if they have a genuinely competitive system going. More likely, none of them will want to.
 
Last edited:
Councilman said:
Wait until the maroons see the $140 deduction from every pay check because of this PHONY Health Plan.

I hope no one is claiming surprise to find that no one not one single person on either side of the isle read this anti-American Obamination.
Click to expand...
"Conservative" says it all.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
I've read 1/2 the finalized bill - but that's not the point.

The point is that there's no way in hell any Congressee is going to have/take the time to do so. . . it's never been done that way.
Click to expand...

Sure it has......

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


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

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


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

Amendment 3 - Quartering of Soldiers. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.


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

Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


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

Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


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

Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses. Ratified 12/15/1791.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.


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

Amendment 7 - Trial by Jury in Civil Cases. Ratified 12/15/1791.

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.


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

Amendment 8 - Cruel and Unusual Punishment. Ratified 12/15/1791.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.


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

Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.



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

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Click to expand...

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

This one is called The Bill of Rights.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom