DC Tom Posted April 25, 2011 Posted April 25, 2011 Yes, but what I said was a "substantial accomplishment to run on." The health care law is so bad that the last Rasmussen poll held this past month shows 57% of Americans STILL favoring repeal. It's so bad that some liberal congressfolk have publically asked everyone to stop calling it Obamacare because it's a derogatory name. You'd THINK he'd be BEGGING to have his name attached to such a glorious piece of legislation. Or as Obama himself once said, "You'd THINK they'd be THANKING me." And yet, a huge chunk of his base (i.e. all of it) thinks it's a great idea. A moderate chunk of the independents (i.e. less than but near half) will listen to him say "I instituted the first reform of the health care system in decades; for the first time in the history of our country, no American has to worry about health care!" and buy it, even though they have no idea what the bill is, what it means, or how Obama is or is not responsible for it. So yes, it's a substantial accomplishment he can run on. Never underestimate the stupidity of the voters.
Gene Frenkle Posted April 25, 2011 Posted April 25, 2011 I'd wager than 100% of the elected officials who voted for the health care bill don't even know what's in it, which is all 95% of Americans really need to know. And they do. So you're saying that nobody knows what's in it. Which, you say, is all you need to know in order to know that it should be repealed. Which, in turn, tells me all I need to know about your motivations here. Health care bill bad. Great insight.
DC Tom Posted April 25, 2011 Posted April 25, 2011 (edited) So you're saying that nobody knows what's in it. Which, you say, is all you need to know in order to know that it should be repealed. Which, in turn, tells me all I need to know about your motivations here. Health care bill bad. Great insight. As a general rule, I'd suggest that a 2500 page law that no one can accurately explain is a prime candidate for repeal, whether it be health care or the PATRIOT Act or what have you. More specifically, a 2500-page bill predicated on the economic unreality of increasing demand for a limited-supply service leads to lower prices, and mistakes insurance for care, should absolutely be repealed. Particularly when that "brilliant" idea suddenly becomes a piss-poor one when the same thing is suggested for Medicare reform. Edited April 25, 2011 by DC Tom
Gene Frenkle Posted April 25, 2011 Posted April 25, 2011 As a general rule, I'd suggest that a 2500 page law that no one can accurately explain is a prime candidate for repeal, whether it be health care or the PATRIOT Act or what have you. More specifically, a 2500-page bill predicated on the economic unreality of increasing demand for a limited-supply service leads to lower prices, and mistakes insurance for care, should absolutely be repealed. Particularly when that "brilliant" idea suddenly becomes a piss-poor one when the same thing is suggested for Medicare reform. Should we enact a law limiting the number of pages used to define a law? We'll first need a standard for paper, margins and font.
Joe Miner Posted April 25, 2011 Posted April 25, 2011 Should we enact a law limiting the number of pages used to define a law? We'll first need a standard for paper, margins and font. No. Only an idiot would suggest that.
Gene Frenkle Posted April 25, 2011 Posted April 25, 2011 No. Only an idiot would suggest that. What are you trying to say?
DC Tom Posted April 25, 2011 Posted April 25, 2011 Should we enact a law limiting the number of pages used to define a law? We'll first need a standard for paper, margins and font. There already is a standard for paper, margins, and font. Have you ever read a bill?
Gene Frenkle Posted April 25, 2011 Posted April 25, 2011 There already is a standard for paper, margins, and font. Have you ever read a bill? My cell phone bill is getting out of hand. I shamefully retract the second part of my statement.
Joe Miner Posted April 25, 2011 Posted April 25, 2011 What are you trying to say? This is along the same lines of the cliche about not being able to recognize the sucker in a business deal.
Gene Frenkle Posted April 25, 2011 Posted April 25, 2011 This is along the same lines of the cliche about not being able to recognize the sucker in a business deal. How so?
Chef Jim Posted April 25, 2011 Posted April 25, 2011 Should we enact a law limiting the number of pages used to define a law? We'll first need a standard for paper, margins and font. How about we start with a law that says the name of the bill should accurately reflect what's inside it.
DC Tom Posted April 25, 2011 Posted April 25, 2011 How about we start with a law that says the name of the bill should accurately reflect what's inside it. Never work. They could never sell a bill that way. For starters, I'd settle for atomicity: one legislative topic per bill, and no pork. The Defense of Marriage Act, for example - although a completely retarded law, it's written just the way I'd like all laws to be written: it's a three section law that deals with one single topic - this is what "marriage" means, but Article VI, Section 1 of the Constitution still applies (so suck it, Kansas!) - without throwing in everything and the kitchen sink. My cell phone bill is getting out of hand. I shamefully retract the second part of my statement. It's kind of scary, actually - I remember a while back wondering if there was a published one, then found it buried in GPO's site, then had to ask "I wonder how much that cost us?" Generally, the government can't use a refrigerator without having a written standard for it. Seriously - I once worked in a government office that had a written standard procedure for storing food in the break room refrigerator...three pages, configuration managed and version controlled. (The logic being, when I questioned it, "Our software development life cycle requires a written procedure for everything." Yes, everything involved in software development. "Lunch" is out of scope, just a bit.)
Gene Frenkle Posted April 25, 2011 Posted April 25, 2011 How about we start with a law that says the name of the bill should accurately reflect what's inside it. That's a good idea. Of course we'll have to rename many of them like (but not limited to) The Patriot Act. It's kind of a subjective criteria, however, and might be tough to agree on/enforce. It's kind of scary, actually - I remember a while back wondering if there was a published one, then found it buried in GPO's site, then had to ask "I wonder how much that cost us?" Generally, the government can't use a refrigerator without having a written standard for it. Seriously - I once worked in a government office that had a written standard procedure for storing food in the break room refrigerator...three pages, configuration managed and version controlled. (The logic being, when I questioned it, "Our software development life cycle requires a written procedure for everything." Yes, everything involved in software development. "Lunch" is out of scope, just a bit.) It doesn't make much sense to have these standards unless you're going to enact a minimum/maximum length. This is brining back memories of high school, which sounds like it might be appropriate in this case.
Chef Jim Posted April 25, 2011 Posted April 25, 2011 That's a good idea. Of course we'll have to rename many of them like (but not limited to) The Patriot Act. It's kind of a subjective criteria, however, and might be tough to agree on/enforce. It doesn't make much sense to have these standards unless you're going to enact a minimum/maximum length. This is brining back memories of high school, which sounds like it might be appropriate in this case. Yes but the Patriot Act had SOMETHING do do with Patriots. The Health Care bill had NOTHING to do with health care.
DC Tom Posted April 25, 2011 Posted April 25, 2011 Yes but the Patriot Act had SOMETHING do do with Patriots. The Health Care bill had NOTHING to do with health care. Unless you're talking about the increased surveillence capability in the country allowing Belichick to tape defensive signals, you're pretty much completely off base.
Chef Jim Posted April 25, 2011 Posted April 25, 2011 Unless you're talking about the increased surveillence capability in the country allowing Belichick to tape defensive signals, you're pretty much completely off base. I was referrering to the missles.
DC Tom Posted April 25, 2011 Posted April 25, 2011 I was referrering to the missles. I know. Still more applicable to Belichick.
IDBillzFan Posted April 25, 2011 Posted April 25, 2011 So you're saying that nobody knows what's in it. Which, you say, is all you need to know in order to know that it should be repealed. Which, in turn, tells me all I need to know about your motivations here. Health care bill bad. Great insight. I swear, you're one of the few posters here who makes pBills sound lucid. What I was implying was that most people do not like the fact that their elected representative actually voted in favor of a massive new entitlement bill that they never even bothered to read. The fact that liberals like yourself have no problem with this is of little surprise to me as liberals also believe that people who were stupid enough to take on a mortgage they knew they couldn't afford are "victims" because they never read the details of the mortgage agreement THAT THEY SIGNED. Are you not even the least bit alarmed when the then Speaker of the House publically admitted that they needed to pass Obamacare to find out what was in it? How can any logical thinking human NOT have a problem with that level of stupidity?
Chef Jim Posted April 25, 2011 Posted April 25, 2011 I know. Still more applicable to Belichick. That's pretty gay.
DC Tom Posted April 25, 2011 Posted April 25, 2011 Are you not even the least bit alarmed when the then Speaker of the House publically admitted that they needed to pass Obamacare to find out what was in it? How can any logical thinking human NOT have a problem with that level of stupidity? Oooh! Oooh! I know the answer to this one! "You're just heartless. You want to kill grandma."
Recommended Posts