Can I Have The Health Care Bill Please?

I work a lot with documents. It's a really big part of that whole software engineering process. Things like specifications, data dictionaries, white papers, requirements, process improvement plans and the random other plan.

Some of these documents can be huge. I've seen a Systems Engineering Management Plan which took nearly 1,500 pages in MS Word before.

The thing is, that these documents, they're the key to what I'm building at any given moment. They describe functionality, interfaces, and other requirements for the software system. Without those documents....well I'm just floundering in the wind, building my "best guess" as to what the customer/client/boss wants.

In the past, I've discovered that my best guess in such situations are not always ideal. Actually, in such situations I've often built the wrong software; sure it does a task, but it's not the task that the customer wanted taken care of.

I could not imagine even attempting to do my job if the only thing I was given was the table of contents (ToC) and the Executive Summary.

No let me correct that and say that my job would be easier--and the client would get a better, more accurate for their needs, piece of software--without me getting any of these needed and necessary documents, as opposed to me getting just the ToC and the Executive Summary of these documents.

Why then... or maybe that should be HOW CAN... does our Congress think it can pass a bill when the only thing they are debating is effectively the ToC and the Executive Summary?

But that is effectively what is currently happening. The Chairman's Mark of the "America's Healthy Futures Act of 2009," henceforth called ObamaCare, is currently all that exists of the ObamaCare bill.

Basically, it's around 250 pages of descriptions on what our esteemed felons Congressmen believe should go in this law. Additionally, a Chairman's Mark, even if voted upon as good and valid, is not binding during the actual construction of the legislative language.

Think about that... Health Care is currently about 1/6^th of our GDP, and Congress wants us to think that they're looking out for us, when they're arguing about the content of a bill that has not been written, and is currently not scheduled to be written until the arguments are over.

This promises to be a massive disaster on the scale of (if not larger than) the TARP and any other big-government/nanny state legislation that's passed in the past 100 years.

What's worse is that they're playing dating games in order for the GAO to give it a better rating fiscally. The primary aspects of the bill won't start until JULY, 2013 (despite the fact that they're planning on raising taxes/funds beginning April, 2011) and the GAO ranks things based on a ten year plan. This evil thing doesn't even begin (except for stealing money from the citizenry) until a third of the way through the GAO's current reporting period.

No, this Chairman's Mark needs to go away, and if our esteemed leaders want to create a massive new socialist program, then they need to do so in the sunlight, and allow the populace to read the bill so we can tell them exactly where they can shove it.

And I'd like that chance before they pass a bill which would damage my ability to care for the health and welfare of my family.

Government Mandates & You

I was perusing through THOMAS earlier and discovered an interesting proposed bill. Apparently, Congress, in its infinite wisdom has decided that not nearly enough people own cars. In fact, there are some thousands upon thousands of able-bodied adults who do not own a car. So, of course, they have decided that it was time to legislate such a situation.

It's an interesting bill, and has these as the primary focuses:

1. The creation of a regulatory marketplace. All new cars sold will be required by law to be sold through this marketplace. Inclusion in the market place means a bunch of hefty fees are added to the car manufacturers, as well as price caps and bottoms, and an array of "standard" features which are less the what is currently standard on most new cars
2. Any additional features--regardless of their pre-"marketplace" standardization--can only be added as an additional cost to the car
3. Cars that do not meet the price caps/bottoms or feature standards will not be allowed to be sold in the United States or its territories
   
4. Every able-bodied/able-minded adult must own a car
5. Depending on income, the government may buy the car for you
6. If the adult is an illegal alien, they will not be able to get the free car
7. People are not allowed to check to see if an adult is an illegal alien
   
8. The population can keep their current car, only if they
   
   1. Do not change the color of the car
   2. Do not change the car's battery
   3. Do not change the car's tires
      
   4. Do not perform any exterior or interior body work
   Performing any of these tasks requires you to purchase a new car
9. Each new car has a tax associated with it
10. There is a yearly fee, based on income and cost of the car, to own the car
11. Adults who do not own a car, must pay an annual fine
    
12. Failure to pay the fees/taxes/fines will lead to jail time
    

So, what do you think?

Does this sound like a fair law? Is it reasonable?

After all, those poor folks who don't have a car right this moment, why the government will buy them one! Imagine all the helpfulness that that could provide. Solid, reliable transportation for the masses.

Of course, all those folks who live in places like NYC--where it's unreasonable for them to own a vehicle--why they have to pay extra to offset the cost, or they could go to jail for failure to pay their taxes.

Can you imagine this? Can you imagine what this would do to our nation and economy?


If you've read this, and thought it perfectly reasonable. Replace the car with a bike. Or a house. Or a candy bar. If it still sounds reasonable, well, you're a hopeless socialist. Go on home.

For the rest of us, why does this sound unreasonable while doing the exact thing with Health Care sound reasonable?

Frankly, it doesn't. The description of the law, is more or less how that last Health Care bill was written. There were hefty fines and/or jail time if you did not buy the government health insurance. There was a single line detailing that no illegal aliens would receive benefits, while at the same time the law stated that no one would be able to check on the legal residence state of the individual in question. And of course, there was the fact that people would be able to keep their insurance--provided that they never needed it to change.

This is the change that Obama is trying to bring us. Pretty bitter medicine, eh?

Wonder If Other Amendments Will Be Read...

I'm amazed. Flabbergasted. Utterly boondoggled. Insert other words/terms of amazed disbelief here.

Why you ask?

It's simple, a U.S. Senator has remembered that the Constitution and its associated Bill of Rights exist.

Apparently, David Kris, assistant attorney general of the Justice Department’s National Security Division was in the the Senate's Judiciary Committee on 9/23 testifying on why the expiring portions of the Patriot Act need to be extended.

At which point Al Franken read Mr. Kris the Fourth Amendment, and asking specifically how the "roving wiretap" portion of the Patriot Act can be fulfilled while still providing American's the protection from said searches guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment.

Color me amazed that Mr. Franken knows the Constitution.

Oh, wait, the Constitution was just a part of his incoming paperwork as a junior Senator; but at least he read it.

Now, of course, my question becomes, will Mr. Franken read the Constitution at other times that a law that is being brought before the Senate appears to be working against the text (or the intent of the Framers) of the Constitution?

Say, will he read the First Amendment when Congress talks about bringing back the "Fairness Doctrine?"

Will he read the Second Amendment when Congress talks about yet another gun law?

Will he read Article 1, Sections 8 and 9 as well as the Ninth and Tenth Amendments when Congress tries to pass something utterly outside the bounds of what they are allowed to do according to the Constitution (you know, little things like welfare programs, the national Department of Education and potential government-run health care)?

Or, as is so often the case in such things, is the Constitution only important when it discusses and approves those issues with which Liberals are concerned?

I have no doubt that Mr. Franken will never again open his copy of the Constitution (unless he needs it to attack something with which he does not agree), but I can dream can't I?

And while I'm waiting and dreaming of a Constitutional government, I have an Amendment or 10 which I can read to my kids.