1. Mikeg, you are banned from all my posts until further notice. I warned you that homophobic hate speech would not be tolerated but you didn't listen. Perhaps you'd have better luck at the Westboro Baptist Church with Fred Phelps and family.

Posted by MarkGriswold at November 5, 2009 08:56 AM

2. Well, Mark, you obviously have more time on your hands than I do. Can't wait for the book report!

Posted by scottd at November 5, 2009 09:12 AM

3. That's hilarious ... about the bill, and mikeg.

Posted by pudge at November 5, 2009 09:15 AM

4. I called Adam Smith's office yesterday and asked for a commitment that he will read each and every page of Pelosi's destructive healthcare abomination. I also asked why he voted against the amendment that would put themselves on the plan, and whether he would take personal responsibility if and when my employer dumps me along with the estimated 130 million others into the public option. They declined.

Posted by yaddacubed at November 5, 2009 09:32 AM

5. Wait, the GOP needs MORE time in late July? Sure, maybe things are going too fast. So, we delay an August vote until EARLY NOVEMBER. And they need MORE TIME? Give me a break.

Yes, it'd be nice if bills were in plain English, I agree. That does happen on the Finance committee and the GOP still sought to delay things for weeks. The GOP tactic is to delay, delay, delay, and kill. There's nothing wrong with that, but please stop pretending like you actually need time to study the bill. You've already decided you're against it.

BTW, the site is basically bull. The bill was released last week. A small amendment was added recently that clears up some language and changes a funding source (since the Senate used that source in their unemployment legislation). To say there's only three days to catch up on the health care bill is a GOP distortion. Every time we amend the bill, do we need to delay the process by a week?

Posted by John Jensen at November 5, 2009 09:44 AM

6. whether he would take personal responsibility if and when my employer dumps me along with the estimated 130 million others into the public option.

...And that is a complete lie. Anything bigger than small employers aren't even allowed on the health care exchange where the public option lives.

Posted by John Jensen at November 5, 2009 09:46 AM

7. @ 8,

If the Dems would quit changing the language and text of the bill more than they change their underwear there might actually have been time to read the fool thing. It is hard to hit a moving target, and the Dems seem to want everyone to be ignorant of the actual contents.

Posted by FurryOldGuyJeans at November 5, 2009 09:51 AM

8. A simpleminded, knuckle-dragging sort of question...

Someone explain to me how 2000+ pages of complex and arcane legal prose will reduce costs?

Posted by Jack Turk at November 5, 2009 10:00 AM

9. Furry, If the Dems would quit changing the language and text of the bill more than they change their underwear there might actually have been time to read the fool thing. It is hard to hit a moving target, and the Dems seem to want everyone to be ignorant of the actual contents./i>

Wait, legislation CHANGES while it's been developed? It's almost like the real world is complex and the GOP is trying to greatly simplify things to make an irate base even more pissed off.

The same thing happens with all pieces of legislation. The only difference is that you're paying attention to this one, and the GOP is exploiting that to piss people off.

Jack, Someone explain to me how 2000+ pages of complex and arcane legal prose will reduce costs?

By enacting policies that will reduce costs. Every single bill ever signed has "complex and arcane legal prose." If that were the standard of how effective a law is, then we shouldn't have passed the PATRIOT Act or any other Bush legislative priority.

Posted by John Jensen at November 5, 2009 10:05 AM

10. The Patriot Act wasn't pitched as a way to reduce the explosion in health care costs or reduce the deficit.

These 2000+ pages are being promoted as doing so.

I've skimmed over at least 75% of these pages. The devil in the details matter. There are many many many obscure, open to interpretation-type passages in this text.

Again, how will 2000 pages of new regulations, many of which are clearly ambiguous, not result in a significant administrative burden on government and the private sector?

I will acknowledge, it is indeed a jobs bill - for bureaucrats.

Posted by Jack Turk at November 5, 2009 10:18 AM

11. So not only is the long bill full of legal language, but it is vague?

Come on Jack. It's long and in legalese specifically because it is... specific. It's just dense and hard to read for you and I.

Posted by John Jensen at November 5, 2009 10:35 AM

12. Why the apologists for this thing?

If you're so confident that it's the right choice, then why are you guys afraid to require it be read and understood by those who vote on it?

Wouldn't the quality of the law be better that way? Or is it possible that if people who currently support it knew what was in it, they might not support it anymore?

Posted by Andrew Brown at November 5, 2009 11:05 AM