“This morning the Senate will vote on the motion to proceed to the firearms bill (S.649). It is expected that the Toomey-Manchin provision announced yesterday will replace the current language regarding background checks. Yet, as of this morning, not a single senator has been provided the legislative language of this provision. Because the background-check measure is the centerpiece of this legislation it is critical that we know what is in the bill before we vote on it. The American people expect more and deserve better. Unfortunately, the effort to push through legislation that no one had read highlights one of the primary reasons we announced our intention to force a 60 vote threshold. We believe the abuse of the process is how the rights of Americans are systematically eroded and we will continue to do everything in our power to prevent it.”
—-Senators Mike Lee (R-UT), Rand Paul (R-KY) and Ted Cruz (R-TX), in a jointly released statement regarding the pending vote on the motion to proceed to new gun control legislation.
This is where Harry Reid wants laws to be made.
The Senators are exactly, inarguably correct. Under Harry Reid, pushing legislation through the Senate without permitting either proponents or opponents to perform their jobs and read the bill so that understand what they are voting for or against his become standard procedure, exemplified by the massive, unreadable and mostly unread affordable care act. This is sham democracy at work, a perversion of process, incompetent, dishonest and corrupt to the core, and supporting such a despicable (and dangerous) tactic because you think you like the particular bill involved (but, of course, you haven’t read it either) is as stupid as it is irresponsible.
No legislator should ever vote for a law he or she hasn’t read. No President should sign a bill that he hasn’t read. Every legislator should vote against any bill that is offered for a vote without sufficient time to read it, and a President should veto any law passed that he knows was voted on in mass ignorance.
The public should tolerate no less. Party, politics and ideology are irrelevant: Cruz, Paul and Lee are the ethical ones here, and they should be praised by all sides for fighting for the integrity of the Constitutional system.
Ethics Alarms 
The mind boggles.
Jack has endorsed a comment from Rand Paul. I think there is a least one or more remote corners in hell where they are now constructing igloos.
I don’t know about Lee, and Cruz is just a rookie, but Rand Paul has a decent record of taking a stand against bad legislation, and not just bad legislation sponsored by Democrats. In the Senate, he pretty much stands alone in his opposition to rubber-stamping the PATRIOT Act every time it comes up for renewal.
There’s a lot I dislike about Tea Party politics, but you are definitely right here: Lee, Cruz and Paul deserve kudos.
I hope Cruz can be consistent. He’s my senator, and I’d like to be able to vote for him come re-election time. He’s definitely better than Kay Bailey Hutchinson.
Baloney. Here’s from Manchin’s website: http://www.manchin.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=8134649f-6d23-4ef2-882f-6a4555ff4889&SK=BDEA0DD2B0F4D93F905B5BC8DF6F76B6
Baloney what? “This morning the Senate will vote on the motion to proceed to the firearms bill (S.649). It is expected that the Toomey-Manchin provision announced yesterday will replace the current language regarding background checks. Yet, as of this morning, not a single senator has been provided the legislative language of this provision.” How does the fact that the bill is posted by 4:12, after the scheduled vote, make what the three Senators wrote inaccurate? Do you really think that legislation would be voted on the same day it’s made available to read? Do you think the basic principle of requiring that legislation be fairly presented for competent and careful reading is baloney? Surely not!
I think the Manchin/Toomey bill was available to Senators who wanted to see it. It’s pretty short, it shouldn’t be too hard for Senators to fairly decide whether to ALLOW DEBATE, for gosh sakes. Nobody was being asked to vote for a bill that they couldn’t have read.
on the other hand, you’re correct whan you say that many (most) legislators vote on bills they haven’t read.
Bob’s correct. This is a vote to debate the bill, not a vote on the bill. They will be debating it all next week, proposing amendments. There will be plenty of time to read it.
So you are saying that a vote to debate the bill should be held before the bill is read so it can be determined if its worthy of debate? That’s still bad and incompetent lawmaking. And nobody read the ACA. I don’t want to bicker over this…the point of the post is that bills should be read by anyone who votes for them. Are you nitpicking because you disagree, or just to reflexively defend Democrats? Because I don’t even think it should be a partisan issue.
The fact is you misrepresented the vote in your post as being one for the bill, when it was a vote to debate. Anyone who listened to the news knew the basic components of the legislation and knew they would be able to read it in full before they voted on the bill. Another fact is that these guys are going to vote against it no matter what’s in it, so their complaint is rather laughable.
1. That’s not how the system works or is supposed to work. You are making excuses, Jan.
2. The “basic components” are not enough, sufficient, fair or competent. Why would you defend this? I am amazed.
3. “Another fact is that these guys are going to vote against it no matter what’s in it” so they shouldn’t be accorded the courtesy Senate procedures requires? That’s great, Jan. Good system.
4. The issue is not that should have the bill to vote against it. The issue is that they MUST read the bill to vote FOR it, and without reading the bill, it is idiotic, reckless, lazy, dumb, incompetent, irresponsible, dangerous, arrogant and breach of Constitutional duty to vote FOR it.
I actually do think that knowledge of the basic tenets of a bill are enough to vote for debate You can then propose amendments, vote against amendments or vote against or for the entire bill. When you think about it, these three guys are voting against a debate that would provide them the information they claim to seek.
I appears from Ed’s link that these senators could have read the bill if they wanted to. I didn’t say they shouldn’t be granted the courtesy of access to the bill, but in this case it was not critical, and their “concern” about procedure is nothing but grandstanding. If even one of them votes in favor, I’ve got a bridge you might be interested in.
Didn’t mean to step on your “bridge” line, Ed. I was writing at the same time you were, apparently.
Jan, it’s that the tactic of complaining “I don’t know” when the information is readily available, is so transparent, and transparently wrong. Iteration may help make the point!
Yeah, Jan and Ed, just try that slimy tactic of not submitting information as required in a timely fashion and saying “It was easy to find” in other professions, like law. You’ll be flipping burgers.
Actually, Jack, I had a federal court agree with me that making information available through “other means” went well beyond the spirit of the Administrative Procedures Act, and consequently got dismissed a suit against my agency on the grounds that another agency had failed to timely disclose hearing dates and times in the Federal Register. The court said that constructive adherence to the law is, in all cases, adequate, and much better than compliance to the letter of the law in a way that is not so thorough.
“It was easy to find” is always a good answer in court, to a lie that information was not available.
Cruz, Lee and Paul are probably correct when they say, “I don’t know.”
But it is their duty to know, and it’s easy enough that any kid with a computer, anywhere in the world, can know what they have a duty to know.
So, their statement, “I don’t know,” is the reason they should resign and go home. They are carbuncles on the idea of our democratic republic. They cast shame on the great legislative and deliberative history of the Senate and Congress as a whole.
There is no rule that they read the bill first — if they did, they’d vote for a lot of this stuff they complain about, I suspect.
It is idiotic, reckless, lazy, dumb, incompetent, irresponsible, dangerous and an arrogant breach of Constitutional duty to block consideration of a bill that they haven’t read, I agree. Cruz, Lee and Paul should all resign.
The text has been available for more than 3 weeks. The text of the amendments was available at the time of their press conference. The text of the amendments was available to anyone who asked at the time of the cloture vote — but of course, the cloture vote was on consideration of a bill whose text had been hand-delivered to every senator on March 23.
These three senators are lazy, irresponsible, dangerous, reckless and idiotic, all true. But they lie with a goal in mind. They’re trying to hoodwink the gullible, and you.
Don’t let them succeed.
We’re not talking about RULES requiring reading before voting/ Don’t come on an ethics blog and use “no RULES” as your favorite excuse (the Compliance Dodge–look it up.). The rule is that the bill is supposed to be submitted, published and in timely fashion so it CAN be read, and the rational, fair process requires that Senators don’t have to go on an Easter egg hunt to find a copy.
“It is idiotic, reckless, lazy, dumb, incompetent, irresponsible, dangerous and an arrogant breach of Constitutional duty to block consideration of a bill that they haven’t read..” –THAT statement is indefensible. They should block every bill, on anything, from either side, that is presented in this cynical fashion. Next on Reid’s list is the immigration bill…he’ll do the same thing. You can’t competently debate a bill you haven’t read, obviously—what childish and transparent rationalizations! And you embrace an obvious rationalization with your “they wouldn’t vote for it anyway” nonsense. That’s 100% irrelevant, if true, the equivalent of saying you don’t have to feed your child because she won’t eat it anyway.
By the way, using the playground tactic of twisting my words will get you banned here. Don’t do it again. Last warning.
The text of the bill has been available here since March 22, the day after it was introduced: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s649/text
The full text of the bill was printed and delivered to the desks of all 100 U.S. senators by March 25 at the latest (probably March 22).
You have refused to get a copy of the immigration bill, too? You think there’s something in it that hasn’t been all over the newspapers already?
There are a dozen proposals already in the hopper on immigration. What’s not known, do you claim?
Cruz, Lee and Paul have no plans to debate the bill before them. They’re going to demagogue, claiming falsely that the bill damages 2nd Amendment rights. They’re going to demagogue, claiming that more guns is the answer, that schools should become armed camps. They’re going to demagogue at each and every step of the way.
They’re telling you whoppers, Mr. Marshall. They are the ones who have not earned your trust, and have in fact taken advantage of your healthy skepticism, but spurned your trust.
Complain to them.
Ask them what their real complaints are about the bill. It’s been more than 72 hours since they held their demagogic “press conference.” The bill takes less than 20 minutes to read. It took me about 35 to track the proposed amendments to the text they’ve had for weeks, which they claim they have not read.
Now the basis for their complaint clearly does not apply. Most senators understood that, and rationally voted to get on with discussion of the bill.
So it’s time to stop whining that the bill was not spoonfed to Harvard Law grad Ted Cruz. I don’t believe any claim that he is the stupidest man to graduate from Harvard Law, ever.
You shouldn’t make that claim in any form.
The text is there. Any objections they have to debating, on the basis of their being in the dark, are gone. The lights are on. They need to open their eyes and do the duties put upon them by the oath they swore.
Why won’t they do that?
The National Rifle Association had a detailed response to the Toomey-Manchin amendments on April 10.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/04/daniel-zimmerman/nra-responds-to-the-manchin-toomey-background-check-deal/
How do you think they did that, if copies of the amendments were not available?
So, Mr. Marshall, are you accusing the NRA of lying about what’s in the amendments? Or are you willing to concede Cruz, Lee and Paul were irresponsible in their claims?
One or the other, but not neither.
I did not say that they should not be given access to a full text of the bill because they would never vote for it. I said that the fact that they would never vote for it makes their complaint laughable. There’s a difference.
I’d say that there is no question to rational Americans that this issue is worthy of debate — and that’s conceding that the people who favor the child killers might have a point worth discussing.
Anyone who claims this issue is not worthy of consideration is a fool, or lying. Is that clear enough?
The question is, should we consider safety of schools and how to reduce gun violence?
Paul, Lee and Cruz say it’s not an issue. Are they serious? Are they compos mentis? Or do they have ulterior, ignoble motives for frustrating the will of the people that we discuss these issues?
If you believe that, I have a suspension bridge in Walla Walla, Washington, I can let you have for just under $100,000.
No language in the Affordable Care Act was new. None of it was undiscussed. Most of the bill repeats language that has been law for 30 and 40 years.
These inventions of false complaints against action to make things better, weary me.
The text of the Reid bill was delivered to the desks of each senator on March 23. Why haven’t they done their jobs?
If they are too lazy to read the material they are supposed to read, why should we wait for them? Their complaint is pure obstruction, and nothing more. You shouldn’t give such great deference to pure fiction, where we need facts instead, and a true and faithful account is available.
Why are you supporting the partisans who make it a partisan issue, then?
I’m sorry, I cannot hear what you say — your actions drown out your words.
Do it for the kids! THE KIDS! There are millions of kids killed in America daily from assault weapons!!!! SAVE THE KIDS!!!!
I’m sorry, I erred. I apologize.
The bridge I have to sell you is the Tacoma Narrows Bridge. Here are some scenic pictures:
You will notice that 5 amendments were submitted on April 11: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/L?d113:./temp/~bda5lAl:1[1-5](Amendments_For_S.649)&./temp/~bdijdq. You will also notice that Feinstein and 21 sponsors submitted one of these, but one has to go searching the “Congressional Record” in order to find it. What to you suppose that would be? Another assault on legal possession of “assault weapons,” whatever she decides they are? “Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration.” Nice way to run a government. It is well-known, although not to you, that Senators have been pressured by Reid and other Demo-gogues to vote for passage of bills they haven’t read, because “it’s urgent,” and because of made-up deadlines. Voting from their cell-phones while driving? It happens.
RE: “No language in the Affordable Care Act was new. None of it was undiscussed. Most of the bill repeats language that has been law for 30 and 40 years.” N. Pelosi, March 2010: “But we have to pass the [health care] bill so that you can find out what’s in it….”
The claims that voting for bills one “hasn’t read” is sinful are bullfeathers.
If you think you have to read a bill to know what’s in it, you don’t know how to read legislation, and you don’t know much about how the Senate operates.
Grow up.
Oh, but not before you take down Sen. Rubio, who, with Sens. Lee, Cruz and Paul, has not read the bill he opposes.
http://www.politicususa.com/marco-rubio-admits-read-gun-control-bill-opposes.html
Re: ACA as an example, 2700 pages. You must be a lunatic if you think people can competently read through what’s there and comprehend all that is written, not even the examine the expected consequences or imagine the unanticipated consequences, and be prepared to debate, and then vote on same. Not that there was much debate on that one anyway. When you have a Senate Majority leader known for “filling the amendment tree” with his cronies’ amendments, so that the opposition can’t even submit amendments, you might begin to understand that it may be the most principled action to block the whole process in the first place. But I guess that’s not really desirable when one is out to “fundamentally change America,” the entire health system in that case, or, now, one’s second amendment rights, among the absolutely most fundamental elements of our nation. What part of “… shall not be infringed….” do you not understand?
Having gone through 3,000 page bills with regularity in the Reagan administration, and knowing that there were 300 to 400 other professionals doing the same, for debate in the morning — I call your bluff.
One, these are not treatises by Kenneth Burke; two, they are not in a foreign language. Three, they are indexed well.
Critically, on that bill, the entire text was available for weeks before it got to any floor — then it was printed up as amended before it went to the other house.
Now, I know that the GOP likes to whine that they weren’t consulted. But the fact is they were consulted; there were extensive hearings. There were several markups. GOP boycotted, refused to talk, and then when the bill passed out of committee anyway, hit the panic button and claimed they had been shut out.
Not so. They were in the room, and voted against the bill.
NY lawyer who attended law school knows what it is to have 600 pages of homework in a night — and that’s heavy reading. A 3,000 page law is indeed, in big print with wide margins, and generally contains a lot of language that has been tested will in other laws.
About 80% of the Affordable Care Act was renewing of existing laws, laws that Presidents Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II had signed, after lengthy hearings and lengthy debate.
To pretend history does not exist is almost as bad as denying it or trying to contradict it.
Anyone who claims they couldn’t get informed on the contents of the ACA has no business in politics, and is guilty of dereliction of their duties as a Member of Congress — and should resign.
Your only excuse is that you are not an MC.
1) How do you explain, “…we’ve got to pass it, so we can find out what’s in it?” The enfranchising of 16,000 new IRS agents with enforcement powers? The language only now being discussed about the admission of millions of illegal aliens to the health system?
2) Were the GOP “shut out” of discussions on ACA, and completely “stonewalled” on their suggestions? The matter of the filling of the amendment tree was told to me personally by Senator John Thune. In his recount of how Reid runs things these days, it was quite clear that this has been happening for some time, and then the Demo-gogues go whining to their presstitute media about the “uncooperative” Republicans.
Shoulda been “Any lawyer,” not “NY lawyer”
That’s so ridiculous that I’m choking on it. Your contention is responsible for miles of awful legislation, and the ACA is only the worst recent example. But it is also one of the best: perhaps you have noticed that we are now noticing problems in the bill’s construction that nobody realized when it was being rammed down our throats, and that weren’t debated. There is no reason at all, none, for any legislation to be as complicated and extensive as the ACA, and if fact it is incompetent drafting top make it so. “If you think you have to read a bill to know what’s in it, you don’t know how to read legislation” is hilarious—gee, if you can read it and know how to, why don’t you? If you can’t and don’t, what good is it to read the damn thing at all? That’s not even rationalization—it’s oxymoronic.
It’s more than that too, since we know that so many of our elected officials are lazy boobs. What you are advocating is figure-head legislators puppeteered by staff, lobbyists and lawyers, which is pretty much what we’ve got. Do you remember how HillaryCcare was exposed and defeated? I do, because I watched the debate from beginning to end—Sen. Bob Packwood, a sexual harasser but no dummy, actually read the legislation and picked out, exposed and explained outrageous passages and details, forcing Senators to make informed rather than reflex votes, alerting the press and public, and weakening support for the Bill. The devil is in the details, especially in laws, and advocating not knowing those details—-summaries are subject to biases and errors— can only be explained by a love of complex legislation for its own sake, or brain lesions.
If you can’t explain legislation in detail to constituents, non-lawyers and the public generally, honestly and thoroughly without leaving out substantive details of implementation, you can’t debate it (obviously) and shouldn’t vote for it. Laws are not abstractions. Laws cost money, affect lives and have wide-ranging consequences, and virtually every word matters. When a law is before the Supreme Court, the statute’s existence hangs on single words, and you are really and truly arguing that those words should even be read by the individuals we trust to decide whether the law is a good idea or a bad one.
In this context, “Grow up!” can only mean, “We have incompetent, reckless government now! Get used to it!” Unless it means, “I don’t know what the hell I’m saying,” or “I r5eally don’t have an argument, so I’m just name calling,” which is the more flattering interpretation.
Don’t use that here again, please—it’s an inherently offensive tactic, without substance. Thanks.
I can explain the bill — it’s an easy read. I can explain the amendments.
You’re right — those who refuse to read the bills probably shouldn’t vote on them. But neither should they make false claims about why they won’t vote, nor should they make false claims about what is in the bill.
It’s inherently unfair for these four senators who have failed to read the bill to hold the nation hostage to gun violence because of their ignorance.
Is that inherently offensive? Can you explain why it’s not, and what you claim you read in other places, is?
Hoping for clarification.
Ed, I explain in the post why it’s ridiculous. In fact, I would say advocating not reading legislation before turning it into law is per se ridiculous. The burden is on you to explain otherwise, which you did not (and cannot.) Rep. Conyers made the same statement you did (he, however, is a dolt), saying that Congressmen can’t understand the legislation anyway, so it’s better that they rely on lawyers to explain it. If THAT’s your argument, your question doesn’t require a further answer.
“Ridiculous: is perfectly good adjective. “Grow up!” is a dodge.
I doubt Conyers said that about all Congressmen — got a citation?
Congress has committees just for the purpose of making sure not every member must read every bill. That’s the intent of the committee system, to divide complex work up into manageable chunks. Republicans get apoplectic over letting experts be experts, though, and have worked to undermine the committee systems in both houses for years. (“Somebody has to stand up to the experts,” as Don McLeroy once famously put it in Texas.)
There is some art to legislative drafting, and a lot of technical competence required. Both houses have non-partisan offices specifically to draft legislative language to do what the elected representatives say they want done. Conyers would be right in limiting his remarks to those few members who really are probably not smart enough to be members; I’ve never found a bright high school kid who couldn’t learn how to figure legislation out.
There are members, and always have been, who can ad lib in good legislative language. Howard Baker, Peter Rodino, Lyndon Johnson, James Madison, Ted Kennedy, Orrin Hatch, Henry Waxman, Al Gore (one of the best), Ron Wyden, Bob Dole, Pat Moynihan, Warren Magnuson before age took it away from him, Mike Mansfield, Gaylord Nelson, and others — sometimes many others.
The language of the current bill has been publicly available for three weeks; the language for the amendments was available at the time Cruz, Lee and Paul held their press conference complaining it wasn’t. By now they’ve had ample time to read it, but I’ll wager they haven’t.
It’s not policy they want to debate. They’re grandstanding.
I don’t think they deserve applause from anyone.
I’ll be pleased to walk you through any of these bills, or the ACA, if you want to know what’s in them.
1. I am a lawyer, I have studied legislative drafting, I read the House version of the ACA completely and consulted with one of its gazillion authors (my sister) regarding its meaning (she is an expert in the field, and opines that absolutely no single person understands all of it) an active member of two state bars in good standing, and an honors graduate, in American Government, from Harvard. Don’t condescend to me on my own blog, Ed. I don’t appreciate it. You are my guest here.
2. Conyers (2009): “I love these members, they get up and say, ‘Read the bill.’ What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?” It is available on YouTube, among other places. That’s a general statement—presumably he thinks it applies to all Congressmen, and he’s been there longer than anybody.
3. Committee members are hardly experts. Todd Akin, for example, was on the science committee, where he apparently enlightened the members about Pregnancy Pixies. They are chosen for various political reasons, as I would think you know, and there is little evidence that they read the bills completely either. They hold hearings; they maneuver to get their Party’s bill through.
4. Even if you are right that all the members are not expected to read the bills (you are not), such a system makes no sense and is inherently unethical. A vote is a value judgement, and members are elected to make theirs on behalf of a constituency. If a member does not read the bill and does not have a valid informed judgment about the bill, then his or her constituency is unrepresented in the lawmaking process for the bill. This was not what the Founders intended, nor what constituents believe is appropriate, nor why they vote for a Congressman or Senator. It is unethical and a breach of duty.
5. “Both houses have non-partisan offices specifically to draft legislative language to do what the elected representatives say they want done.” So what? A manager has an obligation to check the work of subordinates. You are saying they can responsibly presume that these subordinates always do a perfect job, never make errors, and needn’t have oversight. Fantasy, Ed.
6. “There are members, and always have been, who can ad lib in good legislative language. Howard Baker, Peter Rodino, Lyndon Johnson, James Madison, Ted Kennedy, Orrin Hatch, Henry Waxman, Al Gore (one of the best), Ron Wyden, Bob Dole, Pat Moynihan, Warren Magnuson before age took it away from him, Mike Mansfield, Gaylord Nelson, and others — sometimes many others.” I don’t know what this has to do with anything. Orson Welles could ad lib fake Shakespeare, but when he directed a work by Bill, he still had to read the damn thing and understand it.
7. The Senators are making a valid and important point about how the legislative process has deteriorated under Reid, and how the important formal requirements have been violated. You don’t know that the versions of the bill online were in fact the same as what was voted on Tuesday, unless you read the hard copy distributed as the official bill. In fact, it is almost certain that the versions weren’t exactly the same. There have been many, many instances of provisions “sneaked” into bills—how can a Senator be sure that the version he is voting on today is what was publicly available yesterday, especially in a body run by a snake like Harry Reid? He can’t, and he shouldn’t—unless he is able to read that bill.
8. You are defending the indefensible, either out of delusion or cynicism.
Here’s a quick analysis of one section of the bill, showing exactly how the amendments play out. Took me five minutes, with 15 minutes to get the format right in the post.
You may find it interesting, you’re being a lawyer:
http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2013/04/14/critics-of-school-safety-anti-gun-violence-bills-havent-read-them/#comment-273963
“Regardless how confusing one may find legislative language, it remains pure demagoguery for the Harvard Law graduate, Ted Cruz; son of the founding Dean of BYU’s J. Reuben Clark School of Law and graduate of that school and clerk for Justice Samuel Alito, Mike Lee; and the privileged son of Ron Paul, a graduate of Duke University’s medical school (despite his dropping out of Baylor . . .), to claim they haven’t read the bill.”
As a lawyer, and a legal ethicist, I can spot deceit when I see it. The point of the press release wasn’t to say that the three Senators themselves didn’t read the bill. It suggested that those voting for the bill didn’t read the bill, and the point of the release was that bills were being presented in violation of proper Senate procedures and timely formal presentation—which you have never denied is the case, because it IS the case. You just seem to think the the internet has repealed Senate protocol.
If, as you have said, those three Senators oppose all gun legislation on principle, they don’t have to read the bill, just as Senators who believe the government should stay out of health care needn’t read the ACA, unless they want to be able to argue against its particulars. If you are going to vote FOR a bill, however, it is irresponsible not to read it, and you look ridiculous arguing otherwise.
… and right after your entry, a “cluebattingcage” entry rebuts your arguments.
Hey, I’m not the one trying to defend a Harvard law grad who says he can’t find a bill on his desk, and he can’t read laws.
Didn’t realize you’re a lawyer. I always thought the leg drafting course at GW was better than Georgetown, and now I’m sure of it.
Congratulations to your sister. I consulted with my former colleagues on the Senate Labor Committee and at HHS. We would be happy to explain ACA to you if you’re still confused.
Was trying to inform, not condescend. But, then again, I’m not the one stuck defending Ted Cruz.
You and your colleagues are liars. You don’t understand ACA. (and you did not read the entire final 3000 page bill, either.) Nobody does yet. I bet you still think it’s not going to increase the debt, that everyone who wants to will be able to keep their current coverage, will lower health care costs, and that it won’t require health care rationing. If you geniuses actually read and understood the law so well, why didn’t you see this coming? And if you did, why didn’t you tell all those Democratic Senators who didn’t read the bill about it? That would have been the ethical course.
The supporters of Obamacare just double down on their dishonesty and spin, and from where I sit, that’s all you and your colleagues are doing. Just don’t be snotty about it.
Why didn’t we see this coming?
(Mr. Marshall’s link.)
In 2010, health care cost inflation was about 15%. It had been 20% in 2009 and 2008. Annually.
In 2012, with Obamacare kicking in, health care cost inflation was 4%.
Insurance costs up by 32% by 2017? That’s much less than half the increase without Obamacare.
Why is cutting health care and health care insurance cost inflation a problem? We’ve been hoping for that for years.
What an astonishingly dishonest comment! Obamacare didn’t “kick in” in 2012 at any significant way, and nobody seriously maintains it had anything to do with lowering the rate of health care inflation. There is nothing in the bill (that we know of) that COULD have this effect by 2012. And your figures are imaginary.
The biggest cause of the slowing of health care costs is the recession. And that IS obvious.
You’re shameless.
Ed’s reply to this was “When did you give up on ethics?”
He’s an ideological blogger whose objective is to provide disingenuous cover and rationalizations for what he perceives as his “side.” He is free to do that someplace else; here, it is just a distraction and a waste of our time.
Isn’t it unethical to claim a bill is unavailable, when its text has been available for three weeks or more? Even the amendments proposed were available then.
See the texts here: http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2013/04/11/shutup-and-read-text-of-s-649-safe-communities-safe-schools-act-of-2013/
Are you serious? “A quick summary of the bil as amended” isn’t the bill. Too many bills are passed using “summaries”…but it IS unethical to use public school safety as an argument for gun control.
There is a required procedure for making bills available, and it is for the whole bill to be printed and distributed. “Amendments to the original text are pending — BUT here is the text of the proposed law as introduced in the U.S. Senate on March 22″…BUT THAT’S NOT THE TEXT THEY VOTED ON TUESDAY, and your blogger source and you know it. So you’re begging the question, and muddling the issue I (and the Senators) refer to: large complex bills are rushed through the process in ways that make careful reading and analysis impossible, and major bills, like the ACA, have been voted on and passed routinely without a majority or often any of the Senators having read any more than “a quick summary.”
Why are you defending this unethical practice? Why are you endorsing partisan obfuscation and spin rather than decrying an obvious distortion of process?
Yes, I’m serious — you failed to read well. The full text of the original bill is there. The full text of the amendments proposed by Sens. Toomey and Manchin is there.
This language has been available for several days. Sens. Cruz, Lee and Paul are pulling your leg.
No law is passed without thorough analysis. On occasion a typo is missed, a clause is phrased badly — but this claim that no one has read the bill is complete fiction.
Of course, legislation shouldn’t be passed that no one has read. But neither should irresponsible demagogues threaten to filibuster legislation they haven’t read.
Jack, check with anyone who has staffed Congress, and you can quickly learn that such grandstanding as we’ve witnessed from Lee, Cruz and Paul, is unfounded in fact. It’s worse because Lee knows better (or he’s had a self-lobotomy), and comes from a family that has made three generations of knowing better, public business.
Come read the text. Inform yourself, even if these senators won’t.
It’s a “jointly-released statement?”
How big a joint were they puffing to come up with that stuff?
I hesitate to get in on this discussion since it’s been so nasty, but here goes:
The article you link to, Jack, does not state that most economists attribute the decrease in health care costs to the recession. It says that some economists attribute the decrease to the ACA and other market forces, and some give credit to the recession.
And since you have referred to it twice, the SOA study did not conclude that health care premiums would rise by 32% in 2017, as many headlines lead people to believe. It stated that health care CLAIMS would increase by 32%. While this could certainly translate into a premium rate increase, there are several aspects of the ACA that work to prevent this, including:
1. Competition between insurers in the marketplaces (formerly known as exchanges). Insurers are already building lower cost networks to include in the exchanges.
2. There will be subsidies for low income subscribers to help them pay premiums.
3. The law limits the profits of insurers and regulates increases in premiums.
4. There is financial help for insurers who accept large numbers of high risk subscribers.
The SOA study also only deals with the individual insurance market, and does not include employer provided plans. The 32% figure is certainly concerning, but any discussion of it needs to include all the facts.
I can’t wait for our wonderful media to praise how open minded and bipartisan the 4 no-voting democrats are who decided to cross the aisle and vote with the other party.
Surely our President will also laud their cooperative attitudes as well!
Isn’t that what the Left has so doggedly demanded from Republicans and given faux praise to those who did break party lines?
(Format the above for cynicism)
Of course not. Bipartisanship really means vote-Left-manship. Praiseworthy political compromise really means giving in all the way.