November 3, 200916 yr But you want them to make an uninformed vote by not reading it? They should then wait to vote on the bill, so they have time to read it. This too big a decision to jam it down everyones throat. Again, I'll ask you. Do you think the average congressman/woman has the ability to fully comprehend 2000 pages worth of legal-ese and healthcare implications? If I have you 6 months could you tell me exactly what the bill states and its implications?
November 3, 200916 yr Again, I'll ask you. Do you think the average congressman/woman has the ability to fully comprehend 2000 pages worth of legal-ese and healthcare implications? If I have you 6 months could you tell me exactly what the bill states and its implications? Sorry to butt in, but I can't overlook this... Whether they have the ability, resources or other tools necessary to fully comprehend this bill or not is secondary to what should be crystal clear... They have no friggin' business voting for or against anything they do not understand enough to know in reasonable detail what it is they are voting for or against... PERIOD. This is FAR TOO SIGNIFICANT to allow a politically motivated party line stance simply for the sake of swinging party power. Either they simplify the bill enough to make it comprehensible, or they find some geniuses that can explain it to them, or THEY DON'T VOTE FOR IT. This is reminds me of what we'd have if we put Jethro Bodine in Congress. Apparently we have a bunch of Jethros in D.C. What is the big freaking rush to make this mess law? This is a power play... pure and simple.
November 3, 200916 yr Sorry to butt in, but I can't overlook this... Whether they have the ability, resources or other tools necessary to fully comprehend this bill or not is secondary to what should be crystal clear... They have no friggin' business voting for or against anything they do not understand enough to know in reasonable detail what it is they are voting for or against... PERIOD. This is FAR TOO SIGNIFICANT to allow a politically motivated party line stance simply for the sake of swinging party power. Either they simplify the bill enough to make it comprehensible, or they find some geniuses that can explain it to them, or THEY DON'T VOTE FOR IT. This is reminds me of what we'd have if we put Jethro Bodine in Congress. Apparently we have a bunch of Jethros in D.C. What is the big freaking rush to make this mess law? This is a power play... pure and simple. No argument from me. My point is that its irrational for us to believe one person has the time or ability to comprehend 2000 pages of legalities. Add in that very few, if any, of them of them are even remotely familiar with the field of healthcare and its almost impossible for them to fully comprehend it.
November 3, 200916 yr No argument from me. My point is that its irrational for us to believe one person has the time or ability to comprehend 2000 pages of legalities. Add in that very few, if any, of them of them are even remotely familiar with the field of healthcare and its almost impossible for them to fully comprehend it. You are gracious as always with me. I appreciate that. Please understand that any ire you may detect from me is not directed at you, but at the circus in D.C. Your point (at least IMO) actually supports my view. If these boobs in Congress cannot find some way to fully comprehend the expenses, impacts, merits and demerits of this healthcare bill that will effectively commandeer 1/7th of the US economy... then they have absolutely no business voting it into law. Unfortunately, these clowns have become so drunk with power, they will throw caution and all wisdom to the wind just to try to secure a greater grasp on the power they so desperately crave. They are no better than crack Word Filter ViolationWord Filter ViolationWord Filter ViolationWord Filter ViolationWord Filter Violations in this regard.
November 3, 200916 yr Again, I'll ask you. Do you think the average congressman/woman has the ability to fully comprehend 2000 pages worth of legal-ese and healthcare implications? If I have you 6 months could you tell me exactly what the bill states and its implications? It is what they were elected to do. They need to do their job. If it is that complicated to read and understand then it should not become law. Yes, they should read it. They may need some clarification on parts of the bill, but they need to read the bill.
November 3, 200916 yr It is what they were elected to do. They need to do their job. If it is that complicated to read and understand then it should not become law. Yes, they should read it. They may need some clarification on parts of the bill, but they need to read the bill. I think Conyers agrees with you. If its that complicated it should not become law.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.