View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Hater Depot
Joined: 29 Mar 2005
|
Posted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 7:54 am Post subject: Why are the US health-care bills so long? |
|
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/19/AR2009091900112_pf.html
[quote]the bulk of these bills amount to hundreds of small tweaks and fixes that make this corner of the health-care system a smidge more user-friendly, or that transaction a tad faster. Rather than saving hundreds of billions of dollars with a single dramatic intervention that transforms the system, they provide for the accretion of modest savings and small efficiencies.
For instance, despite all the fire over the co-op plan, it gets two pages in the Finance Committee's bill. Pages 75 to 110 are all devoted to delivery system changes that are meant to make the system a bit more efficient but that no one has ever heard of. "Value-based purchasing" alone gets six pages in the bill. The "National Pilot Program on Payment Bundling" gets another five.
Melinda Beeuwkes Buntin, a researcher at the Rand Corporation, and David Cutler, a health economist at Harvard, recently estimated the savings that could be attained by "modernizing" the system over the next 10 years. The changes they examined weren't dramatic. Replacing paper records with computerized files, making it easier for people to comparison-shop across insurers, "bundling" payments for the treatment of a single illness rather than shelling out separately for each doctor visit -- that sort of thing. Added up, they equaled a startling $2 trillion over 10 years. That's a lot of money for policies that have received virtually no attention in the debate. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
bacasper

Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
Posted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 8:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Like many of these bills, They are so long to ensure that lawmakers do not read them, and citizens do no understand them.
Like the PATRIOT Act. How could there have been a 700-page bill ready six weeks after 9/11? Lawmakers did not read it, and were impugned for lacking patriotism for even questioning it!
Obviously, it had been prepared beforehand, and they just needed the pretext to implement it.
I am guessing with the health care bill (I haven't read any versions of it) that it is so complex in an attempt to maintain the status quo as much as possible. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
mithridates

Joined: 03 Mar 2003 Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
Posted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 10:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
bacasper wrote: |
I am guessing with the health care bill (I haven't read any versions of it) that it is so complex in an attempt to maintain the status quo as much as possible. |
So why not give it a read over? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
bacasper

Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
Posted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 12:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
mithridates wrote: |
bacasper wrote: |
I am guessing with the health care bill (I haven't read any versions of it) that it is so complex in an attempt to maintain the status quo as much as possible. |
So why not give it a read over? |
1. There is no "it." There are many versions, each over 1,000 pages, no?
2. I don't have to vote on it. If lawmakers who are getting paid to do it are not, why should I bother?
3. I am sure it is/they are quite complicated. I wouldn't know the significance of it all.
4. I am not really that interested.
All that being said, got a link? I'll admit that you are correct in exhorting me to do it. I just might turn to some of the more germane pieces and try to make head or tail of it. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
mithridates

Joined: 03 Mar 2003 Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
Posted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 9:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
I like this link:
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text
You can see the comments related to certain sections of the bill so you can get an idea of some of the debate surrounding them instead of just wading through reams of text.
I haven't read the bill yet either, but then again I don't have a personal interest in the matter besides wanting to see the US prosper. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005 Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
Posted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 10:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
There are numerous competing and constantly changing bills. Members of Congress do not have time to read the bills submitted each year. Members of Congress do not write the bills either.
There are thousands of unknown staff members who write pieces of bills that are then crammed together by members who introduce them without reading them. Staff members are also unable to read everything and are responsible for portions of the bills. In addition they lack expertise and rely on unknown outside experts and interested parties to write the portions that they are responsible for writing.
It is in this process of crafting legislation that all the corruption and chaos takes over and destroys any chance that good intentions will prevail. If it were not already proven theoretically and practically that socialism always fails due to its violation of the laws of physics, economics and basic human nature, we could still count on the fact that socialism will always fail due to the mathematical principles of chaos theory and the impossible complexity of socialistic legislative processes. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
bacasper

Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 12:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
As a baby step towards improving upon these "socialistic legislative processes," I propose there be a requirement that legislators actually READ any bill put up for a vote. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 1:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
bacasper wrote: |
As a baby step towards improving upon these "socialistic legislative processes," I propose there be a requirement that legislators actually READ any bill put up for a vote. |
Why? If their constitutents don't demand it, why should they be expected to do it? The American people get the quality of legislator they insist upon. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
bacasper

Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 2:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Fox wrote: |
bacasper wrote: |
As a baby step towards improving upon these "socialistic legislative processes," I propose there be a requirement that legislators actually READ any bill put up for a vote. |
Why? If their constitutents don't demand it, why should they be expected to do it? The American people get the quality of legislator they insist upon. |
I'm a constituent. I demand it. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 2:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
bacasper wrote: |
Fox wrote: |
bacasper wrote: |
As a baby step towards improving upon these "socialistic legislative processes," I propose there be a requirement that legislators actually READ any bill put up for a vote. |
Why? If their constitutents don't demand it, why should they be expected to do it? The American people get the quality of legislator they insist upon. |
I'm a constituent. I demand it. |
Good. When your fellows come around to your totally correct way of thinking, our government will improve by leaps and bounds. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007 Location: retired
|
Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 2:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Emile Bazalon (sp) from Slate's Gabfest said that the cost of the likely health plan on an individual earning 33k/yr would be 13% of their income.
And if they don't pay?
Quote: |
Ensign receives handwritten confirmation
This doesn't happen often enough.
Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) received a handwritten note Thursday from Joint Committee on Taxation Chief of Staff Tom Barthold confirming the penalty for failing to pay the up to $1,900 fee for not buying health insurance.
Violators could be charged with a misdemeanor and could face up to a year in jail or a $25,000 penalty, Barthold wrote on JCT letterhead. He signed it "Sincerely, Thomas A. Barthold."
The note was a follow-up to Ensign's questioning at the markup. |
http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0909/Ensign_receives_handwritten_confirmation_.html?showall
It is time to accept reality. Obama is not Mr. Hope and Change. This idea to create "universal" coverage by forcing poor people to buy crappy plans or go to jail is simply evil. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Hater Depot
Joined: 29 Mar 2005
|
Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 7:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
More reasons I don't worry about the length of bills.
http://volokh.com/posts/1253805296.shtml
Quote: |
Here, we should keep in mind that the ultimate function of the legislature is to produce good law; that determining whether a particular law is good or bad is such a complex and subtle task that all legislatures have found it necessary to divide labor, form committees, hire staff, expect particular legislators to become experts and leaders in particular domains, and, indeed, delegate many functions to unelected expert regulators. This means that, for virtually any law, only a handful of people can possibly have a sophisticated understanding of the bill in question. It�s not a matter of reading the bill or not; it�s a matter of knowing about the problems that the bill hopes to solve. You can read the Bankruptcy Code from start to finish and even if you have an IQ of 200, you won�t understand it unless you also know how courts interpret the Code, how businesses respond to it, how state governments work around it, how regulators like the IRS use it, how it affects the incentives of individuals and firms, the meaning of moral hazard, something about risk aversion, how credit markets work, and on and on. I would say a half hour conversation with a credible expert would be vastly more useful than reading the Code, and if you say the legislators should talk to the expert and read the Code, you need also to believe that reading the Code will add to understanding and the legislator has nothing better to do with his time (for example, consult another expert with a different background, or consult an expert about another bill). |
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
DWAEJIMORIGUKBAP
Joined: 28 May 2009 Location: Electron cloud
|
Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2009 8:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's to keep you so busy trying to figure it out that you don't realise that it needs to be scrapped... |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|