do any of you really think that we need a healthcare bill that the
people in charge of producing don't understand?

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/54930

Seriously?

In article ,
says...

do any of you really think that we need a healthcare bill that the
people in charge of producing don't understand?

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/54930

Seriously?


I was amazed to find out that the committee uses real understandable
language to debate the bill and to pass it out of the committee and then
convert the bill to legislativese for the vote on the floor of the
Senate.

As stated in the article, it is too easy to slip a provision in here and
there that without anyone on the committee knowing about it.

On 10/3/09 8:30 AM, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
do any of you really think that we need a healthcare bill that the
people in charge of producing don't understand?

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/54930

Seriously?



Serious people don't read or quote from the right-wing extremist
christian news service.


--
Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger:
Idiots All

On Oct 3, 8:30*am, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:
do any of you really think that we need a healthcare bill that the
people in charge of producing don't understand?

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/54930

Seriously?

what makes you think people understand the healthcare system we have
now?

On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 08:30:04 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:

do any of you really think that we need a healthcare bill that the
people in charge of producing don't understand?

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/54930

Seriously?

Is it surprising? They are writing laws. Plain English is too vague and
filled with too many contradictions. Hell, a misplaced comma can change
the whole meaning, providing loopholes. Most professions have their own
language. I'm sure you have read scientific articles. Understandable?
Only to another scientist, maybe.

On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 13:31:57 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 08:30:04 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:

do any of you really think that we need a healthcare bill that the
people in charge of producing don't understand?

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/54930

Seriously?

Is it surprising? They are writing laws. Plain English is too vague and
filled with too many contradictions. Hell, a misplaced comma can change
the whole meaning, providing loopholes. Most professions have their own
language. I'm sure you have read scientific articles. Understandable?
Only to another scientist, maybe.

Well, that's a good point - I agree to some extent. Some of the stuff
I read looks like worm scratchings to most, but it's understandable to
me. :)

My larger point, and I think it's an important one, is this. We pay
the legislators to write laws. Almost all of them are lawyers. If the
lawyers who write the legislation don't understand the legalesse that
they themselves are responsible for understanding, then what's the
point?

When I fill in at UCONN, the people that hire me expect me to
understand the subject I'm instructing and be able to impart that
information to the students clearly and precisely.

Shouldn't we expect our legislators to do the same?

On Sat, 3 Oct 2009 09:46:43 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:

On Oct 3, 8:30*am, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:
do any of you really think that we need a healthcare bill that the
people in charge of producing don't understand?

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/54930

Seriously?

what makes you think people understand the healthcare system we have
now?

So making it more complex is better? Wouldn't you think that making
it simpler to deal with would be a better goal?

I don't have trouble understanding my insurance plan. I have a list
of what is and isn't covered, a formulary sheet that describes what is
covered fully/partially or not at all for prescriptions, a rate sheet
for reimbursement for my outlay, complete description of co-pays that
I'm responsible for and those procedures that are fully covered, a
contact person if I have questions.

How hard is it?

On 10/3/09 3:21 PM, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Sat, 3 Oct 2009 09:46:43 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Oct 3, 8:30 am, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:
do any of you really think that we need a healthcare bill that the
people in charge of producing don't understand?

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/54930

Seriously?

what makes you think people understand the healthcare system we have
now?

So making it more complex is better? Wouldn't you think that making
it simpler to deal with would be a better goal?

I don't have trouble understanding my insurance plan. I have a list
of what is and isn't covered, a formulary sheet that describes what is
covered fully/partially or not at all for prescriptions, a rate sheet
for reimbursement for my outlay, complete description of co-pays that
I'm responsible for and those procedures that are fully covered, a
contact person if I have questions.

How hard is it?


I have a card. Everything in the hospital is covered, including a
semi-private room. Doctor's office visits are covered, with a $10
co-pay. Generic prescriptions require a $5 co-pay, non-generics require
a 20% co-pay. Cosmetic surgery for vanity reasons is not covered, but it
is covered to reconstruct after a disease or an accident. Oh, yeah...80%
of my lasik eye surgery was covered 10 years ago. No need to read
complicated rate sheets, because it all fits on one side of one sheet of
paper. If there's a change, the administrator sends out a note.
Oh...there's a $200 annual deductible.

Unfortunately, most Americans do not have the sort of friendly health
insurance I have.

--
Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger:
Idiots All

On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 15:16:18 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:

On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 13:31:57 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 08:30:04 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:

do any of you really think that we need a healthcare bill that the
people in charge of producing don't understand?

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/54930

Seriously?

Is it surprising? They are writing laws. Plain English is too vague
and filled with too many contradictions. Hell, a misplaced comma can
change the whole meaning, providing loopholes. Most professions have
their own language. I'm sure you have read scientific articles.
Understandable? Only to another scientist, maybe.

Well, that's a good point - I agree to some extent. Some of the stuff I
read looks like worm scratchings to most, but it's understandable to me.
:)

My larger point, and I think it's an important one, is this. We pay the
legislators to write laws. Almost all of them are lawyers. If the
lawyers who write the legislation don't understand the legalesse that
they themselves are responsible for understanding, then what's the
point?

They definitely should understand the law, and what it contains, but I'm
not sure they need to understand the legalese. Although, it would be a
plus if they did. They have hired help, staff, to do the grunt work, if
you will. Personally, I don't see the big deal. Many businessmen don't
understand accounting. That's why we have accountants. Builders don't
need to be architects, etc. etc.

When I fill in at UCONN, the people that hire me expect me to understand
the subject I'm instructing and be able to impart that information to
the students clearly and precisely.

Shouldn't we expect our legislators to do the same?

Personally, I would prefer our legislators to reflect our society. I
think it would be a good thing if there were fewer lawyers in Congress.

An alternative would be to make all laws understandable in plain
English. However, given our 200 plus years of precedents, I don't see
that happening. Given the controversy over the meaning of the word "is",
plain English probably is unworkable in law.

On Oct 3, 3:04*pm, H the K wrote:
On 10/3/09 3:21 PM, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:



On Sat, 3 Oct 2009 09:46:43 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Oct 3, 8:30 am, Tom Francis - SWSports
*wrote:
do any of you really think that we need a healthcare bill that the
people in charge of producing don't understand?

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/54930

Seriously?

what makes you think people understand the healthcare system we have
now?

So making it more complex is better? *Wouldn't you think that making
it simpler to deal with would be a better goal?

I don't have trouble understanding my insurance plan. *I have a list
of what is and isn't covered, a formulary sheet that describes what is
covered fully/partially or not at all for prescriptions, a rate sheet
for reimbursement for my outlay, complete description of co-pays that
I'm responsible for and those procedures that are fully covered, a
contact person if I have questions.

How hard is it?

I have a card. Everything in the hospital is covered, including a
semi-private room. Doctor's office visits are covered, with a $10
co-pay. Generic prescriptions require a $5 co-pay, non-generics require
a 20% co-pay. Cosmetic surgery for vanity reasons is not covered, but it
is covered to reconstruct after a disease or an accident. Oh, yeah...80%
of my lasik eye surgery was covered 10 years ago. No need to read
complicated rate sheets, because it all fits on one side of one sheet of
paper. If there's a change, the administrator sends out a note.
Oh...there's a $200 annual deductible.

Unfortunately, most Americans do not have the sort of friendly health
insurance I have.

--
Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger:
Idiots All

Herr Krause. most of your fellow citizens don't have a green card like
yours, either.

But no fear. In time that too shall come to pass.