Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[TA]

However, by and large SCD is correct. Any document beyond a certain size is either so cumbersome as to be functionally useless, loaded with 'booby traps', purposely designed to intimidate the public it's supposed to serve, hiding something dreadful, or all of the above.

Or, god forbid, actually trying to comprehensively and unambiguously cover an extremely complex situation.

The Public Good is best served by legislation that does not leave questions about what it means.  Seriously, how is explicitly stating variables and closing loopholes not exactly what legislation should do?

[Pacobird]

1) The US tendency towards 'riders' (i.e. legislative buyoffs of individual legislators) in legislation, which add loads of padding to bills.

Yes, it would be better if we could just fire everybody we didn't like.  Unfortunately, one of the stronger points of the U.S. Government versus Parliamentary democracies is that politicians can't sack each other for political expediency.

[Mongrel]

However, by and large SCD is correct. Any document beyond a certain size is either so cumbersome as to be functionally useless, loaded with 'booby traps', purposely designed to intimidate the public it's supposed to serve, hiding something dreadful, or all of the above.

Or, god forbid, actually trying to comprehensively and unambiguously cover an extremely complex situation.

The Public Good is best served by legislation that does not leave questions about what it means.  Seriously, how is explicitly stating variables and closing loopholes not exactly what legislation should do?

I don't think that's a problem in and of itself.

I think it's a problem that you've got so many loopholes enshrined in law elsewhere that things have come to this.

1) The US tendency towards 'riders' (i.e. legislative buyoffs of individual legislators) in legislation, which add loads of padding to bills.

Yes, it would be better if we could just fire everybody we didn't like.  Unfortunately, one of the stronger points of the U.S. Government versus Parliamentary democracies is that politicians can't sack each other for political expediency.

Oh look. It's a random swipe at our own government's faults, instead of an actual reply. How cute.

[Büge]

 

[Pacobird]

The point that American legislators must work to persuade one another and compromise rather than resort to direct threats and naked power plays could not have possibly been lost on you, IM.

[Royal☭]

Counter-point

[Pacobird]

Actually, no; Liebermann's stand-off, for better or worse, is exactly what I am talking about.  Democrats had to persuade him and compromise to get him on board; they couldn't marginalize him through sheer force. 

I'm not apologizing for Joe being a big fucking baby, mind you, but his gambit is exactly the sort of thing that is supposed to happen when your majority is so shaky.  If the Democrats had been a bit more successful about convincing other Senators of the merits of this bill, they might not have had to endure these histrionics.

[Mongrel]

The very fact that you can call current the Democratic Majority 'shaky' just serves to highlight how broken the system is.

[Pacobird]

Why do you assume I was characterizing the Democrats' hold on power as a whole as shaky, and not just the majority on this one issue? 

(because yes, it is shaky on this one issue)

(because believe it or not a piece of legislation that will fairly radically alter the financial and medical prospects of every man, woman, and child in the u.s. is bound to be met with some trepidation)





(and perhaps even resistance)











(but then hey you know what's best for all those hayseeds out there and how dare they question your judgment on how the most personal and private aspects of their lives should be governed)

[Mongrel]

Why do you assume I was characterizing the Democrats' hold on power as a whole as shaky, and not just the majority on this one issue?

you ARE a lawyer. Ahhh, that was a good one *sigh*

Anyway, that dance is cute, but back to the real issue.

In both our countries semantics, jibes, histrionics, and gaming the system are destroying our governments' ability to function. When people bandy about terms like 'statesmanship' or 'bipartisan', they're not talking about everybody getting up and smiling for the same group photo, they're talking about a basic, sensible, responsible public service that is sorely lacking. Leibermann is just the whitehead on the gigantic festering pimple.

The Canadian system is more open to direct abuses, yes, and the US system is more open to people who abdicate their responsibilities by expecting the law to do their work for them. But the weakness is the same. It's the culture that's lacking, not the system.

EDIT: Oh, nice bracketed additions. Heh.

Yes, there will be resistance. But in this case resistance and compromise have not created a better document. Shit, they haven't even created a document that's merely worse than when they started. They've created a slobbering mess that contains the possibility of disaster for the middle class. And not one elected representative in either party has criticized the new document on these grounds yet.

Snide comments about 'knowing better' aside, this is bad legislation. The compromises that were agreed to thanks to the Senate diplomacy you're lauding have resulted in a pile of awfulness that serves no one well - even by the kindest interpretation it falls far short of what is needed to reform the US health system.

I don't care what it says in the "childrens' guide to checks and balances", you have all been collectively failed by your representatives.

[Pacobird]

so what then are you proposing



Also, I had hoped that my previous response about your assumptions would subtly call attention to the fact that you are implicitly equating the successful pursuit of a legislative agenda based on the strength of your beliefs with such a pursuit based on raw power, which is at best a very Tom DeLay thing to say.  But whatever.

[Mongrel]

ok anakin

EDIT:

[Mongrel]

so what then are you proposing

I don't know. What do you 'propose' when a friend's doctor tells you he has cancer that may or may not be fatal?

[Pacobird]

dudes seriously if we don't pass this patriot act we are fucked

[Mongrel]

No, you're fucked now. Aren't you glad everyone worked out their differences and passed such a useful piece of legislation?

It's funny that you think a Canadian of all people wouldn't get cracks about dictatorships and legislative ramrodding. I mean, we regularly write books making fun of ourselves for this very problem.



I don't go on about 'culture' because it's some kind of veiled call for to show up and save us all from the Tyranny of Horrible Democracy, I go on about it because we are having a discussion about a big problem and that's a root cause of the problem. Even if I don't have an answer for a question which no one else has successfully answered, doesn't mean I'm not going to point out the problem in the first place.

[Mongrel]

By the way, the cancer crack was regarding the hardening of the arteries I see down south in general, not this legislation per se.

It's a cancer. Maybe it's fatal, maybe you'll recover.

I don't know.

[Pacobird]

Ok, so you can't think of a better way to pass legislation than how we do.

What are we arguing about again?  Do you not think that I, as someone who's entire political consciousness in his adult life has been bound up with health care, am not frustrated by this?  Do you think that frustration renders me unable to see that it beats the alternative?

[Mongrel]

Ok, so you can't think of a better way to pass legislation than how we do. Neener, neener!

There's probably dozens of ways of doing that. Ask me if any of them are likely to be implemented anytime soon.

You seem to cling to the realities you find on paper. I'm more interested in what actually gets done.

What are we arguing about again?  Do you not think that I, as someone who's entire political consciousness in his adult life has been bound up with health care, am not frustrated by this?  Do you think that frustration renders me unable to see that it beats the alternative?

Well, I certainly won't try to question your credentials. [/deadpan]

I think that the current legislation will marginally increase health coverage for the currently uninsured, decreasing it for the middle class (or increase the tax burden on the middle class), and increase government spending without a really functional plan to fund that increased spending. And that's without invoking the spectre of robber-baron anti-corporate hyperbole - which may yet turn out to be justified. That looks like a net loss in my book.

The only reason this law may be better than what you had before is for the simple reason that if things get bad enough, then maybe someone will seriously consider fixing things for real. And I say that without any sarcasm whatsoever.

[Brentai]

Having neither the time nor the training to read texts in Legalese I'm just going by trusted sources that have forged those hoary roads are reporting.  If those are also outright lies (and at this point I would not be surprised if literally* everything I have read about it is unequivocally false) well then that's good.


* "Literally" as in literally, not "colloquially" or whatever your definition is.

[Büge]

By the way, the cancer crack was regarding the hardening of the arteries I see down south in general, not this legislation per se.

It's a cancer. Maybe it's fatal, maybe you'll recover.

I don't know.