You think they could put hyperlinks in there or something that would lead to the mentioned section of the current code, and show the changes that would be made.

Now that's a great point I had never thought of.

Why does that remind me of the Roman Catholic Church in the dark ages?

They had the Bible in Latin and nobody could read it but the clergy. You had to trust your betters to tell you how to live.

When the Bible was translated and people got to read it for themselves, well, katy bar the door cuz here comes Henry VIII, Luther, Calvin et al.

Our political, social, intellectual and moral betters don't want to make the same mistake. They know what we need better than we do, bless our angry, Nazi, little hearts.

I have disagree with you on this one.

I think this beast CAN be read. I've read a good chunk of this bill, and done the work of following the references back to the original citation (i.e., Section 1859 blah blah of the Social Security Act, etc.). Of course, I'm a research scientist, so I do this kind of stuff for a living.

With that said, I am not an attorney. I think it would take an attorney to understand all the nuances of the proposed legislation. As an educated citizen, I CAN get a general sense of the individual proposals represented by specific sections and their potential implications.

Even with that limited understanding, however, this thing scares the beejeezus out of me.

NO government should have this much power over the lives and well-being of their citizens. I certainly am not willing to cede this kind of authority to the federal government, especially one with the animus against dissent that this one has demonstrated lately.

Why in the world is the bill in PDF format? It should be HTML and each little item should link to the law that is being amended with before and after versions for comparison.

Its actually considerably worse than that.

Once the general framework is in place, its going to "evolve". It will be the professional bureaucrats and lawyers vs. the citizens. Death by a thousand cuts. We will lose.

All the worst aspects that have been scaring people will gradually be implemented. I would fully expect to see Palin's "death boards" within a generation. Of course, they will be called something else - Resource Management Councils, etc.

For a model, look at the public school system in any large urban area. Tons of money spent, lots of bureaucracy, disastrous results, run for the benefits of the unions, no choice for the consumers. In fact, the unions and bureaucracy go out of their way to subvert any alternatives.

I expect there will also be some separate elite system - we can't have the families of members of congress in the public schools / public health care lines, can we?

This is all just obvious.

The people who advocate this are either idealistic fools or the worst kind of power-grabbing statists. I think most of the Obama administration and congressmen fall into the second category.

I think we have seen the end of any advancement in medical technology--procedures, drugs, etc. There will be no need for any further development, since there will be no profit in it, and very, very few in Ezekiel Emanuel's "15-40 age for receiving health care" paradigm need any care at all. New and exotic procedures or drugs require sometimes billions to develop, and I don't see that happening under this proposed system.

So this is it. What we have now, is probably all we will ever have. What a damn shame...

Illinois statutes are using a format similar to Word's change-tracking feature, in which strike-throughs and color highlights are used to display the original bills which are being edited by the new legislation. This makes the meaning clear and the changes easy to interpret.

What if a conservative lawmaker proposed that the same format be used when writing all federal legislation?

"like Mike Sola, the guy whose son has cerebral palsy and who learned he wouldn't be covered. "

Mike Sola didn't "learn" anything. He stood up in public and gave an uninformed rant using his disabled son as a prop. He should be ashamed.

Where in any of the bills currently in process does it say that cerebral palsy won't be covered?

The fact is that the reforms being proposed are pretty weak, but even so the right wing opposes it. The status quo is just wonderful. Oh, and since we lost some elections, the government should be abolished.

Children.

Eric,

There's a much better place to get the full text of any bill, without worrying that it's an old or mangled copy: The Library of Congress' THOMAS database.

http://thomas.loc.gov

The fact is that the reforms being proposed are pretty weak

Um, how would you know?

Note that you give no evidence for this. Want to take a guess as to why?

status quo is just wonderful.

If it is so bad, where are the 10's of millions of "uninsured" demanding "free" health care? Further, why doesn't Obama go to Canada for a physical? Why do rich people from all over the world come to America seeing medical treatment when they are seriously ill?

Don't worry, you can't answer.

Oh, and since we lost some elections, the government should be abolished.

You, just like the President you voted for, love attacking strawmen, don't you?
Want to take a guess as to why?

This is exactly the technique adopted by the European Union for its Constitutional Treaty. They wrote it all out neatly, so that even though it was a bit dull, you could read it and understand it. So people did, and were appalled. When they put it to a referendum in France and the Netherlands it was rejected. (Most European governments successfully avoided calling a referendum - damn unreliable creatures these voters.)

So the EU completely rewrote it, but in "insert xyz into clause 47(i)(b)" format, some of the more honest politiians actually admitting that the whole point was to make it incomprehensible. A clearly worded treaty had offered too much of a soft target to critics and they weren't going to make that mistake again.

But the substance of the redraft was, give or take a dotted i or crossed t, identical in effect to the original. So then they announced that because it was now just an "amending" treaty rather than a "constitutional" treaty they would bring it in anyway, without any referendum.

The Irish, however, had to have a referendum because their Supreme Court said so. And the Irish voted it down again. But having produced the wrong answer, the Irish have been told to have another go at getting the right one. So they're having another referendum in October.

If you worried about the future of the US, in terms of the relationship between the governors and the governed, you don't need a crystal ball. Just look across the Atlantic, where you will be able to read your own future.

Just because you can't read it, doesn't mean it's not readable...

12.14(f)(4):
No funds shall be used for pork roasting within any federal facility except in accord with the provisions of 3.7(b)(2)

3.7.(b)(2):
Notwithstanding the language in 12.14(f)(4), pork roasting is approved in any amount, anywhere.

"... they are doing as they are told. "

Exactly. Not too long ago, Congressmen were called "lawmakers". Now we hear that of course they didn't read it - it'd take two days and two lawyers to understand it.

If those guys - who are supposed to be lawmakers - can't understand it, they really ought to find another job.

Maybe we'll help them do that next election.

Another thing: the "debate" on this issue is getting to be exactly like the "debate" on "climate change". It's turned from an argument about facts (or lack thereof) into a purely emotional one - one involving Nazis and terrorists.

You'd almost think the Left is doing all this on purpose, to keep us occupied - this has become our "bread and circuses" - and keep our minds off the real thing. Whatever that is.

There's a simple rule that everybody - including Congress and the Seante - ought to follow: if you don't understand it, vote NO.

Use OpenCongress to markup the bill! Why more people don't use this site is a mystery to me.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/show

Use OpenCongress to markup the bill! Why more people don't use this site is a mystery to me.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/show

Please email the following to your congressional representatives:
~~~
I am requesting that you sponsor the following amendment to the health care bill.

If you cannot support the below amendment then you cannot in good conscious vote to approve this bill.

1) UPON THE PASSAGE OF NATIONAL HEALTH CARE BILL IT IS RESOLVED THAT ALL MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND THEIR FAMILIES ARE REQUIRED TO BE SOLELY COVERED BY THE GOVERNMENT PROVIDED HEALTH CARE PLAN.

2) CONGRESS AND THEIR FAMILIES MAY NOT HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL INSURANCE PLAN OR PRIVATE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM APPLIED TO THEM EVEN IF THEY PAY FOR IT THEMSELVES.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This health care plan does not look so good when YOU and YOUR FAMILY are forced to live by the same rules you are planning to force on the rest of us.

The supposed small employer exemption really is $200,000 (and below), and between $200,000 and $400,00, it is only a declining partial exemption.

Note that those dollar amounts are aggregate wages.
Not profits or net income or anything else that would reasonably define a small business. So a startup
or new business with even a couple of well paid employees would likely not be exempt.

8 (b) SPECIAL RULES FOR SMALL EMPLOYERS.—
9 (1) IN GENERAL.—In the case of any employer
10 who is a small employer for any calendar year, sub
11 section (a) shall be applied by substituting the appli
12 cable percentage determined in accordance with the
13 following table for ‘‘8 percent’’: If the annual payroll of such employer for the preceding calendar year:

The applicable percentage is:
Does not exceed $250,000 ..................................... 0 percent
Exceeds $250,000, but does not exceed $300,000 2 percent
Exceeds $300,000, but does not exceed $350,000 4 percent
Exceeds $350,000, but does not exceed $400,000 6 percent

14 (2) SMALL EMPLOYER.—For purposes of this
15 subsection, the term ‘‘small employer’’ means any
16 employer for any calendar year if the annual payroll
17 of such employer for the preceding calendar year
18 does not exceed $400,000.

19 (3) ANNUAL PAYROLL.—For purposes of this
20 paragraph, the term ‘‘annual payroll’’ means, with
21 respect to any employer for any calendar year, the
VerDate Nov 24 2008 23:22 Jul 14, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00150 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3200.IH H3200 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
151
•HR 3200 IH
1 aggregate wages paid by the employer during such
2 calendar year.