Um....

...so what?

Itnpir: Um....

...so what?

Go into any thread about the House bill, or a health care thread in general and count the number of posts complaining about the length of the various bills and why that's such a problem.

Then go and watch some news clips of Republican lawmakers where they complain about the length of the bills and why that's such a problem.

It would seem that the length of the bill is directly related to how bad it is, when if the bill were formatted like a book, it wouldn't be that long at all.

Aarontology: Itnpir: Um....

...so what?

Go into any thread about the House bill, or a health care thread in general and count the number of posts complaining about the length of the various bills and why that's such a problem.

Then go and watch some news clips of Republican lawmakers where they complain about the length of the bills and why that's such a problem.

It would seem that the length of the bill is directly related to how bad it is, when if the bill were formatted like a book, it wouldn't be that long at all.

Okay, fair enough, but at face value it looks like a pointless comparison.

but it's so loooooooooooong! and they won't even post it publicly to let us read it even if we could stand to read such a looooooooong bill! why won't they just pass my proposed health bill: 14 short pages filled with pictures of sexy nurses?

Did he also mention that if his grandmother were fitted with tandem wheels she could be mistaken for a bicycle?

tnpir: Okay, fair enough, but at face value it looks like a pointless comparison.

I'm gussing she chose to compare it to Palin's book because it would probably get her statement more publicity, to get in a knock on Sarah Palin, and to give opponents of the bill something easy to compare it to.

Or maybe just for the lulz.

tnpir: Okay, fair enough, but at face value it looks like a pointless comparison.

It is. As any law student can tell you, reading, say, a 20 page statute is much different than reading a 20 page essay or short story.

Maybe she was trying to imply that if the vapid twats that will be reading Sarah Palin's book could be capable of reading and retaining that many pages, perhaps they could be motivated to read the health care bill and discover for themselves that there are no death panels/FEMA camps/forced abortions.

(didn't read the article)

Aarontology: tnpir: Okay, fair enough, but at face value it looks like a pointless comparison.

I'm gussing she chose to compare it to Palin's book because it would probably get her statement more publicity, to get in a knock on Sarah Palin, and to give opponents of the bill something easy to compare it to.

Or maybe just for the lulz.

It also might be the fact that both are really difficult to get through, with all of the confusing text.

trainwrecky and inappropriate: Maybe she was trying to imply that if the vapid twats that will be reading Sarah Palin's book could be capable of reading and retaining that many pages, perhaps they could be motivated to read the health care bill and discover for themselves that there are no death panels/FEMA camps/forced abortions.

(didn't read the article)

i think she's implying that the health bill is riddled with errors, petty vengence and folksy anecdotes.

None of these farks have read all the bills they've voted on anyway.

thomps: trainwrecky and inappropriate: Maybe she was trying to imply that if the vapid twats that will be reading Sarah Palin's book could be capable of reading and retaining that many pages, perhaps they could be motivated to read the health care bill and discover for themselves that there are no death panels/FEMA camps/forced abortions.

(didn't read the article)

i think she's implying that the health bill is riddled with errors, petty vengence and folksy anecdotes.

but does it have pictures? Because Palin's book has pictures.

B..b..but...PALIN!

HAHAH!

Too stupid to realize that crap makes you all look like petty assholes too afraid to deal directly with Obama's gross leadership failures.

Did Republican lawmakers have any complaints about the length of the Patriot Act?

Just curious.

Aarontology: tnpir: Okay, fair enough, but at face value it looks like a pointless comparison.

I'm gussing she chose to compare it to Palin's book because it would probably get her statement more publicity, to get in a knock on Sarah Palin, and to give opponents of the bill something easy to compare it to.

Or maybe just for the lulz.

Republicans bought eleventybillion copies, and read 'em from cover to cover on day one. But the health reform bill is TOO HARD TO READ and TOO LONG!!!

tnpir: Um....

...so what?

• republicans: the health care bill is sooooo long!!!!! it's too long to read!!! no human could do it!!! it's IMPOSSIBLE!!!!
• republicans: did you read sarah palin's book? i read it over the weekend - it's awesome!!

trainwrecky and inappropriate: the vapid twats that will be reading Sarah Palin's book

you're talking about news editors and Daily Show readers. The people who buy Sarah Palin's book will not be reading it.

thomps: trainwrecky and inappropriate: Maybe she was trying to imply that if the vapid twats that will be reading Sarah Palin's book could be capable of reading and retaining that many pages, perhaps they could be motivated to read the health care bill and discover for themselves that there are no death panels/FEMA camps/forced abortions.

(didn't read the article)

i think she's implying that the health bill is riddled with errors, petty vengence and folksy anecdotes.

The health care bill is obviously a maverick that is being picked on by the drive-by media.

Healthcare Bill for vp slot in 2012?

Except "Going Rouge" doesn't seek to control/redesign health care in the country.

It's also a legal document, legislation that is often difficult to comprehend by the layman or apply to potential real world scenarios in advance, and also tends to heavily impact other prior legislation and regulation. So reading it ain't really understanding it. That's why there should be no rush in passing it.

SaltyDonnie: Except "Going Rouge" doesn't seek to control/redesign health care in the country.

that's sexist!

what_now: you're talking about news editors and Daily Show readers.

WRITERS

SaltyDonnie: Except "Going Rouge" doesn't seek to control/redesign health care in the country.

It's also a legal document, legislation that is often difficult to comprehend by the layman or apply to potential real world scenarios in advance, and also tends to heavily impact other prior legislation and regulation. So reading it ain't really understanding it.

What the fark do we pay these people for?

SaltyDonnie: Except "Going Rouge" doesn't seek to control/redesign health care in the country.

It's also a legal document, legislation that is often difficult to comprehend by the layman or apply to potential real world scenarios in advance, and also tends to heavily impact other prior legislation and regulation. So reading it ain't really understanding it. That's why there should be no rush in passing it.

what rush? it's been kicked around for almost a year. you'd think that in the time it took obama to completely dismantle the american dream and turn it into a communist fascist dictatorship, congress could adequately debate and craft a piece of legislation.

what_now: trainwrecky and inappropriate: the vapid twats that will be reading Sarah Palin's book

you're talking about news editors and Daily Show readers. The people who buy Sarah Palin's book will not be reading it.

I see the errors of my ways and stand corrected.

Must one of the most ambitious political projects in decades by summarized in only bullet points and pop-up pictures for the Republicans?

Seriously who in the world thinks that a program of this size shouldn't be defined and clarified exhaustively?

I have absolutely no idea how anyone who is intellectually capable of breathing can consider this talking point seriously without their head exploding.

HotWingConspiracy: What the fark do we pay these people for?

legislating is hard!

what_now: trainwrecky and inappropriate: the vapid twats that will be reading Sarah Palin's book

you're talking about news editors and Daily Show readers. The people who buy who get sent Sarah Palin's book because they clicked a link at World Net Daily or gave Hot Air 5 bucks will not be reading it.

SaltyDonnie: Except "Going Rouge" doesn't seek to control/redesign health care in the country.

It's also a legal document, legislation that is often difficult to comprehend by the layman or apply to potential real world scenarios in advance, and also tends to heavily impact other prior legislation and regulation. So reading it ain't really understanding it. That's why there should be no rush in passing it.

Shall we wait for every american to go to law school and individually read every piece of legislation before we ever pass a law again?

If the Republican legislators aren't able to understand the language in the bill, maybe the RNC could hire some tutors to help them with the big words.

I listen to a podcast that has an associated weekly long newsletter that the writer sometimes describes as "half the length of The Great Gatsby, half the quality".

This is as relevant as the bill-Palin comparison.

I'm not sure I'd make that comparison. That's comedy gold.

And, forgive me, SaltyDonnie, but they've been going at this Health Care thing for years now, and definitely in the last 10 months. Is there ANYTHING new in that bill that hasn't been seen at least a dozen times before?

Again, reading the bill is a 2 day exercise to see what has CHANGED since the last bill. AT MOST. If they added the phrase "Ta Da" to the end of the Bible, it wouldn't require much time to determine what the difference was. No need to start back over at Genesis.

SaltyDonnie: Except "Going Rouge" doesn't seek to control/redesign health care insurance in the country.

FTFY. Probably an honest mistake.

Long is only good for a constitutional picker-upper like the Patriot Act.

And? Nobody is going to read either.

/probably not the first with that snark.

Well, both congress and Palin are known for writing more than they've ever read.

SaltyDonnie: Except "Going Rouge" doesn't seek to control/redesign health care in the country.

What "Going Rouge" may look like:

Aarontology: Itnpir: Um....

...so what?

Go into any thread about the House bill, or a health care thread in general and count the number of posts complaining about the length of the various bills and why that's such a problem.

Then go and watch some news clips of Republican lawmakers where they complain about the length of the bills and why that's such a problem.

It would seem that the length of the bill is directly related to how bad it is, when if the bill were formatted like a book, it wouldn't be that long at all.

How many self-same Republicans will claim that they've read Palins book in detail and agree with everything in it? If you're going to do a job that requires a lot of reading, then be good at it, or get staff you can trust to do it for you.

Wendy's Chili: BILL BIG!

GUBMINT BAD!

SaltyDonnie: Except "Going Rouge" doesn't seek to control/redesign health care in the country.

It's also a legal document, legislation that is often difficult to comprehend by the layman or apply to potential real world scenarios in advance, and also tends to heavily impact other prior legislation and regulation. So reading it ain't really understanding it. That's why there should be no rush in passing it.

One more time:

Bills don't come out of nowhere. They're made of drafts, made of earlier drafts, made of earlier drafts. Revisions are tracked, and the people who read it are actually staffers for Congresscritters/Senators who split it up, read their part in under an hour, get together, make notes, and then submit the executive summary to their boss.

This whole "no one has read it!" shiat got old a while back.

Tenebreux: How many self-same Republicans will claim that they've read Palins book in detail and agree with everything in it? If you're going to do a job that requires a lot of reading, then be good at it, or get staff you can trust to do it for you.

I'm going to guess most of those who bought it. I just don't get why people seem to be happy when their lawmakers say something is too long to read. If my Congresswoman said that, I sure as hell wouldn't vote for her re-election.

Not that I am anyway, but still.

SaltyDonnie: That's why there should be no rush in passing it.

Then I'm sure you would agree that since Congress has spent the better part of a year discussing and debating the bill, and will be doing so for two more months, there has in fact not been any such rush.

Jacobin: Long is only good for a constitutional picker-upper like the Patriot Act.

And even though it was passed a mere 45 days after 9/11, I would have expected every single legislator to have read it before voting. That several admitted to not having read it disturbs me as an American and as a thinker. In fact weren't many of the admitted non-readers of the PATRIOT Act Republicans?

Do they ever read bills?

ne2d: It is. As any law student can tell you, reading, say, a 20 page statute is much different than reading a 20 page essay or short story.

This. But really, long bills are nothing new. This faux outrage over ZOMG LONG BILL is ridiculous.

Racht: SaltyDonnie: That's why there should be no rush in passing it.

Then I'm sure you would agree that since Congress has spent the better part of a year discussing and debating the bill, and will be doing so for two more months, there has in fact not been any such rush.

But they changed "Party A and Party B" to "Parties A & B" on page 538! You have to start over! How else are we going to know if those sneaky libs put in language mandating castration for virile True Conservatives?!?

Dr. Dreidel

And even though it was passed a mere 45 days after 9/11, I would have expected every single legislator to have read it before voting. That several admitted to not having read it disturbs me as an American and as a thinker. In fact weren't many of the admitted non-readers of the PATRIOT Act Republicans?

Do they ever read bills?

Lobbyists are so good these days, that they'll write the bills for you AND read it.

Privatization of congress, dontcha know.

And of course, this whole six-week Senate debate we're about to have is largely a giant facade anyway. We already know no matter what 39/40 Republicans will vote against cloture at the end and 57/60 Democrats will vote for it. We've known that since June.

good. should be no excuse for not reading it then

It was ACORN that change the font, spacing... oh wait, wrong thread.

tnpir: Okay, fair enough, but at face value it looks like a pointless comparison.

I thought he was saying the health care bill is a better read. Can't argue that.

thomps: SaltyDonnie: Except "Going Rouge" doesn't seek to control/redesign health care in the country.

It's also a legal document, legislation that is often difficult to comprehend by the layman or apply to potential real world scenarios in advance, and also tends to heavily impact other prior legislation and regulation. So reading it ain't really understanding it. That's why there should be no rush in passing it.

what rush? it's been kicked around for almost a year. you'd think that in the time it took obama to completely dismantle the american dream and turn it into a communist fascist dictatorship, congress could adequately debate and craft a piece of legislation.

If they can't get through this in nearly a year, what possibility do I as a consumer) have of making smart decisions about what insurance policy I would buy in a free market? Isn't the big argument against socialism and regulation the idea that a free market (which functions best with minimal barriers to entry, honest sellers, and informed buyers acting intelligently) will take better care of most citizens?

And yet, people making 6 figures with large staffs to help them with tough words can't make it through a health care package without making claims about death panels.


I think this is a far better comparison than palin's book, though I did get a chuckle. When people who run for political office clamoring about how their job is too hard to do, the response should be, "don't run for office next term," not "if you can't do your job, then we'll make it so your job doesn't need to be done at all and support your decision to pass nothing."