Put the health care reform bill online, now?
 

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/52383502.html

Put the health care reform bill online, now
Examiner Editorial

August 4, 2009 A thousand-page bill hit the House Clerk's desk in the wee hours of June 26, shortly before it was to receive a floor vote. The bill -- the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill on carbon emissions -- had been substantially changed in committee the night before, with a 300-page amendment added. As the debate progressed later in the day, not even the clerk himself had a full, amended copy of the bill the House was about to vote on. Not one member of Congress could have possibly read it, because no complete version yet existed.

We hoped this debacle would not be repeated with health care, but here we go again. The House Energy and Commerce Committee passed a final version of the House health-care reform package Friday before leaving for the August recess. 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.

In fact, the very volume of changes to the sweeping bill underscores the importance of giving the public a finished version as quickly as possible. Nearly every American's coverage might have to change because of this bill. Nearly every employer and every individual will be affected. Allowing weeks to go by before posting the text encourages one conclusion - House Democrats are afraid of what people will say when they read the bill. Judging by the tumultuous scenes already recorded at congressional town halls in Missouri and New York, it's easy to see why Democrats - who know what's in their bill - fear facing the music.

UPDATE EDITOR'S NOTE: The bill text that is posted as of 4 pm on Tuesday, 8/4/09, on the committee web site does not incorporate the multiple amendments that were approved by the committee.

I am sure this is merely an oversight. The MOST transparent administration in history PROMISED to post all Bills, and they simply wouldn't lie about it.

Well, I found this in about 5 seconds. Do you guys search for what you are seeking, or do you expect it to turn up in your mailbox?
http://help.senate.gov/BAI09A84_xml.pdf

Don't forget all you 65 yr old + folks need to start working on your "End of Life" counseling. YIKES - I only have 13 years to go.

I did that 19 years ago when I was headed for major surgery.
There's nothing wrong with making plans so your family knows what to do in case you can't tell them.
No need to jump out your butt, just write down your instructions for your family.

Isn't that special!
 

I'm right now trying to locate the suitable Fraggle Rock episode that can explain this better than just the words from the article! I'll post this as soon as I find something.

That way next time an issue comes up everyone can hopefully participate actually knowing the difference between the US House of Representatives and the other legislative branch the US Senate!

If the article is read; it is clear:

"The House Energy and Commerce Committee passed a final version of the House health-care reform package Friday before leaving for the August recess. 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. "

Easy to make this kind of mistake when only taking no more than 5 seconds to respond I guess!

I expect to find what I'm searching for and I'm not expecting that things that I'm not searching for are acceptable instead! Thanks!

Planning
 

Do you think that Obama will include in his "Federal - How I Want To Die - Form US FED 666; a check box with the line " Do everything possible and spare no expense in doing so, I've paid into this system for all my life and have never been notified that there are options that will extend my life but can't be had now!"

I think you're over reacting. A living will and durable power of attorney have been around for many, many years. If you are not aware of this, that only goes to highlight your obvious lack of knowledge.

Really!
 

So I can only guess that you either can understand the question or can't answer the question I asked.

The question is not about whether advanced directives exist but whether under the proposed schemes that the administrators of care will be predisposed or in all probability "incentivized" to steer individuals under their care away from costlier care and towards choices that avoid prolonging the dying process?

With regard to your ignorance as to the extent of my awareness and knowledge, I'm certain that the benefit of having my spouse an RN in long term care facility management for the past 30 years and two adult daughters who also RNs working in long term care facilities provides me with more information and understanding regarding these matters than most. Having my own advanced directives as well is just icing on this cake.


P. S. And don't be bashful just post those links that you find regarding the "unavailable House Energy and Commerce Committee passed a final version of the House health-care reform package" so as to stop all this "disinformation"!

I did post a link. Sorry if you couldn't open it.
So what is your problem? The g'ment is recommending that older persons do as you and I have done. Any other interpretation is based on politics and not reason.

Civics 101 - US Senate is not the same as the US House of Representatives!!!!!
 

I apologize, and I'm sorry that you still don't know or understand the difference between the United States Senate (and the link you've provided) and the United States House of Representatives specifically the Energy and Commerce Committee which last Friday, July 31, 2009 voted 31-28 to approve H. R. 3200 America’s Affordable Health Choices Act, the subject of the article originally posted.

The Democrat controlled House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee, of the Democrat controlled United States House of Representatives has thus far failed to make the complete and accurate text of H. R. 3200 America’s Affordable Health Choices Act, available for the public, despite allegedly having the complete and accurate text available at the time of the vote. It has become clear and may be acceptable to the illiterates among the population not to read legislation before voting on it but I hope it has not yet become acceptable that the entire population at large, Obamunists obviously excepted.

If and when you find a link to the complete, accurate, and full text of H. R. 3200 America’s Affordable Health Choices Act feel free to enlighten the rest of us.

Sorry, I'm not your secretary. Anyone with any sense can find the House bill in a few seconds.

The Emperor's New Clothes
A very old fable, the moral of which is: Some things never change.
Two rascally con men came into town and told the emperor that they were skilled weavers of very special cloth. It was made from very special thread that they spun themselves, from a process that they had generated themselves, that was quite secret.

Naturally the emperor, a very vain and self centered person, who was always thinking of how he looked and indulging himself in the finest of clothing wanted to have this cloth for a new set of clothes. He would spare no expense.

So he had the men installed in the best guest suites at the castle overlooking his world renowned fish pond. They were given his credit card and told to charge what they needed to set up their workshop.

They had a blast. They ordered a spinning wheel and pretended to spin, while eating and drinking from the King's best provisions. When the King came to see what they were doing all he could see was an empty spinning wheel.

"What's this" he exclaimed. "There is Nothing on this spinning wheel."

Oh! "This is very special thread" they told him. "It has a very special quality" "It is very Distinctive." "Only those people who are worthy of their office and intelligent enough can see it."

"It is a beautiful irridescent shade of royal blue with beautiful earth tones running through it"

One of the men held up his hands with the imaginary skein.

"You Do see it don't you?" he asked in an incredulous tone to the King.

"Um, Oh yes indeed, I do see it!" the King said, not wanting to be thought of as unworthy of his office or stupid. "Of course I see it."

And the more he looked the more he imagined he could see it. "I like the purple and gold flecks, very Distinctive. I've never seen anything like it."

And he went and told his prime minister, his wife, his kids and the royal court all about these talented crafts people who were spinning this incredible threads to weave this incredible cloth.

After hanging around for several weeks, "spinning" the thread and amusing themselves at the king's expense, the rascally con men moved the "thread" to the loom and started to weave.

To save time in this retelling, I'll just skip over to the fact that everybody went to see for themselves and nobody wanted to admit that they saw Nothing, since that would mean they would be deemed unworthy and stupid. The more people who saw it, the more elaborate the descriptions of the cloth became, till eventually there was no adult in the kingdom who had not either "seen" the cloth first hand or heard the telling about it in the marketplace or in popular songs of the day.

In fact, the king had decreed since the cloth had the ability to tell if people were worthy or intelligent, it became a necessary prerequisite to hold office, to view the cloth and describe it. So there was a fairly steady parade of cabinet members and court officials visiting and complimenting the weavers on their work.

The rascally con men drug out their little pantomime as long as they could, putting the king off, postponing the time he would finally get to wear his new clothes.

"We've got an Advanced weaving system that will take some time. There is a lot of Self Expression that goes into tailoring. We need to take your measurements exactly. This is a very special work we are doing for you, etc, etc." Finally, after many adjustments, and repositionings and lots of free food and drink, the master weavers, allowed the King to try on his new clothes down to the hand monagrammed extra silky imaginary underwear.

"How do I look?" he asked his weavers.

"Oh, your majesty! You look Transformed!" one con man said. "Your court will really notice the difference in your highness." the other one said.

"How do I look?" he asked his Prime minister.

"I've never seen anything like it." his prime minister truthfully replied.

The King asked all his court, his wife, his children, his royal bakers, Everybody in the palace gave the highest compliments to the vain king.

"I shall parade down main street at 6'oclock so that my loyal subjects can see my wonderous new clothes. I declare this a New Age in finery." said the king in his most important Kingly voice.

And so he did, parade, in all the glory that God had seen fit to endow him with, with royal trumpeterss in front and royal knights behind.

The crowd murmered their admiration and approval, each one not wanting to be thought unworthy or stupid.

All except one little girl, who looked at the king with wonder and surprise and piped up with a clear, bell like tone that carried quite far into the crowd.

"Mommy, why is the King naked?"

Her mother was very embarassed and tried to hush her little girl, but she was a strong willed young lady and not easily put down.

"But Mommy!" She screamed even more loudly, "He is wearing Nothing at all."

Suddenly the crowd began to laugh and pass the comment to their neighbors and as if breaking from a trance, they all realized it at once.

"The child is right!"

"He is naked!" "Oh my gosh" And they started to laugh and point and wonder.

The King came to his senses, also, as if woken from a trance and realized that he had wasted untold amounts of money, and time at fittings, and was now standing in his altogether, being ridiculed by the populace.

"Bring me those weavers" he bellowed to his guards.

Ah, but it was too late, they had fled town hours before, crossing the river and sailing far away.

Laughing as hard as they could they travelled all the way along to another town, where they looked up the most self-centered, important citizen to start their scam all over again.

Jeez, dude, go find a 12 yr old and get a lesson on "Google":

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-3200

I often find myself saying this:
a little education can go a long way.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3200ih.txt.pdf

Its amazing what 5 seconds on Google can do.

These guys are the victim of their own propaganda. I'm sure some talk radio guy told him that all of this stuff is hidden from the public, so they assume it is true and then come on these forums and make fools of themselves. Same thing happened with the Stimulis Bill, all these right wingers claiming Obama broke a promise because "the bill wasn't posted for five days". That was total BS, I never had any trouble finding the thing, it was out there the whole time they were debating it. Paranoia runs deep. Now you know why they can't even find a Birth Certificate printed by a government health office.

But no problem finding a ridiculously fake one from Kenya :wreck:

Thanks!
 

Better check the link big boy!

"GovTrack.us Is Temporarily Unavailable
NOTE: Once Congress goes on break in mid-August we'll be upgrading our hardware so we have less downtime once the fall session begins. 7/30/09

GovTrack.us is currently having some down time. Either the website is undergoing maintenance, or the site was shut down because of an error or high load.

Please try reloading the page in just a few moments.

If the problem persists, please bookmark this page and return in a few hours. Thanks for visiting!"



"This version: Introduced in House. This is the original text of the bill as it was written by its sponsor and submitted to the House for consideration. This is the latest version of the bill available on this website."

Once again!
 

Well it seems that the difference between the link posted:

"IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
JULY 14, 2009
Mr. DINGELL (for himself, Mr. RANGEL, Mr. WAXMAN, Mr. GEORGE MILLER
of California, Mr. STARK, Mr. PALLONE, and Mr. ANDREWS) introduced
the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Ways and Means, Education
and Labor, Oversight and Government Reform, and the Budget,
for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case
for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the
committee concerned
A BILL
To provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans
and reduce the growth in health care spending, and
for other purposes.
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF DIVISIONS, TITLES,
4 AND SUBTITLES.
5 (a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the
6 ‘‘America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009’’.

and the actual amended version which was voted on Friday, July 31, 2009, is beyond the comprehension of some!

perhaps a "la little more education can help folks go all the way!"

Honestly, are these facts that hard to accept?

I'm just curious - what's your point in posting this? You can easily go to Google yourself and find the bill. There are 4.6 million results for H.R. 3200. We have given you a few of them, just because one is down for maintenance doesn't prove your idea that the bill hasn't been posted online. Google is your friend.

you asked for the bill, that's the bill. Here is the greater website:

http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1722:hr-3200-americas-affordable-health-choices-act-of-2009-markup-day-5&catid=141:full-committee&Itemid=85

Again, great job utilizing this fabulous tool called the internet. Notice the BILL IS STILL DATED JULY 14...Hmm...perhaps because thats when it passed....

Darn!
 

I know this must be difficult, but is the concept; of this bill's "mark up" on July 14, 2009 being different from the amended bill's approval on July 31, 2009, beyond your capacity, “perhaps” you have not had the opportunity to learn this yet? I can only surmise that the 50 amendments and the additional 123 pages added on Friday, July 31, 2009 just before the approval was passed may be unimportant to you and your level of interest. But I don't understand your attempt to disparage those who possess a greater curiosity than you?


"I'm just curious - what's your point in posting this? You can easily go to Google yourself and find the bill. There are 4.6 million results for H.R. 3200. We have given you a few of them, just because one is down for maintenance doesn't prove your idea that the bill hasn't been posted online."

4.6 million Results and not a single one that provides the complete and accurate text of the bill as it was approved out of the committee on Friday July 31, 2009. The source of the complete and accurate bill as approved is the Democrat controlled House Energy and Commerce Committee which has failed to make this truth available. You obviously do not care to know what actually approved. I believe that the text of the actual bill as it was approved should be available for the bill payers to read. Legislators should be accountable to the voters, these very same legislators failing to let people know exactly what was voted on is unacceptable. The “marked up” H. R. 3200 (from your link) was altered via amendment right up until the vote on the 31st if the amended bill was available to those who cast their votes last Friday how in this day of electronic documents and networked information systems is this very document not available today 5 days later?

For someone who is so "curious", you sure haven't spent a whole lot of time actually looking into this. This is from the link I posted before:

Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute - Agreed to, as amended, by a voice vote
Amendment - Rep. Barton - Not agreed to by a recorded vote, 22 - 35
Amendment - Rep. Eshoo - Agreed to by a voice vote
Amendment - Rep. Shadegg - Ruled non-germane
Amendments En Bloc - Rep. Green - Agreed to by a voice vote
Amendment - Rep. Whitfield - Agreed to by voice vote
Amendments En Bloc - Rep. Engel - Agreed to by a voice vote
Amendments En Bloc - Rep. Walden - Agreed to by a voice vote
Amendment - Rep. Capps - Agreed to by a voice vote
Amendment - Rep. Welch - Withdrawn
Amendment - Rep. Buyer - Not agreed to by a recorded vote, 24 - 34
Amendment - Rep. Welch - Agreed to by a voice vote
Amendment - Rep. Barton - Withdrawn
Amendment - Rep. Christensen - Withdrawn
Amendment - Rep. Terry - Withdrawn
Amendment - Rep. Sutton - Agreed to by voice vote
Amendment - Rep. Rogers - Not agreed to by a recorded vote, 26 - 33
Amendment - Rep. Space - Agreed to by a voice vote
Amendment - Rep. Terry - Not agreed to by a recorded vote, 28 - 31
Amendment - Rep. Rush - Agreed to by a voice vote
Amendment - Rep. Stearns - Agreed to by a voice vote
Amendment - Rep. Stupak - Not agreed to by a recorded vote, 27 - 31
Amendment - Rep. Radanovich, Not agreed to by a recorded vote, 23 - 32
Amendment - Rep. Matsui - Agreed to by a voice vote
Amendments En Bloc - Rep. Buyer - Withdrawn
Amendment - Rep. Eshoo - Agreed to by a recorded vote, 47 - 11
Amendments En Bloc - Rep. Buyer - Agreed to by a voice vote
Amendment - Rep. Buyer - Withdrawn
Amendment - Rep. Weiner - Withdrawn
Amendment - Rep. Gingrey - Not agreed to by a recorded vote, 23 - 35
Amendment - Rep. Ross - Withdrawn
Amendments En Bloc - Rep. Doyle - Agreed to by a voice vote
Amendment - Rep. Barton - Not agreed to by a division vote, 18 - 28
Amendment - Rep. Ross - Agreed to by a recorded vote, 33 - 26
Amendment - Rep. Shimkus - Agreed to by a voice vote
Amendment - Rep. Baldwin - Agreed to by a recorded vote, 32 - 26
Amendment - Rep. Shadegg - Not agreed to by a recorded vote, 22 - 36
Amendment - Rep. Schakowsky - Agreed to by a recorded vote, 32 - 23
Amendment - Rep. Hall - Not agreed to by a recorded vote, 27 - 31
Amendment - Rep. Christensen - Agreed to by a voice vote
Amendment - Rep. Barton - Agreed to by a voice vote

Each one of those documents clearly says AMENDMENT, listing whether or not they were agreed upon, the date submitted of July 30th, the text of the amendments, and the vote. Is it one long document? No, but it sure is the contents of it. This was clearly posted on the website, and is the actual contents of the link I sent you. I took the tremendous task of typing "H.R. 3200" into Google and graciously posted the results you wanted, out of the bottom of my heart. I suggest you actually LOOK at what I am showing you. All you are doing is simply denying the fact that these are actually available and submitting yourself to some conspiracy that the gov't is witholding the bill from the public. As they say, "ignorance is no excuse". Take a look at these amendments. Are they not what passed and what was proposed on Friday July 31, 2009? Better yet - watch the videos if you don't believe me. I will say it again - a little education can go a long way. And so will google searches.

It must be a conspiracy!

Btw, you are sorely mistaken if you think I have no interest in this issue....:rolleyes:

If you're referring to the thread I started discussing the lack of a 48 hour waiting period (not a 5 day waiting period, so maybe you're referring to another thread?) on the stimulus bill before it was voted on, you were wrong, and I pointed that out. The amended version of that bill was NOT available for 48 hours before the final vote was cast.

http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/off-topic-discussion/245051-stimulus-bill-sorry-i-have-ask.html

Dude, you want me to prove it to you in black and white? It came out of conference on Feb 12, and if you look at this web page, links were available to the full text on that date, and as you can see by reading the page, plenty of us Liberals were tearing into it, on Feb 12:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/conference-committee-report-on-the-federal-stimulus-bill

The Bill then passed on Febuary 17, if you don't believe me, read it in the Legislative History section of this Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009

Let's see, 17 minus 12, ah, that's ah, five days.

If you couldn't find it to read it, that's your problem, I and thousands of other people on the Left certainly didn't have one. Like I said, I think Righties just soak up the dis-information fed them by their Megaphone Machine, and half the time they don't even know what's really going on.

Try again. We agree on the final bill's language being posted late at night on Feb, 12. President Obama did indeed sign it on Feb. 17, but the vote we were discussing took place Feb. 13. All of this is detailed in the thread I mentioned in my post above if you'd bother to read it.

Anyway, I guess I can at least agree with you regarding the alarmists. I generally lean conservative, and the Glen Becks of the world are really making life miserable for those of us who'd like to have a serious discussion about some of these issues. Folks always assume I'm "one of THOSE guys." A fine example is the nirthers... there's an issue that needs a rest already.

They are poisoning the discussion for reasonable people. They are putting so much disinformation out at this point, along with this insane Birther Madness, it is simply incredible. I can't believe they are blind to what this is going to do them long term.

Its a challenge, not a request!
 

Well Now!

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...

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.

Another Obamanista's Obamafuscation!
 

"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.

Thanks!
 

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.

The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth!
 

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 :rolleyes:

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....

Ouch!
 

"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. :lips:

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? ;)

*** Option 666: Soylent Green Exit ***
 

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?

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 :beerchug:

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

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... :rolleyes:

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.

One more dance!
 

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.

So by this "car" analogy you have here. So say a mint condition MB is sitting in your driveway with no fuel filter and you are a master mechanic, certainly capable of repairing the car. You have the fuel filter in one hand and a screwdriver in the other but you're unwilling to take the 5 minutes to put it on and make the car complete, so you junk the car. It won't run without the fuel filter, but you have everything you need to fix it. Does that mean the car is bad? Sure I guess its a slightly more cumbersome way to get the car running but it is still there 100%. See how ridiculous this is getting? Agree to disagree and call it a night.

Thank you for finally admitting it. Maybe inconvenient to you, but you're not going through the document as I had originally thought.

Same goes to you, my friend :)

Pretzel Logic?
 

Following your non-fact based fantasy analogy you must be arguing that the task this mechanic would need to accomplish is precisely the same task that the entire engineering team at Stuttgart is admittedly incapable of accomplishing thus far and which they have stated we should expect to take weeks at best!

You in this case once again attempt to equate the effort required by a single individual to make sense of all the parts and pieces of this information with the collective efforts of the legislative staffs who have not been able to accomplish the same in six days running and thus far have offered no hope of accomplishing in less than multiple weeks. You either have an extremely high opinion of such an individual’s capabilities or an extremely low opinion of the collective capabilities of the legislative staffs responsible.

Sweet dreams little one!

Thanks for the memories, again!
 

Maybe he is and maybe he isn't!

But the brilliance on display in this thread:

http://www.peachparts.com//shopforum/showthread.php?t=258337

leaves no doubt where someone not a secretary is positioned!

Chas H:

Post # 12
In response to the danger of containers floating in the sea, they are required to have a means to cause them to sink after a short time in the drink.

Post # 15
"Originally Posted by R Leo
But what happens if they're loaded with ping pong balls or rubber duckys?
No sinkee."

I dunno, and I suspect neither do you. But if some mechanism can let in water and let out air, it can also let out duckies and ping pong balls.

Post # 18
"Originally Posted by kerry
The ones I've been in don't appear to have sinking mechanisms"


How could you possibly know that?

Post # 19
"Originally Posted by R Leo
I may know more than you realize.

I just happen to have a TEU here and I'll tell you one thing, there is no 'mechanism' to sink it (other than ventilation holes) or let the duckys loose. If it was completely full of something reasonably buoyant, it would probably float with about 2-3" of the top exposed.

Being the clever fellow you are, you'll know the answer to this:

Is it duckys, or is it duckies?"

Don't matter how you spell it. They still get out.

Some things that have fallen off container ships and then washed ashore months and years later:

Sneakers 1992: Five containers of Nike sneakers fell off a ship heading from South Korea to Seattle, resulting in 80,000 floating shoes. They washed up on beaches all over the Pacific Northwest.

Toys 1992: A container fell off a ship crossing the Pacific, sending 28,800 floating toy ducks, frogs, turtles and beavers from a company called The First Years into the water. Many came ashore in Japan and Alaska, but some crossed the North Pole and were found in the North Atlantic. They are still being discovered by beachcombers today.

Hockey gear 1994: Cargo from two 20-foot-by-40-foot containers that fell overboard crossing the Pacific — about 34,000 hockey gloves, chest protectors and shinguards — washed up on the coastline between Oregon and Alaska.

Legos 1997: Nearly 5 million Lego pieces were lost in a container, one of 60 that fell off a ship near Land's End in the UK. Ironically, many of the pieces were sea-related, such as 418,000 diver flippers, 26,000 life preservers, 97,000 scuba tanks and 4,200 plastic octopuses.

Post # 24
"Originally Posted by kerry
By opening my eyes and looking around.
Because you didn't see it it's not there?"

The facts don't support your observations.


The world according to someone not your secretary either, "Containers are required to have a means to cause them to sink after a short time in the drink washed ashore months and years later." Thanks!

:bowrofl: I continued your analogy, not my fault if its fantasy. Let me explain this more, maybe you will see my point of view: Engineers at stuttgart = legislators who made the original bill, which = MB. The bill is pretty much all there except for a couple small parts (= fuel filter). An individual has the tools (screwdriver = internet) and the parts missing (amendments = FF) and is just waiting for someone else to put it together. I guess there could be a mechanic introduced that would be the metaphoric legislative staff, to put the thing together.

Is an individual not capable of putting this together if he/she is reading the bill? I do have high opinions of an individual who goes out of his/her way to read 1000+ pages of legislation, regardless of amendments - you're right.

I didn't ask you to be the secretary...you threw the link(s) out there just like tbomachines and you keep saying "It's all there."

Simple fact of the matter: It's not all there...and that's the point.

It's not all in one area either...that's the other point.

Fine...partial education is what has this country in the state that it's in...complete and blind loyalty to those in charge without holding them to a higher standard...then accusing those that shine the light on them of blinding them and keeping them from doing a better job. :mad:

If you say "No tax increase on the Middle Class" - you'd better stick to it or you'll get eaten alive in your first term like Bush I. was. :eek: :cool:

If you say "Complete Bills will be posted on the Internet" - then quit putting out bills that don't have all the markups in 'em and say the bill has been posted...either it's complete or it isn't...and in this case...who the hell can tell? :confused:

I can't speak for "Billybob" (Nor' should I!), but when you offer it, I'll except the apology. ;) And to further show good will, you don't have to offer it in public...a PM will do nicely. Don't worry, I won't tell your buds... :thumbup1: