Greetings Forumites! Recently, there has been, in Congress, a bi-partisan call to have the final form of the healthcare reform bill posted on the congressional website for 72 hours prior to any vote upon said bill. Congressional leadership, folks like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, are dead-set against the idea. So tell me, especially you stalwart defenders of the left, why can't a bill that won't take full effect until 2015 and will have far-reaching economic and social consequences be posted for THREE DAYS so that the American people (and their representatives) can see if it's something they want?

I'm dying to know...

I don't know for sure but my guess is because there's no reason for it. The public is not voting on it, congress is, and they all should have a copy already (whether they read it or not is a different story, but that's most bills), this is way out of the normal process in government. I think it would cause more of a political distraction than is necessary, not to mention it will cost taxpayer money to post and host the bill when the public are not the ones doing the voting. I think the call for having it posted is just an attempt by the opposition to cause trouble.

Now the question of whether ALL bills should be posted to the public before vote in congress may have merit as it's own debate, but to try and pull this with this one particular bill does seem like a political stunt. I don't feel the need to pay the money and take up the governments time to post the bill just for a political stunt.

Can someone actually explain what this healthcare bill means,to a Euro who doesn't really understand why cheap health care for all would be a bad thing?

quote:

Originally posted by JG52Uther:
Can someone actually explain what this healthcare bill means,to a Euro who doesn't really understand why cheap health care for all would be a bad thing?

+1

Is there anything to stop one of the Congressmen/women from posting the bill him/herself? If they have it already I can see no technical reason why this would be a problem, but is there a legal one?

As Urufu_Shinjiro says, it does sound a bit like a stunt to suggest that this should be done for just this bill though.

It is common in many sectors of the government to publish a NPRM (Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) along with an open comment period to allow for input into the final rule. In particular, this is how it's done with aviation regulations and it helps insure the the final rule actually works and can accomplish what it's intended to.

The cost to publish the bill on a website is negligible.

While nothing would prevent any member of Congress from posting the bill on a website, what is in doubt is if the bill would be posted before it was voted on. The stated intent of the Congressional leadership is to rush this bill to a vote.

Personally, I don't really want to be ignorant of the contents of such far-reaching legislation. And for my elected representatives to properly represent me, I need to be able to let them know what I think.

Remember that the call to give Americans some chance to see what the bill holds is coming from both Democrats and Republicans.

quote:

Recently, there has been, in Congress, a bi-partisan call to have the final form of the healthcare reform bill posted on the congressional website for 72 hours prior to any vote upon said bill.

The guy who wanted it posted online (some Senator from some Southern state) explicitly said that he wanted it made available online so that health insurance company lobbyists could take a look at it and then tell the Senators how to fashion the bill. So basically it was a delaying tactic wrapped up in a giveaway to health insurance lobbyists, though this whole damn thing has been taking so long that a few days isn't much, though it would have certainly led to more delays.

People, voicing their opinion? What a dangerous concept!

I bet a five day wait on bills would probably used for divisivness and nothing more, and anyone suggesting such a thing is interested in nothing but obstruction of the peoples business.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5t8GdxFYBU

But really, these laws have nothing to do with the American people, who have no vested interest in the kinds of laws that are passed and govern them.

quote:

Originally posted by JG52Uther:
Can someone actually explain what this healthcare bill means,to a Euro who doesn't really understand why cheap health care for all would be a bad thing?

Maybe there are better ways to achieve health care reform without the bloated, punitive proposal currently being debated?

I would be also interested in your definition of "cheap" when including the entire cost to the economy, not just to the consumer. (I'm not going to say taxpayer, because there are lots that don't pay taxes)

I would also be interested to know why your society doesn't supply cheap free housing and food for all, at the same level for all? Someone doesn't need healthcare everyday, but they need food and shelter. Isn't it barbaric to supply healthcare instead of these "rights"?

Why so defensive? It was a genuine question.Why are so many Americans seemingly against cheap healthcare for all?

quote:

The guy who wanted it posted online (some Senator from some Southern state) explicitly said that he wanted it made available online so that health insurance company lobbyists could take a look at it and then tell the Senators how to fashion the bill. So basically it was a delaying tactic wrapped up in a giveaway to health insurance lobbyists, though this whole damn thing has been taking so long that a few days isn't much, though it would have certainly led to more delays.

Got Link?

"Got Link?"

Here's mine:
http://online.wsj.com/article/...459231899722944.html

This happened weeks ago y'know...


anyway here is what I meant: Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas:

T]he thing that I’m trying to point out is we would have at least 72 hours for the people that the providers have hired to keep up with all of the legislation that we pass around here, and the regulations that we pass around here, to say “hey, wait a minute. Have you considered this?”

Some of you are already completely missing the point.

"...why can't a bill that won't take full effect until 2015 and will have far-reaching economic and social consequences be posted for THREE DAYS so that the American people (and their representatives) can see if it's something they want?"

One of the bill's proponents has gone so far to say it would take 2 WEEKS to get the document online. Doesn't take 2 weeks to put a PDF online. Even at 1500 pages, give or take, a PC can "print" a PDF in no time. Then, some interns break it into smaller segments and upload.

Folks, the 2 WEEKS would be needed for the creative camo/word smithing. Holy shat, they have been changing verbiage AFTER congressmen have looked at it and tentatively approved.

So, don't give me any jive about "...to a Euro who doesn't really understand why cheap health care for all would be a bad thing?"

quote:

Originally posted by JG52Uther:
Why so defensive? It was a genuine question.Why are so many Americans seemingly against cheap healthcare for all?

Because it's not cheap, and won't even cover everyone?

quote:

Originally posted by HayateAce:
Some of you are already completely missing the point.

"...why can't a bill that won't take full effect until 2015 and will have far-reaching economic and social consequences be posted for THREE DAYS so that the American people (and their representatives) can see if it's something they want?"

One of the bill's proponents has gone so far to say it would take 2 WEEKS to get the document online. Doesn't take 2 weeks to put a PDF online. Even at 1500 pages, give or take, a PC can "print" a PDF in no time. Then, some interns break it into smaller segments and upload.

Folks, the 2 WEEKS would be needed for the creative camo/word smithing. Holy shat, they have been changing verbiage AFTER congressmen have looked at it and tentatively approved.

So, don't give me any jive about "...to a Euro who doesn't really understand why cheap health care for all would be a bad thing?"

That's a little too tinfoil hat right there. Yes it would take that much time to host it. First, it's the government, so there would be paperwork involved in the contracting of the site design etc., but most importantly, the public interest in the issue would mean that there would be a massive amount of traffic, it takes time to set up the kind of servers and such it would take to host this thing and the number of downloads and hits it would have to shoulder. If flight sim geeks can bring servers to their knees downloading a 4.09 patch PDF file, what do you think would happen to this website. They would have to build the server system, then test the hell out of it, cause I'm sure if it crashed during the 72hr period that there would be hell raised and the period extended or even started over etc. It's easy to say "Well I can make a PDF and post it on the web", but that's not the case for something of this scale, these things take time, MONEY, and resources.