This is true, and we agree on that, but with all due respect, it would sure be nice if, after your very condescending claims in posts 16 and 27, you'd at least rescind some of what you've posted. You were wrong; admit as much, and let's move the discussion along. You obviously have some grasp of what you're arguing, and are not a dumb guy by any stretch, but I find it hard to sympathize with your positions. And yes, it works both ways... there are right-wingers on here who ought to be called out, too. What do you wish to accomplish by antagonizing? Gee whiz...

__________________
1992 300D 2.5T
1980 Euro 300D (sadly, sold)
1998 Jetta TDI, 132K "Rudy"
1974 Triumph TR6
1999 Saab 9-5 wagon (wife's)

Strange, I counted 21 that were agreed upon on day 5, 19 on day 4, 9 on day 3, 4 on day 2. That is over 50 in my book. The date on the amendments is submission date rather than voting date, I hope that was clear given the website's format. I'm not going to count the number of pages, but I wouldn't doubt in those 21 amendments that there were 123 pages of text. As I said, if you don't believe me, watch the videos.

The information is there, the only thing standing between here and what you requested is your own willingness to go out and read that information. I should have foreseen your hesitation given the reluctance to do a simple Google search. You're really buying into this "conspiracy" of sorts but the only reason you're not seeing it is because you won't go out there and look at it. Every single amendment proposed during their meetings is on that website - apply that to the old document and there is your answer.

I'm sorry if the government isn't mailing a leather-bound-on-a-silver-platter version of this bill and delivering it to your door when the house is on recess and its only been 3 workdays since it was amended. They have still made the information available so your claim that the government is withholding it from the public is false.

Quote:

I suggest you actually READ what you are showing. All you are doing is simply denying the facts presented in the original article despite being unable to provide any information to the contrary despite your obvious talents and giving lie to the fact that this information has been made available to citizens.

Au contraire, I read the site and explored it a bit before I posted it, something you clearly have not done as your "total" of seven amendments reflects. Also, as a side note, you shouldn't believe every little thing you read in the paper or see on TV, that may be part if the problem here. For someone with a "socialism" icon as their avatar, I would hope you would know that media have a way of spinning words.

Clearly it is to you and your ability to wave the conspiracy flag, but ignorance is ignorance and that is still no excuse when the facts are clearly posted. If the amendments weren't so clearly laid out I would definitely be giving you a break on this. Look at the site at its entirety.

What I provided was an example from one of the days of the site. Just another shining example of how you didn't go out there and look around the site for the full information you seek. I would think for someone who (1) is claiming the government is going back on their word and (2) is genuinely interested in the amendments and modifications to the document, that you would AT LEAST click a little link before arguing a moot point until you're blue in the face.

Please, for your own sake, go to the website I originally posted, look around the site, and make note of the amendments - read them and apply them at will. Chances are that our views and interests on healthcare reform would roughly line up - I'm mainly bothered by the fact that you haven't done your homework before bringing this to the table.

Edit: BTW the"Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute - Agreed to, as amended, by a voice vote" may be exactly what you're looking for in terms of a full amended copy. I haven't gone through and checked the amendments to see if they were applied - glancing over the document supports this but I don't have the time nor effort to peruse a 1000+ page document for subtle changes right now.

__________________
TC
Current stable:
- 2004 Mazda RALLYWANKEL
- 2007 Saturn sky redline
- 2004 Explorer...under surgery.

Past: 135i, GTI, 300E, 300SD, 300SD, Stealth

"BTW the"Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute - Agreed to, as amended, by a voice vote" may be exactly what you're looking for in terms of a full amended copy. I haven't gone through and checked the amendments to see if they were applied - glancing over the document supports this but I don't have the time nor effort to peruse a 1000+ page document for subtle changes right now."

This Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute at my reading is a document with a date of July 15, 2009 (7:51 p.m.) on eac page!


http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090714/aahca.pdf

is the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, Bill Text


http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090716/hr3200_ans.pdf

is the "AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE TO H.R. 3200 OFFERED BY MR. WAXMAN OF CALIFORNIA"

http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090731/hr3200 barton_enbloc1l.pdf

is the last amendment from your list which I randomly choose as it was the first from the bottom, titled "Amendments En Bloc - Rep. Barton - Agreed to by a voice vote" it's pdf page #1 contains:

Amend Title Vll Medicaid and CHIP Part4 "Coverage". After Section
1733 insert the following:
Section 1734: Ryan Dant Health Care Opportunity

SEC. 1. STATE OPTION TO DISREGARD CERTAIN INCOME IN
PROVIDING CONTII\I]ED MEDICAID COVERAGE F'OR CERTAIN
NDIWDUALS WITH EXTREMELY HIGH PRESCRIPTION COSTS.

Subtitle D- Coverage starts on page 785, line 1 and continues on through page 788, line 18 of the "America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, Bill Text"

Subtitle D—Coverage starts on page 794, line 12 and continues through page 797, line 26 of the "AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE TO H.R. 3200 OFFERED BY MR. WAXMAN OF CAL"

No where in either of these two documents does the language of the above mentioned amendment exist! Nor can the language be located in either document using the pdf SEARCH function!

"I'm sorry if the government isn't mailing a leather-bound-on-a-silver-platter version of this bill and delivering it to your door when the house is on recess and it’s only been 3 workdays since it was amended. They have still made the information available so your claim that the government is withholding it from the public is false."

No one has asked for asked for anything but a complete and accurate representation of what the House Energy and Commerce approved on Friday 31 July 2009.

Your defense of this circumstance is finding and reading the 1017 pages of the "America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, Bill Text", then finding and reading the 1026 pages of the "AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE TO H.R. 3200 OFFERED BY MR. WAXMAN OF CALIFORNIA " then find and reading the collection of amendments acted upon over a five day mark up period is what is to be expected now under the new age of Obama's Transparency. Then after accomplishing all that, each reader is expected to synthesize and divine the elemental truth contained in these multi-thousands of pages before that reader can formulate an informed opinion.

And it can only be understood that you disagree with the fundamental premise of the article originally posted:

"Unfortunately, the House Energy and Commerce Committee is dragging its feet on posting the final bill. When we called them yesterday morning to get a copy, we were told that the amended version might not be compiled until after the August recess. When we called back for an official comment, spokeswoman Lindsey Vidal gave us the slightly less jarring news that it would take at least two to three weeks, even though we live in an age of computer cut-and-paste."

You argue in your latest response, "its only been 3 workdays since it was amended" , you seem reasonably facile with regard to information technology perhaps you might offer an opinion as to how many days an undertaking such as this might be before expected to produce results?

It's obviously you haven't grasped the fundamentals of the forum "reply with quote" button in regard to your thread rebuttals.

That leads me to believe your incapable of using the search functions as well.

__________________
Question Authority before it Questions you.

Thanks for your insightful analysis! The painful plain truth is your limited capacities might find better use to improve your own grammar, particularly the use of the suffix "ly" to create adverbs from adjectives! Mr. "It's obviously!"

You might also brush up on the grammatically correct use of conjunctions and the difference between "your” and "you're".

A valuable axiom to consider for someone of your circumstance might be "Better to keep one's mouth shut letting others think you're a fool, than opening it and removing all doubt!"

Maybe you'd be better off if you stuck to discussions regarding the substance rather than the style of a thread or post. If you had any balls or brains you'd do the search and prove my conclusion incorrect, but it's obvious to all you've neither! Thanks again!

But saying the information isn't there is false. The information is all available to view, just in a more cumbersome format. All of the parts of the bill are there, someone just needs to take the time and put it all together during their vacation time. So yes, this would be a complete and accurate representation of the final bill if you print out the original and scratch in the passed amendments like any of the congressmen/women did.

If you're able to read 1017/1026 pages of legalese I'm sure that you're MORE than capable of also digesting the amendments.

I would have hoped to have it by now as well, but it does not take away the fact that all of the content is present. Almost all of the amendments were submitted ahead of time, and they are only several pages long. Compiling a 1000+ page bill takes at least few days at best, I'm willing to bet that the congressmen simply took notes when the amendments were passed or rejected so the copy-paste technique wouldn't quite work. When everyone is on vacation obviously nothing gets done and they barely barely squeezed it in before they were dismissed. Would I like to have the updated bill in its entirety? I guess...I wouldn't have the time to read through it though, and since there is no legislation occurring, I don't mind it simmering for a bit. Nothing is going to happen with them until they come back so let the unfortunate congressional intern type up the final copy and get it out.

By the way - the date of July 15 on the document is most likely the day it was accessed from their internal server (look at the address right next to it) rather than the time it was submitted, just like all of the amendments. Furthermore, your defense of this article is frightening. Did you bother to do any research? This is an opinion article from a freely-distributed conservatively bent newspaper, not exactly the most credible source...Its like quoting Sean Hannity, BillO, KeithO for true fact.

Your assumption of "Obamanista Obamafuscation" is not only false, but truly shows that your political slant is impacting the way you look at this logically. I already told you I am just trying to get the facts to you before you ardently defend your position based on an editorial/opinion article. I am, however, very glad that you finally took the time to reluctantly view what I was trying to show you.

__________________
TC
Current stable:
- 2004 Mazda RALLYWANKEL
- 2007 Saturn sky redline
- 2004 Explorer...under surgery.

Past: 135i, GTI, 300E, 300SD, 300SD, Stealth

From the original article's text:
"Whatever its merits, the American people must be able to study the approved bill's provisions before they talk to their senators and representatives members.
Unfortunately, the House Energy and Commerce Committee is dragging its feet on posting the final bill. When we called them yesterday morning to get a copy, we were told that the amended version might not be compiled until after the August recess. When we called back for an official comment, spokeswoman Lindsey Vidal gave us the slightly less jarring news that it would take at least two to three weeks, even though we live in an age of computer cut-and-paste.
Yes, more than 50 amendments were added and lawmakers made more than 123 pages of changes on Friday alone, some of them complex in nature. But unless it is being done in longhand, there is no reason not to post the text, amendments and all, immediately. Having millions of constituents reading it during the recess can only help clear up any misunderstandings about the bill's content."

The article clearly states the "final bill" and "amended version" after all you've researched there is no evidence that this information as described in this article is available, come on I'll bet even Obama would admit this! And he won't think anything less of you if you do! I even promise not to email a report of your admission as "something fishy" to the White House!

The information as it exists now maybe complete i.e. all the official parts are there, but it can not be considered accurate because included in the original bill and the companion amendment document are parts that have been stricken as a result of passed amendments. The "final bill”, "amended version" absolutely "is not there" nor is an "accurate" rendition of what was approved on 31 July 2009, I would reluctantly submit the "complete" information "is there" !

The Congress specifically the House is not on vacation but is in recess, many of the legislator’s staff are on the job and working day in day out throughout this time as evidenced by the statements reported in the original article.

Regarding the 15 July date tag, I guess this confirms the date. The document was accessed from an internal server no later than 15 July and could not have been posted before that date.

My defense is not of the article but the facts contained within the article. You allege a prejudice on my part and base on your own admitted prejudice regarding the "bent" of the publisher. Is your quarrel that it is freely-distributed or conservatively bent or a newspaper or all three? The "opinion" is clear, the electorate has a right to the information detailing pending legislation and that vital information delayed during the course of important political discourse is vital information effectively denied. Is this not an "opinion" shared by Obamunists and others? You are of course not suggesting that every fact put forth by every information organ with a "bent" is absolutely never credible or true? Or is it just those which you have prejudgments about? Even the National Enquirer has gotten a couple notable facts correct!

You have admitted you voted for Obama, and you have spent an inordinate amount of time and energy arguing everything and anything but the facts stated in the original article i.e. obfuscation - the process of darkening or obscuring so as to hinder ready analysis.

Listen, abandon your political ideology for a minute. This article, and YOU are both guilty of fear-mongoring simply because your political slant is impairing your ability to look at it logically. The article is technically correct by saying a single-document version of the final bill is not online - I never argued that. However, the article implies that there is no information about the final bill online, and that the government is withholding information from the general public. That is completely false - all of the information about the bill is online, including every single amendment, passed or rejected. If someone really wants to go read the 1000+ page bill and get the final version they can do so without much difficulty. You and the prophetic article seem to think America is completely in the dark as to what the legislators voted for. I thought you were asking to read the bill originally, and I dug up those links to help you find the information you were asking for. Since the information is all there, you have no excuse not to go and read it if you choose to do so - however I have a pretty clear impression that you simply posted this thread to troll rather than to gather information.

July 15 means accessed...downloaded on July 15 and edited from there at a later date. Look at the amendments' dates as well and compare them.

I am simply saying don't believe everything you read. As I said earlier, this article is implying that the government is withholding information from the public which is incorrect. I don't have a quarrel with it, but you are also blindly taking it for absolute truth. If I started throwing Bill Maher quotes at you and saying it was in his blog, would that make me correct?
The electorate has that information, and it has not been denied. Were you able to go look at the amendments? Sure, although only after you got over your personal convictions. Again, the information is there, it is your willingness to go look at it that is the roadblock. The bent of the article is what makes the difference from simply saying "the final, single-document version of the bill is not online yet" and "there is no article online. The government is concealing information from the public." And yes, being 100% advertiser-based, conservatively/liberally bent, and opinion articles DO impact the credibility of the paper. I shouldn't even have to say that.

Yes I voted for O, that CLEARLY makes me a supporter of everything he does without question. No WAY could I have disagreed with anything Obama has done, ever. That obviously makes me an "Obamunist" - you sure hit the nail on the head.

I've spent a large amount of time arguing you because you were so reluctant to find out the truth. You are still arguing that the government is withholding information from the public, which is incorrect - not to mention your extreme hesitation to even glance at the "other" side of the argument. So bottom line, are you actually going to go out and read the documentation that I have given to you, or did you just start this thread to try and get a reaction by suggesting the government was completely concealing the "final" document? I think I know the answer

If you're not going to actually use the information that I have given you, I am done posting in this thread. If you want help finding out more about the bill I'd be happy to help - but I have given you everything you need to do so on your own. Perhaps you can relay this to the author of your article since he/she seems to be in the same clueless boat. Funny, I'm beginning to sound like a broken record....

__________________
TC
Current stable:
- 2004 Mazda RALLYWANKEL
- 2007 Saturn sky redline
- 2004 Explorer...under surgery.

Past: 135i, GTI, 300E, 300SD, 300SD, Stealth

"The article is technically correct by saying a single-document version of the final bill is not online - I never argued that."

As is clear to anyone who reads the article and especially anyone who takes the time to peruse your "contributions" to this thread!

You find political ideology, fear mongering, political slant, impairment, implications, falsity, trolling, personal convictions, unwillingness, lack of credibility, cluelessness where you want to, where you need to.

You make many assumptions, many incorrectly, the article was posted to call attention to the fact that the final amended version of H R 3200 was not available for regular Americans to access before heeding calls on both the right and the left for the citizenry to interact with lawmakers during the August recess. A user friendly, accessible, complete, and accurate record that could afford individuals the timely information so as to formulate their own opinion rather than the mal-information obtained through the filters of others.

Interestingly, as is not uncommon under these circumstances you "speak out of both sides of your mouth", you both defend the foot dragging of the Democrat House on the grounds of the logistical impossibility of reconciling the various versions and amendments into a final accurate and concise read; while in the next breath you poo poo that very same task which you would admittedly require as " If someone really wants to go read the 1000+ page bill and get the final version they can do so without much difficulty." So which is it; a virtual impossibility by those employed by the taxpayer, or something that can be done buy the unwashed masses "without much difficulty"? If, in fact; it can be done without much difficulty by some, why not by all? And how is something so impossible to achieve by one group not impossible for all the rest?

This discussion has never been me requesting you or anyone else for information, but it has been offered as a challenge for those who dispute the literal facts originally stated in the article to refute them. You have tried and have failed miserably; instead you have made every attempt to answer that challenge with many accusations and personal attacks only to thoroughly expose your own biases. Prior to posting the thread I had already googled, found and perused the official website of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and found that exactly as the facts in the article state, no final amended version of H. R. 3200 had been posted for access by the American people. As I have said and stand by, you have done nothing but obfuscate, you ultimately admitted albeit belatedly, "The article is technically correct by saying a single-document version of the final bill is not online - I never argued that." All your efforts have been a fearful and frantic effort to rally against and attempt to call attention to your own imagined enemies. To misquote Walter Kelly's "We have met the enemy and he is us", You have met the enemy, and it is you!

You should find at least some small comfort in that you are not alone! Even in the relatively insignificant undertaking that this thread is, you have been joined in your tizzy by some likely fellow travelers; Chas H, 450slcguy, and even the great and powerful Arse Pirate, (aka Jolly Rodger). And although their "contributions" have been, ah how shall we say "illuminating", they do not for one moment compare to the candlepower of your own!


P.S thanks for noticing the avatar, I KNEW you would.

You didn't really find it, did you? You're teasing us...you don't have a link...or at least a workable link, right?

__________________

M. G. Burg
'10 - Dakota SXT - Daily Ride / ≈ 172.5K
.'76 - 450SLC - 107.024.12 / < .89.20 K
..'77 - 280E - 123.033.12 / > 128.20 K
...'67 - El Camino - 283ci / > 207.00 K
....'75 - Yamaha - 650XS / < 21.00 K
.....'87 - G20 Sportvan / > 206.00 K
......'85 - 4WINNS 160 I.O. / 140hp
.......'74 - Honda CT70 / Real 125
.
“I didn’t really say everything I said.”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ Yogi Berra ~

Another case of "Cram it down their throats and run before they realize they're choking to death on it!" syndrome...

Or..."Slow Death By Rubic's Cube" readeritis...

Some folks (unemployed, goobermint wonk, college student, people on public dole...) have tons of time to "google" and bring up the bits and pieces and somehow justify that "...it's all there!!"

Other folks have come to expect that when someone says "It's all there" - they don't have to go "googling" all over the web to put together a document, then like a poorly drawn schematic, flip from one booklet, over to another page, then back again to complete a sentence.

POST THE BILL, ON THE INTERNET, IN ITS FINAL FORM.

We aren't debating the word "is" here...you say you're posting the bill on the internet...don't expect average Joe Sixpac to "lawyer" his way around the internet to get to the bottom of a 1,000+ page document.

One Click - One Document.

Or, is that too hard of a concept for the Obamanites to understand?

__________________

M. G. Burg
'10 - Dakota SXT - Daily Ride / ≈ 172.5K
.'76 - 450SLC - 107.024.12 / < .89.20 K
..'77 - 280E - 123.033.12 / > 128.20 K
...'67 - El Camino - 283ci / > 207.00 K
....'75 - Yamaha - 650XS / < 21.00 K
.....'87 - G20 Sportvan / > 206.00 K
......'85 - 4WINNS 160 I.O. / 140hp
.......'74 - Honda CT70 / Real 125
.
“I didn’t really say everything I said.”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ Yogi Berra ~

Again, I never said or argued that it was all in one document - as you seem to enjoy pointing out. Its all on one site - if you're going to spend days on end trying to decipher the full bill, (I would like to see Joe Sixpack do this) I would hope an extra 5 minutes to click the back arrow a couple times wouldn't be too much to ask...Not my fault you or anyone else is too lazy to do that if they are so keen on having late night reading. Really someone who apparently does not have enough time to do a simple Google search isn't going to be reading a 1000+ page document, plain and simple. I don't see anything about being fearful or frantic in my posts, if anything it was the numerous attempts to get you to actually click on a link before immediately dismissing it. I really, honestly don't care about your personal opinions on this matter or on other users as long as you actually have facts on your side. You win on single-document technicality, I win on the logic that 100% of the info is there, and anyone with enough sense to read a 1000 page document is going to know how to use their back button and a pen. As far as I'm concerned this is one big trolling thread since you're not even going to use the information I have provided. Done

(and I know I said I wasn't going to post, but I felt I had to wrap it up for good)

__________________
TC
Current stable:
- 2004 Mazda RALLYWANKEL
- 2007 Saturn sky redline
- 2004 Explorer...under surgery.

Past: 135i, GTI, 300E, 300SD, 300SD, Stealth

The point really should be:

Anything that needs a freakin' book to explain, doesn't need doing in the first place.

The goobermint doesn't need to run healthcare, all we asked for was to make it affordable and managable...

That ain't happening.

Therefore, who wants to defend something so obviously flawed that it can't even be presented in a neat package, let alone having to "click" away at a screen to get some facts...

Not everyone has to learn to type 60 words/minute in order to use a flippin' typewriter, let alone be able to use a computer.

Why does everyone have to be a freakin' Bill Gates to download and read a simple bill from our goobermint?

And why does everyone have to go through the goobermint to get a shot, fix a leg or any other health care item taken care of?

I'm not a fan of One-worlders, Commie-planners, tree-huggers, tofu-suckers and anti-gunners. Any one of those folks gives me the willies...they want to control someone or something. I don't need anyone's permission to vote the way I want, pray to my God if I want, cut down weeds and brush in my yard, raise, butcher and eat the cow in my back yard and shoot the SOB that sticks his nose in my home while I'm asleep and didn't ask my permission to come in...GDI! I have a doorbell...he should have used it.

And, I'm sick of hearing about little Miss Muffet and how she fell down and the big insurance company didn't want to bend over and kiss her tuffet.

Crap happens to everyone. Sometimes you win and sometimes you're the fly hitting the windshield. SOMEHOW, our GG-Parents, G-Parents and our parents all managed to make it so that we were able to make it to this day without Uncle "O" (or his predecessors) holding our hands and singing Kume-by-ya to us...And I don't think I'm quite ready to declared him the "New Messiah" - some here seem to think this guy's Jesus-Reincarnate.

He ain't...and if he should manage to pull some rabbit out of someone's @55, I'm looking around for the nearest exit...'cause I know there were mirrors involved in that stunt and therefore, the smoke won't be too far behind. And we all know what smoke means...

__________________

M. G. Burg
'10 - Dakota SXT - Daily Ride / ≈ 172.5K
.'76 - 450SLC - 107.024.12 / < .89.20 K
..'77 - 280E - 123.033.12 / > 128.20 K
...'67 - El Camino - 283ci / > 207.00 K
....'75 - Yamaha - 650XS / < 21.00 K
.....'87 - G20 Sportvan / > 206.00 K
......'85 - 4WINNS 160 I.O. / 140hp
.......'74 - Honda CT70 / Real 125
.
“I didn’t really say everything I said.”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ Yogi Berra ~

I'm not your secretary either.
The link posted all the way back in #15 works just fine for me. I thought you were a bit more intelligent than billybob; now I'm not so sure.

The fact still remains the originally posted article is factually correct and has not yet been refuted, at this time the final version amended document is unavailable to most if not all people. You have in each posting elected to ignore the clear language of the originally posted article and instead have chosen to argue your interpretation of what your definition "of is is", admittedly not surprising.

Your self declared "win on the logic" is pharisaical at best!

Following your logic, had article posted presented facts showing there is no car capable of starting, stopping and safely traveling the reasonable distance between two points being delivered, you would argue that the some conglomeration of parts both good and bad in a distant section of some assembly area could in theory be effectively necessarily assembled and therefore "is" delivered.

Your contention "the numerous attempts to get you to actually click on a link before immediately dismissing it" is could only viewed as a feeble argument that if one would only view the conglomerations from some alternate view point and the task of assembly is not in fact an undeserved trial and tribulation but rather a sacred honor, then the scales would fall from that viewer’s eyes and they would at once behold your lie that what is plainly there before them "is" the same as a car delivered.

The reality is the final amended H. R. 3200 is still not available and only using a most tortured definition of “technicality", that 100% of the information is there.

I'm sure no one reading your "contributions" both here in this thread and in other threads you've graced with your participation, would doubt your lack of care for the opinions of others while at the same time spewing your own.