Tucson Citizen.com
Compound Captive - Missives about life, retirement and HOAs

Senate Vote on Health Care Reform Bill

by on Nov. 21, 2009, under Politics

At 6:15am this morning I opened the Senate website, located the health care reform bill that will be voted on tonight, and began reading it. I gave up about five minutes ago…

There’s not a chance that a single senator read the entir3e bill, and the odds are nil that they have a comprehensive idea about everything contained in it.

I completed the Evelyn Wood speed reading course back in the 70′s as a mandatory requirement for my job; I read reams of documents each week pertaining to Congressional reports, etc. I’m confident that if she were alive today she too would be hard pressed to wade through the 2,074 pages of mind-numbing language in much less than a week and would find it virtually impossible to offer a comprehensive overview of what she read.

The rush to judgment on getting this issue passed into law makes no sense, and anyone doubting it should take a look at the document that will be available on the Senate website until the voting commences this evening.

More in Pol. & Govt.:

What the hell is CPAC?

This entry was posted on Saturday, November 21st, 2009 at 8:35 am and is filed under Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

RSS feed for this post (comments)
  • tiponeill

    They actually should make a new rule for this Congress, because it is apparent that Republican lawmakers are slow readers.
    There might be a technological fix – perhaps they should issue a Democratic version and then for each bill issue a comic book (graphic novel) version is simplified language for Republican lawmakers.

    • compoundcaptive

      Apparently, you don’t have the capacity to offer any meaningful input.
      In your spare time you might want to try figuring out how to use a spell checker.
      Since you’re a speed reading expert and implied genius, it shouldn’t take you long to find your grammatical error…

      • leftfield

        Oh, come on, Compound, don’t take yourself so seriously.  That was funny.  Given that you describe yourself as an independent, it shouldn’t bother you to see Repubs insulted any more than democrats.

        Besides, they’re only voting on whether to open debate on the bill.  There’s going to be plenty of grist for the mill coming out of that; assuming there’s no filibuster.  This is gonna be fun.

    • marty61

      So YOU actually read it?

      • compoundcaptive

        No, I never said I read ALL of it. I said I waded through it for over two hours trying to make some sense of the ambiguous language…

  • tiponeill

    Apparently, you don’t have the capacity to offer any meaningful input.
    I’ve already pointed out that one can’t really offer “meaningful input” to meaningless columns.
    You don’t really think there is anything “meaningful” about repeating Republican complaints that they don’t have time to read bills, do you ?

    • compoundcaptive

      I was hoping that you might have something worthwhile to add. Of course, it’s easier to snipe from the sidelines.
      If it doesn’t concern you that our elected representatives are voting on a bill that they haven’t read and couldn’t clearly explain to their constituents, then the word “meaningful” is, in fact, meaningless…

      • tiponeill

        “If it doesn’t concern you that our elected representatives are voting on a bill that they haven’t read and couldn’t clearly explain to their constituents..”
        What doesn’t concern me is people complaining that they haven’t had time to read a bill that they already have made clear they will vote against.
        Nor does it concern anyone who is in favor of passing healthcare reform – this isn’t “meaningful”, it is political ranting and everyone is smart enough to realize it.

        • compoundcaptive

          Hmm, voting for a bill they haven’t read doesn’t concern you, but those voicing an opinion does concern you.
          Maybe you once again missed the part about my spending over two hours wading through the mishmash of convoluted language.
          What I don’t recall hearing from you is having taken the initiative to read a line of the bill.
          Gee, you’re fully qualified to be a politician…

          • leftfield

            How does the fact that the proposal is long and complicated make it necessarily dubious?

            • compoundcaptive

              Try giving it a read, and then attempt to explain it to someone in understandable, daily-use language…

              • leftfield

                Again I ask, does the bill being long and complicated necessarily mean it is evil in intention?

                • compoundcaptive

                  Consider being in a library, picking up a 2,000 page book that was recommended by a friend, and, on the way out the door, being asked by a librarian to offer an overview of it.

  • leftfield

    Yes, the bill is long and involved.  This is not surprising for many reasons, not the least of which is that there are so many parties that have to be thrown a bone for anything to move at all.  We could have made it much simpler and shorter by just agreeing to a government-run, single-payer system. 

    • compoundcaptive

      Yeah, let’s have the government control every aspect of our lives…surrendering our rights is just perfect.

      • tiponeill

        Yeah, let’s have the government control every aspect of our lives…surrendering our rights is just perfect.
        It must be horrible living under government controlled marxist dictatorships like those poor Canadians.
        Maybe we should free them next ?

        • compoundcaptive

          So, are going to continue letting you out on weekends?

          • tiponeill

            Typical right winger – you have no sympathy for those poor Canadians forced to have healthcare run by an oppressive marxist dictatorship.
            What about their freedoms ? Shouldn’t we be invading and overthrowing the oppressive Harper dictatorship and freeing them so that they can enjoy the freedom of no healthcare that we enjoy here in the glorious USA ?

            • compoundcaptive

              Many are coming here for health care. I spent a great deal of time talking with some neighbors who’ve moved here from Canada because their “everyone gets it for free’ health care system was breaking them.
              I’ve visited Canada on several occasions and talked to everyday folks about their health care system while sitting casually in coffee and sandwich shops, and not a one of them praised it or believed it was sustainable.
              Three of the doctors that provide my most essential care have offered that if the government implements a system of templeted form of treatment that basically categorizes people for certain treatment based on age, etc.,
              while concurrently reducing reimbursement for the treatment provided that they will have to close their practices.
              I’ve been civil in my tone with you, so referring to me as a typical right winger is not only erroneous, but also indicative of your closet-crudeness.
              Participate in the dialogue by focusing on the issues at hand, or do us all a favor and opt out of these discussions and chat with those who are in mindless lock-step with your banter.

              • leftfield

                Well, I doubt any of the Canadians you mention are coming here to get their prescriptions filled.  I am also skeptical that the Canadians you mention are people earning at or below the mean income.  I assume that if they are wealthy enough to travel to Tucson to enjoy the weather, they are also wealthy enough to enjoy the fact that their money will allow them to “jump to the head of the line” here in America. 

                There are also a lot of Americans traveling to Mexico to receive affordable medical and dental care.  But these are probably not in the same income class as your Canadian friends. 

                Take comfort, Compound, in the knowledge that whatever comes out of Congress will without doubt continue to allow for the fullest expression of the profit motive and will continue to provide a tiered health care system with the “haves” receiving preferential treatment.

                • compoundcaptive

                  Actually, if you watched 60 Minutes last night it became evident during the interview that a form of rationing would occur, although the government will never use such a term. After a bit a probing by the interviewer another revelation was uncovered regarding a somewhat templated form of health care (e.g., if you’re 75 years old, have XYZ condition, then you won’t get certain treatments). In effect, a bureaucrat somewhere will have the authority to make life and death decisions, and yes, it was also offered that cost will be a factor. The bottom line of that segment of the program resulted in the affirmation that at some point each of us will have a dollar value placed on our life by a total stranger.

                  • leftfield

                    Don’t we already have a system of de facto rationing in place, one based not on need, but on ability to pay?  Don’t insurance company bureaucrats already determine what treatments you will receive or not receive?  Doesn’t a total stranger in an unaccountable tyranny already determine the value of your life?  It is inevitable when dealing with a capitalistic system of economics that everything, including your life, has an exchange value.

              • http://pointmantucson.yuku.com/ mike_brewer

                I have family who are Canadian. They do not meet the same folk you run into in the coffee shops. Good journalism would identify those people with a bit more specificity and content. Otherwise it is hearsay and too anecdotal to matter. In fact most Canadians are quite pleased with there system.
                Did you know that our Medicare program was modeled after the Canadian template?  It was 1965.
                 
                 

                • compoundcaptive

                  I’m not sure how much more specific I can be: The people with whom I discussed Canadian health care are “snow birds, snow people, winter visitors” or whatever label you prefer, but they were born in Canada and are citizens there. They’ve had personal experiences with that health care system and, in many cases, it failed them. That’s the primary reason they began coming to the U.S. over two decades ago. When I asked them if others they knew felt the same way they unhesitatingly responded, “Yes, all of them, and they want to come here too.”
                  Something else I questioned early on was why the administration hadn’t begun fixing the systemic problems they identified last summer. To date, no action has been taken to address the specific areas that are broken (e.g., Medicare waste and abuse).
                  I don’t believe we can afford nor do we need to disassemble and rebuild the entire system. Addressing the parts of it that are failing would seem to be a reasonable starting point given the current economic conditions.

      • leftfield

        If it means that everybody (and I mean everybody) receives the same level of appropriate health care (no more rationing by class and race), then by all means, let’s take the profit out of health care.  If you choose not to participate, you’ll still have the same rights that the poor do now, Compound; the right to sit and wait in an ER for hours; the right to receive no preventive care; the right to be denied treatment while Japanese criminals with deep pockets and ready cash get taken care of.

        I mean, the private sector has been running health care for profit for a long time now.  Are we supposed to believe them when they say they will do better now that things are really mucked up? 

        The right to be extorted by an insurance company and the right to be denied care and the right to lose everything if I get sick are rights that I will gladly give up.

  • tiponeill

    We could have made it much simpler and shorter by just agreeing to a government-run, single-payer system.
    Agreed – and hopefully we will eventually wind up with something better than the current mess. I do agree with the Administration that passing a single payer system is simply politically impossible, though.

  • tiponeill

    Participate in the dialogue by focusing on the issues at hand, or do us all a favor and opt out of these discussions and chat with those who are in mindless lock-step with your banter.
    I think that you mean yourself, not “all of us” who would prefer TC.com to solely represent right wing mindless lockstep.
    Despite the impression that you might receive here, more of your fellow citizens want healthcare reform than oppose it or consider it “socialism”.
    If only your fellow right wingers respond to your propaganda in comments, the way that they monopolize the blogs, then TC will become a totally irrelevant right wing rag.

    • compoundcaptive

      If I’d have been referring to me I’d have said it that way. So either get it straight or drop it entirely, but try paying attention this time. On several occasions I clarified your inaccurate assumption of my affiliation with right wingers or left wingers by reminding you that Ive been a registered Independent for quite some time.
      The fact that not everyone is in lockstep agreement with you is the way things work in our world. However, I’ve never learned much from being surrounded by people who merely nod in agreement with everything being said. But you seem to want, in fact insist, on starting an argument about everything for the mere sake of irritating people. Banter on buckaroo if that’s what makes you happy…

      • tiponeill

        But you seem to want, in fact insist, on starting an argument about everything for the mere sake of irritating people.

        You seem to have a high opinion of yourself – You post a silly right wing political talking point about the size of a bill, and not only do you expect your argument to be taken seriously and not ridiculed, but you think that someone who ridicules the argument is doing it solely to “irritate” you :)
        Try this instead – If the bill was one paragraph long, the Repubs would still vote against it and would be complaining that it was too short.
        Perhaps you are unable to see through political rhetoric, but most of us can and don’t take them seriously – and if you are simply going to mindlessly repeat political slogans you might want to get used to being ridiculed – it isn’t anything personal.

        • compoundcaptive

          OK, now you’ve gone too far ego dude. You’re the one expressing a destructive attitude of “for em’ or agin’ em” with no middle ground considered and falsely labeling me.
          I can see clearly through your rhetoric as most who attempt to view things from a broad-ranging, middle ground vantage point.
          We’re done here–

  • dataport

    Compound..
    Forgive me for shouldering in here at the end of the thread, but I would like to know what you consider “meaningful input.” I have to ask this because it seems to me that you’ve had a lot of that from Leftfield and Tiponeill.
    In particular, Leftfield’s observation that the vote was simply on the issue of bringing the bill to the floor seemed perfectly appropriate. They weren’t voting on an unread bill, but simply to launch a detailed analysis and discussion.
    I have to say I agree with Tip on his observation that the Republican complaint about ‘not enough time’ is in bad faith, since they aren’t going to vote for the bill anyway.
     
    Art

    • compoundcaptive

      I’m aware of the veiled intent of the vote that just took place to move the health care debate forward. If it was such a great idea the constituents of those on both sides of the aisle would have been marching in the streets in favor of it, but they weren’t. And the marchers, town hall attenders and tea party folks were from both parties. So much for bureaucratic transparency…
      Think back to the summer and imagine the health care debacle we might be in today if Congress had managed to push through their initial bill, the one that not a one of them had read or truly comprehended.
      I did get a copy of it and read it diligently for five days; it was a completely disjointed disaster that would have likely derailed the health delivery system in our country. At least read the current Senate bills before making any further assumptions.
      Suggestion: Make a serious Starbucks run before you launch into it. If you’re prone to dozing off while reading boring, mind-numbing material then this piece of legislation makes Ambien seem like a caffeine pill.

  • leftfield

    OK, Compound; you are not a registered member of either of the major parties.  Still, whether you know it or not, your writings have been mostly in the vein of “government is not the solution, government is the problem”, “taxes are bad” and “encroaching socialism”.  This is decidedly rhetoric that can fairly be called “right-wing”.

  • ldonyo

    Wow, it’s like having talk radio in text form here! Just about as informative, too. CC is good at one thing, though. His blog is just like the Republicans’ position on everything proposed by a Democrat, always against and no other ideas offered.

    • compoundcaptive

      Oh good, another sniper. And your idea offering would be??

  • leftfield

    Your doing great, Compound.  People who agree with you will be less likely to comment on a blog than those who don’t agree with your point of view.  I don’t often comment on radical leftist blogs or websites because it all becomes an exercise in patting one another on the back and telling one another how smart we are and how dumb the other guy is.  Where’s the fun in that?  Writing about controversial issues is bound to attract more readers and get more negative responses.  You should consider all the negative responses as a measure of success.

    • compoundcaptive

      Good offering Lefty–thank you for the thoughtful input.
      As I mentioned in an earlier posting, I enjoy having meaningful dialogue with anyone who offers something worthwhile for consideration. This becomes especially useful when the person effectively describes the manner in which they view something that happens to be from a perspective that I hadn’t considered or merely overlooked.

  • http://pointmantucson.yuku.com/ mike_brewer

    Compound,
    We like Leftfield and TipOneil over at VeteranVeritas. They keep things wonderfully juiced up.  Try not to take it so personally.

«
»

About

 

November 2009
M T W T F S S
« Oct   Dec »
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30