I’m putting aside the merits of universal care for a moment to note Hot Air blogger Ed Morrisey’s first complaint about a draft of the Obama administration’s health care proposal:
And it’s so large that Patients United Now had to split it into nine different parts, and to put out a bleg for an Army of Patients to scour the bill.
What is this conservative obsession with size? The size of bills and regulation, that is. I know in conservative dream world all laws are a post-it note that says “tax cuts” but here in the real world we’re trying to run a country with 300 million people, 50 states, and thousands of cities, towns, and municipalities. As such, the kind of laws that apply to a nation of such size and import are going to run a little long in order to be effective.
This, quite frankly, is the conservative equivalent of moving from storybooks to novels. Sorry, cons, the books don’t have pictures any more. Deal with it. It’s called growing up. Santa Claus is not real.
If it ain’t projection, it’s over-compensation with these folks.
“We need to simplify a monstrous tax code that is far too complicated for most Americans to understand, but just complicated enough for the insiders who know how to work the system.” — President Barack Obama
Obviously he is an idiot, because length and complexity are nothing to worry about as Oliver has just explained, given that we live in a country of 300 million people and a multitude of municipalities of various sizes.
Fuck You, Colin.
Yes, folks, Colin is really that stupid.
“This, quite frankly, is the conservative equivalent of moving from storybooks to novels. Sorry, cons, the books don’t have pictures any more. Deal with it. It’s called growing up. Santa Claus is not real.”
A fucking Men!
Obviously he is an idiot, because length and complexity are nothing to worry about as Oliver has just explained, given that we live in a country of 300 million people and a multitude of municipalities of various sizes.
Another filing from the Dept. of Horrible Analogies.
Nice to see you still posting, Colin. Some days I wonder where my next fix of Smart People Saying Stupid Things is going to come from and then, bam, there you are. Keep it going, my man. Keep it going.
As we saw in the recently passed financial rescue package those folks in Washington cast votes and make decisions in great haste. About things with far ranging effects without reading or having a full grasp of the bill in question. To call this irresponsible is charitable.
The chances of unexpected consequences from assembling such large amounts of verbiage quickly by attourneys with agendas, some hidden some not, is great. Oliver doesn’t have a problem with that.
“go to the emergency room”-Captain Ed
What is this conservative obsession with size?
I presume this is a rhetorical question.
It’s also amusing to hear Special Ed whinging about a “bleg”, when you had sooper-smrt conservative Doughy Pantload blegging for his audience to do most of his “research” for his “book”, “Liberal Fascism”, for him…
George W. Bush put the GOP take on governing best — “IT’S HARD WORK!”
The point being, the majority of Americans trust Dems these days to govern, since they approach it like reasonable adults. It’s a job, it’s hard, and it takes time and patience. Everything from health care to national security take attention to detail and reason rather than faith-based approaches.
That said, single-payer national health care would probably be the simplest to implement. Glad to know conservatives have my back on this one.
While I’ve seen a lot of invective directed my way there has been little in the way of an actual refutation of my point.
Even President Obama grasps the point that complex, lengthy regulation — such as the tax code — qualifies as a bad thing. This is because lengthy regulation and efficiency are usually at odds.
The Constitution of the United States is not a long document.
This is because lengthy regulation and efficiency are usually at odds. The Constitution of the United States is not a long document.
Oh for crying out loud. I was going to post some long comment about how the Constitution is a framework and legislation is what fills in the gaps so comparing the two is ridiculous because they are supposed to accomplish two different things and how if you think length and efficiency are at odds, try running a nationwide system with legislation written on a napkin …
Then I went to the Parents United post Morrissey linked to and found that what they’ve posted is a 167 page PDF file that that Parents United created itself:
Really? So the bill is totally way too long and impenetrable with all kinds of hidden things in it but Parents United Now (PUN, awesome!) was able to transcribe it into a completely searchable 167 page PDF document and post it online in like, what, a day?
The thing isn’t going to come to a vote until when, August? So conservative dipshits think 167 pages is too much to read in three months?
“OMG it must be full of all kinds of evil socialist trick! How will we ever discover them in time to save the children!”
Total. Morons.
As we saw in the recently passed financial rescue package those folks in Washington cast votes and make decisions in great haste. About things with far ranging effects without reading or having a full grasp of the bill in question. To call this irresponsible is charitable.
Amused, what exactly would the charitable term for your obvious brain damage?
The Obama administration is expecting to have a vote on this bill in August.
They’ve released a first draft that apparently runs 167 pages as a PDF document this week.
That’s three fucking months to read 167 pages and any changes or amendments that happen before the vote.
What, exactly, is so god awful irresponsible about that?
While I’ve seen a lot of invective directed my way there has been little in the way of an actual refutation of my point.
Because you didn’t make a point. You responded to a specific statement (Conservatives are obsessed with the size of bills as a matter of course) by treating it as if it was saying something much broader (There’s no such thing as an overly large or complicated bill).
There’s no need to respond to refutations that don’t address what someone actually said. Even if someone bothered, I suspect you’d just change the argument on them again.
You responded to a specific statement (Conservatives are obsessed with the size of bills as a matter of course) by treating it as if it was saying something much broader (There’s no such thing as an overly large or complicated bill).
Yes, conservatives are obsessed with bill size. Bill size, it stands to reason, is a good proxy or indicator of complexity and micromanagement. It would also seem to decrease the chances that Congressmen even understand what they are voting on. From my perspective this is not a desirable thing. Frankly I don’t even understand what is controversial about this or why Oliver found the need to highlight it.
[...] Oliver Willis comments on stupid complaints, with a stupid complaint of his own. The reason why massive bills are a matter of concern – to any citizen, not just [...]
Bill size, it stands to reason, is a good proxy or indicator of complexity and micromanagement.
You mean it’s a good proxy for actually reading the bill? In this case, all whopping 167 pages of it?
Hell, Colin, you might as well make weight your metric for gauging a bill’s worth. We all know, after all, that studies have shown a strong linkage between paper stock and liberal perfidy.
Colin, a draft of the health care plan has been released. It’s 167 pages long. Obama isn’t pressing for a vote until August. It’s now the first week of June.
Parents United Now transcribed the whole damn bill and posted it online in 48 hours. But even they’re using loaded language to suggest there’s something horrible “hiding” in it.
Then Ed Morrissey’s first bitch out of the gate is how unwieldy in size this monstrous bill is!
And right on cue you and Amused come around complaining about how “THERE IS SIMPLY NO TIME TO READ AND UNDERSTAND IT! MY GOD THE IRRESPONSIBILITY!!!!”
Yes, conseratives. Obama expects you to read 167 pages in three months.
Can you handle that?
Bill size, it stands to reason, is a good proxy or indicator of complexity and micromanagement.
Bill size, it stands to reason, is also a good proxy or indicator for poor margins and spacing.
Moron.
Even President Obama grasps the point that complex, lengthy regulation — such as the tax code — qualifies as a bad thing.
Just to put a point to it, Colin: You do understand that Obama did not reach this conclusion based solely on the tax code’s page count, right?
Right wing con artist “Colin”: “This is because lengthy regulation and efficiency are usually at odds. “
Excellent, then I shall immediately expect that all contracts for legal purposes will be immediately shortened!
I shall immediately expect that all contracts for credit cards will be immediately shortened!
I shall immediately expect that all contracts for home mortgages will be immediately shortened!
I shall immediately expect that all contracts for using software will be immediately shortened!
Oh, wait, credit card companies and banks and software companies and every other company that uses lengthy contracts (which are regulations) have particular interests in having me sign lengthy regulations and “Colin” has never said a peep about that.
What right wing con artist’s like “Colin” are in favor of is limiting Citizen’s rights to make rules so that con artists like “Colin” and the predatory corporations that he is a tool of can in turn use lengthy regulations in the form of onerous and unregulated contracts to control what goes on.
How many people have the legal degrees required to understand the legal contracts, a list of lengthy regulations that fall almost entirely* on the weaker party in the contract negotiation?
Right wing “Colin” is a corporatist. And that’s being polite.
* The only rights that most Citizens have in regards to contracts is the ability as Citizens to enforce a minimum degree of decency from what is demanded by credit card companies and banks and software companies (with their obscene “click through” licenses that can’t even be read until the product is bought and opened).
What right wing con artist “Colin” is working for is a world where he and his corporate masters aren’t beholden to an empowered Citizenry.
It’s been a while since I’ve read a corporate-medical-insurance-industry contract with it’s lengthy regulations, anyone have theirs handy or offhand remember how many pages the contract was?
I remember an apartment complex once asking it’s residents to sign upwards of two dozen pages of contracts.
And let’s not forgot font size. When a contract is at the tiniest font size legible, and runs almost to all the edges (margins) of a an extra long legal piece of paper, that’s the equivalent of what, 10 normal size pages?
But right wing con artist “Colin” is assuredly fine with corporations using onerous legal regulations (contracts), he’s just against Citizen’s asking that his corporate masters be similarly regulated.
fafaroo, while you have done an admirable job attacking Ed Morrisey, I never defended him. Rather I defended the broader conservative aversion to massive government bills, which Oliver butchered via the strawman of wanting all bills to be tax cuts and post-it notes.
Bill size, it stands to reason, is also a good proxy or indicator for poor margins and spacing.
Yes, that’s gotta be it.
You do understand that Obama did not reach this conclusion based solely on the tax code’s page count, right?
I do, but I also find it highly likely that it played a role. Saying that the tax code is too complicated is one thing, but it really drives the point home when you also note that it is 16,845 pages long. (source: http://www.trygve.com/taxcode.html — last paragraph)
Again, complexity and length usually correlate fairly well. It’s difficult to imagine an overly convoluted tax code that is 10 pages long. It’s possible I suppose, but pretty unlikely.
“16,845 pages long” which is what? 5 pages of corporate-contract fine print?
It would be great to have a right wing con artist like “Colin” speak up against corporate-contract fine print, but it seems clear he’s all for corporate legalese, even the trickster legalese of the corporate-medical-insurance-industry that allows corps to wiggle out of their coverage even if you have always paid your insurance bill on time and in full.
Dishonest corporatists and their shell games are a far greater threat to US than our democratic republic that right winger’s like “Colin” clearly hates.
Why do you hate our representative democracy, “Colin”?
Rather I defended the broader conservative aversion to massive government bills, which Oliver butchered via the strawman of wanting all bills to be tax cuts and post-it notes.
Colin, please provide us with an acceptable conservative page count range between a post it and the tax code. Is it like between 1 and 166?
Because Morrissey didn’t say the health Care bill was complicated or inefficient. He complained that it was too large, as if length itself was a bad thing.
So sorry, Colin, it’s Morrisey whose done a disservice to your Conservative principles by taking an aversion to complex bills and reducing it to an aversion to high page counts.
And he does this over a bill that’s only 167 pages long.
And you came here to defend him.
Now imagine Morrissey really wanted to drive him his point by noting the actual page count. Let’s see what it might have read like:
“Obama’s National Health Care Bill is so complex and byzantine it runs over 160 pages in length. Can you believe it? It really takes 167 pages to create a national health care program for every man, woman and child in the United States?”
He’d kind of sound like a moron wouldn’t he?
Yes, that’s gotta be it.
Oh, and Colin. Did you see the Parents United Now pdf? Did you see the margins and line spacing in that doc?
Oh and Colin, what was a signature bill of the Bush Administration? Would No Child Left Behind be among them? Do you want to read it? If you do, you can find the complete text here:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h107-1
You get to the full text right after this warning:
ZOMG!!!! It’s “VERY LARGE”!!!!! Why now I don’t even have to read the bill to know it’s terrible!
And how many actual pages is it in pdf form? 670.
So Colin, too many pages?
And you came here to defend him.
No, I didn’t. I came to defend against Oliver’s nonsensical rant about conservative obsession with bill size, explaining that it is a good proxy for complexity and micromanagement. The longer a bill is the more complex and opaque it is likely to be. You continue to mount attacks on Ed Morissey but since I never defended him it is a waste of energy.
Did you see the margins and line spacing in that doc?
Sure did. It has the formatting of most pieces of Congressional legislation — double spaced with generous margins. But that hardly means that when placed in a more conventional format that it suddenly goes from book to brochure.
And how many actual pages is it in pdf form? 670.
So Colin, too many pages?
Well, yes. NCLB was a horrible piece of legislation. My preferred page count would have been zero.
I don’t know why I come to this site. I feel like my brain must be committing slow suicide when I read comments from people like Colin. Holy shit, the stoopid burns, I tells ya. I must be a fucking masochist.
But that hardly means that when placed in a more conventional format that it suddenly goes from book to brochure.
But, Colin, if you’re judging the quality of a bill on its page count alone, surely there will be times when 10-12 pages could make the difference good legislation and “horrible liberal pork barrel,” right?
The again, you have yet to tell us what page count range you consider “just right” for good legislation. Under 100? Under 10?
Well, yes. NCLB was a horrible piece of legislation.
And you determined this based solely on its page count, right?
But, Colin, if you’re judging the quality of a bill on its page count alone, surely there will be times when 10-12 pages could make the difference good legislation and “horrible liberal pork barrel,” right?
The again, you have yet to tell us what page count range you consider “just right” for good legislation. Under 100? Under 10?
Is this really your argument? Are you really trying to disagree with the idea that lengthy legislation could correlate with complexity and inefficiency?
If you received a manual with your ipod and it was 500 pages would that be too long? Well, yes. Is there a hard and fast rule for how long that manual should be? An exact page count? No, but I doubt that would preclude you from thinking that it was too long.
A piece of legislation’s length should vary with the subject that it is tackling. A budget will be longer than a resolution recognizing national secretaries day. There is no hard and fast rule.
If the health care bill was 10,000 pages would you think it is too long? Is it impossible for legislation to be too long?
Is this particular health care bill too long? I will leave that to others to decide (although my preferred length would be zero). But there plainly is such thing as legislation that is too long.
And you determined this based solely on its page count, right?
No, but the page count was a good hint. A reading of the bill simply confirmed those suspicions.
A piece of legislation’s length should vary with the subject that it is tackling. A budget will be longer than a resolution recognizing national secretaries day. There is no hard and fast rule.
Which was, of course, exactly Oliver’s point.
Which was, of course, exactly Oliver’s point.
No. If Oliver had simply attacked Morrissey for saying that the health care bill was too long that would be one thing, but he used it as an example to attack broader right-wing reservations about lengthy bills and regulations.
The dishonesty of right winger “Colin’s” comments are in direct proportion to their length.
… but he used it as an example to attack broader right-wing reservations about lengthy bills and regulations.
So you’re say Morrissey’s attack on the health care bill was not based on his conservative reservations about lengthy bills and regulations?
So you’re say Morrissey’s attack on the health care bill was not based on his conservative reservations about lengthy bills and regulations?
Of course it was. And for argument’s sake I’ll say it doesn’t hold water. But that does not mean that ALL such arguments are baseless or ridiculous.
Right winger “Colin” says that when right wingers use absurd arguments it’s okay but what’s not okay to “Colin” is pointing out the absurdity of right winger’s argument.
Republican’s First Rule: Rules Are For Other People