[Jax]

I started a thread on the representatives and the new healthcare bill in the US congress, and in discussion of it, have developed a real curiosity as to just how much of it how many people have read. I've personally read a good bit of it-about 250 pages so far. I'm not asking for agreements or disagreements with the bill, so I'll not put my opinion of it in this thread. (Besides, that's on another thread already.) I'm purely curious as to how many people have read how much of it.

[mcferguson]

I have read none of it.

[Ches]

Ditto McFerg.. I just listen to (the) news.. and I read some summaries of it.. But not the actual bill...

[StillFingers]

Not really sure how many pages so far, I'm kinda skipping around a bit, reading a little here/there from each bill ie. the dem's, the repub's, the congress's, the senate's and the official combined one that changes every minute/day

[edlee]

I read both the house and senate versions when they came out of committee. At that time the total of both was under 400 pages,,,taking out title pages and tables of contents,, probably less than 200. Not that hard.

At that time, they were actually very similar. I was totally in favor of either one of them being made into law, immediately.

Unfortunately,,, as happens with all the bills in congress,,, changes were made,, additions,,,,added??,, I don't think anything was taken out,, just more poured in.

The hardest part is that, since previous laws were to be affected,, one was required to search out those laws and make the changes to the wording, to see what was really being said. So, in order to read AND understand the 1100 pages,, it's really necessary to read,, and change words in,, at least triple that.

Is it any wonder that so many wild claims are being made about it? And that no one admits to knowing all that much about what it really is going to be like? That's why none of the congressmen makes the claim to have read it all,,, none have,,, even their aides have to be delegated to specialize in certain parts in order to keep up. And as with the seven blind men trying to describe the elephant,, you get a lot of contradictory stories.

It is a huge undertaking,, and one that, in my opinion, must be done,, which will only be successful as a process,, not as a feat.

We elect these people to make these laws, so that we can go about our lives without the need of 30 person staffs, whose jobs are to explain the unexplainable. We elect them,, pay for these huge staffs,, give them the material and money and expert help they need,, no,, that is NEEDED, to do this work,,, then sit back and tell them what to do,,, with our limited resources and more limited views.

The more you know,,, the more you need to know to make any good decission. No matter what some idiot tells you,,, be they Palen or Biden,,, why would you believe them about something so complex? Second opinions on medical matters are recommended by the best doctors. But those second opinions should come from someone just as knowledgable,,, not your hairdresser,, grocery clerk, or talking head on TV.

Let these people do their work,, it's what they're paid, and equipped for. If they screw it up,, we can elect someone to fix it or scrap it. If enough people like it,, we keep it. Sounds like representative democracy to me.

The one thing that we can't afford to do is,,, nothing.
ed


PS How about a thread on lobbyists and political contributions??? Without those, legisating would be a lot simpler.

[Jax]

edlee, on Aug 10 2009, 03:09 PM, said:

I read both the house and senate versions when they came out of committee. At that time the total of both was under 400 pages,,,taking out title pages and tables of contents,, probably less than 200. Not that hard.

At that time, they were actually very similar. I was totally in favor of either one of them being made into law, immediately.

Unfortunately,,, as happens with all the bills in congress,,, changes were made,, additions,,,,added??,, I don't think anything was taken out,, just more poured in.

The hardest part is that, since previous laws were to be affected,, one was required to search out those laws and make the changes to the wording, to see what was really being said. So, in order to read AND understand the 1100 pages,, it's really necessary to read,, and change words in,, at least triple that.

Is it any wonder that so many wild claims are being made about it? And that no one admits to knowing all that much about what it really is going to be like? That's why none of the congressmen makes the claim to have read it all,,, none have,,, even their aides have to be delegated to specialize in certain parts in order to keep up. And as with the seven blind men trying to describe the elephant,, you get a lot of contradictory stories.

It is a huge undertaking,, and one that, in my opinion, must be done,, which will only be successful as a process,, not as a feat.

We elect these people to make these laws, so that we can go about our lives without the need of 30 person staffs, whose jobs are to explain the unexplainable. We elect them,, pay for these huge staffs,, give them the material and money and expert help they need,, no,, that is NEEDED, to do this work,,, then sit back and tell them what to do,,, with our limited resources and more limited views.

The more you know,,, the more you need to know to make any good decission. No matter what some idiot tells you,,, be they Palen or Biden,,, why would you believe them about something so complex? Second opinions on medical matters are recommended by the best doctors. But those second opinions should come from someone just as knowledgable,,, not your hairdresser,, grocery clerk, or talking head on TV.

Let these people do their work,, it's what they're paid, and equipped for. If they screw it up,, we can elect someone to fix it or scrap it. If enough people like it,, we keep it. Sounds like representative democracy to me.

The one thing that we can't afford to do is,,, nothing.
ed


PS How about a thread on lobbyists and political contributions??? Without those, legisating would be a lot simpler.

Thanks for the opinions, but I only asked how many pages have you read of the new (in it's current form) bill. So, how much of the new bill have you read? Not how much of the committee versions you read 6 months ago. As I said, this is an exercise of my own curiosity. I apologize for not being clear here. I'm not looking for opinions of the bill, or opinions of any kind really. I'm only looking for how much of it have how many people read. I don't want this turning into just an extension of the other thread. In fact, I would rather people select an answer and not post a reply than to have posts like this. I don't mind the simple answers by any means, as there is something to be said for the simple "I've read this much," or "I've read that much." However, that is all I asked for. Sorry to sound rude or inconsiderate.

[SnoFl]

zero, zilch, nada, nothing...


The links are still sitting in my mailbox.

[topperf]

Jax, on Aug 11 2009, 02:43 AM, said:

edlee, on Aug 10 2009, 03:09 PM, said:

I read both the house and senate versions when they came out of committee. At that time the total of both was under 400 pages,,,taking out title pages and tables of contents,, probably less than 200. Not that hard.

At that time, they were actually very similar. I was totally in favor of either one of them being made into law, immediately.

Unfortunately,,, as happens with all the bills in congress,,, changes were made,, additions,,,,added??,, I don't think anything was taken out,, just more poured in.

The hardest part is that, since previous laws were to be affected,, one was required to search out those laws and make the changes to the wording, to see what was really being said. So, in order to read AND understand the 1100 pages,, it's really necessary to read,, and change words in,, at least triple that.

Is it any wonder that so many wild claims are being made about it? And that no one admits to knowing all that much about what it really is going to be like? That's why none of the congressmen makes the claim to have read it all,,, none have,,, even their aides have to be delegated to specialize in certain parts in order to keep up. And as with the seven blind men trying to describe the elephant,, you get a lot of contradictory stories.

It is a huge undertaking,, and one that, in my opinion, must be done,, which will only be successful as a process,, not as a feat.

We elect these people to make these laws, so that we can go about our lives without the need of 30 person staffs, whose jobs are to explain the unexplainable. We elect them,, pay for these huge staffs,, give them the material and money and expert help they need,, no,, that is NEEDED, to do this work,,, then sit back and tell them what to do,,, with our limited resources and more limited views.

The more you know,,, the more you need to know to make any good decission. No matter what some idiot tells you,,, be they Palen or Biden,,, why would you believe them about something so complex? Second opinions on medical matters are recommended by the best doctors. But those second opinions should come from someone just as knowledgable,,, not your hairdresser,, grocery clerk, or talking head on TV.

Let these people do their work,, it's what they're paid, and equipped for. If they screw it up,, we can elect someone to fix it or scrap it. If enough people like it,, we keep it. Sounds like representative democracy to me.

The one thing that we can't afford to do is,,, nothing.
ed


PS How about a thread on lobbyists and political contributions??? Without those, legisating would be a lot simpler.

Thanks for the opinions, but I only asked how many pages have you read of the new (in it's current form) bill. So, how much of the new bill have you read? Not how much of the committee versions you read 6 months ago. As I said, this is an exercise of my own curiosity. I apologize for not being clear here. I'm not looking for opinions of the bill, or opinions of any kind really. I'm only looking for how much of it have how many people read. I don't want this turning into just an extension of the other thread. In fact, I would rather people select an answer and not post a reply than to have posts like this. I don't mind the simple answers by any means, as there is something to be said for the simple "I've read this much," or "I've read that much." However, that is all I asked for. Sorry to sound rude or inconsiderate.

It's ok - why should you even consider reading Ed's reply in this thread, when you so clearly state in the first post that it's solely for how many pages people have read? I can see why it upsets you to have to read his opinion on the matter.

[Jax]

topperf, on Aug 11 2009, 04:56 AM, said:

Jax, on Aug 11 2009, 02:43 AM, said:

edlee, on Aug 10 2009, 03:09 PM, said:

I read both the house and senate versions when they came out of committee. At that time the total of both was under 400 pages,,,taking out title pages and tables of contents,, probably less than 200. Not that hard.

At that time, they were actually very similar. I was totally in favor of either one of them being made into law, immediately.

Unfortunately,,, as happens with all the bills in congress,,, changes were made,, additions,,,,added??,, I don't think anything was taken out,, just more poured in.

The hardest part is that, since previous laws were to be affected,, one was required to search out those laws and make the changes to the wording, to see what was really being said. So, in order to read AND understand the 1100 pages,, it's really necessary to read,, and change words in,, at least triple that.

Is it any wonder that so many wild claims are being made about it? And that no one admits to knowing all that much about what it really is going to be like? That's why none of the congressmen makes the claim to have read it all,,, none have,,, even their aides have to be delegated to specialize in certain parts in order to keep up. And as with the seven blind men trying to describe the elephant,, you get a lot of contradictory stories.

It is a huge undertaking,, and one that, in my opinion, must be done,, which will only be successful as a process,, not as a feat.

We elect these people to make these laws, so that we can go about our lives without the need of 30 person staffs, whose jobs are to explain the unexplainable. We elect them,, pay for these huge staffs,, give them the material and money and expert help they need,, no,, that is NEEDED, to do this work,,, then sit back and tell them what to do,,, with our limited resources and more limited views.

The more you know,,, the more you need to know to make any good decission. No matter what some idiot tells you,,, be they Palen or Biden,,, why would you believe them about something so complex? Second opinions on medical matters are recommended by the best doctors. But those second opinions should come from someone just as knowledgable,,, not your hairdresser,, grocery clerk, or talking head on TV.

Let these people do their work,, it's what they're paid, and equipped for. If they screw it up,, we can elect someone to fix it or scrap it. If enough people like it,, we keep it. Sounds like representative democracy to me.

The one thing that we can't afford to do is,,, nothing.
ed


PS How about a thread on lobbyists and political contributions??? Without those, legisating would be a lot simpler.

Thanks for the opinions, but I only asked how many pages have you read of the new (in it's current form) bill. So, how much of the new bill have you read? Not how much of the committee versions you read 6 months ago. As I said, this is an exercise of my own curiosity. I apologize for not being clear here. I'm not looking for opinions of the bill, or opinions of any kind really. I'm only looking for how much of it have how many people read. I don't want this turning into just an extension of the other thread. In fact, I would rather people select an answer and not post a reply than to have posts like this. I don't mind the simple answers by any means, as there is something to be said for the simple "I've read this much," or "I've read that much." However, that is all I asked for. Sorry to sound rude or inconsiderate.

It's ok - why should you even consider reading Ed's reply in this thread, when you so clearly state in the first post that it's solely for how many pages people have read? I can see why it upsets you to have to read his opinion on the matter.

Did you miss that there's actually another thread where I have asked for opinions? I'm glad to discuss opinions on the other thread. That's why I've asked for opinions to be left out of this one. It's really annoying to keep having to remind people of that.

If you got it, and were actually defending it, I apologize for the smartass response. So difficult to catch the tone of things typed rather than said aloud.

[edlee]

Sorry, Jax,,, but I saw this one before the other and posted then didn't know how to switch them. went past two hundred on your link, last night. Seems so much wasted space, finding anything meaningful.

Somehow I think numbers don't mean much here. Content,,, or finding the right parts to study does.
ed

[StillFingers]

edlee, on Aug 11 2009, 10:09 AM, said:

Somehow I think numbers don't mean much here. Content,,, or finding the right parts to study does.
ed

Bingo, thank you Ed. Once you get past the summary, start looking at the meaty bits, then you are indeed reading the proposal, and hopefully participating, joining in on the debate, contacting your congressman if you disagree with something. Perhaps this might have been...are you reading it at all, yes/no...and if you are not reading, participating in its creation, then shut the up when it gets passed.

This post has been edited by StillFingers: 11 August 2009 - 05:31 PM

[Jax]

ed and SF, you 2 are right that just the number of pages doesn't really matter overall. I just did the number of pages part for curiosity sake.

[dsindc]

can someone post a link?