Tuesday, February 7, 2012

The "Lion's Den"

Welcome to the Lion's Den, just some brief notes or facts on the state of the Republic. Here's a look at "legislative efficiency" or lack thereof.  (Source)
""Back in December, Nick Schulz helped put the size of the 2,074-page healthcare bill into some historical context by comparing its length to some previous bills that rank among the most consequential in U.S. history, like the 82-page Social Security Act of 1935 and the 74-page Civil Rights Act of 1964.  (emphasis supplied)

Now that Congress has passed the “Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act,” it might be a good time to compare the 2,319-page financial reform bill (245 pages longer than the healthcare bill) to the previous bills listed below (and see graph) that are considered among the most consequential legislative acts for banking and finance.""   (emphasis supplied)

This begs the question, if a 37-page bill (The Glass-Steagall Act) took care of the problem in 1933, why can't the same 37-page bill be re-instated? What are the Marxist-Socialists (MS) that passed & signed the Dodd-Frank Act be up to? Perhaps it's purposeful obfuscation via complexity. A very MS thing to do. As Speaker Pelosi said, you'll have to pass the Bill to find out what's in it.

Now, let's have a look at AN ACT PROVIDING ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE, QUALITY, ACCOUNTABLE HEALTH CARE (Massachusetts) that consists of four Statutory Chapters. Buckle up, here we go:  Chapter 58 - 2006 ; Chapter 324 - 2006 ; Chapter 450 - 2006 & Chapter 205 - 2007  .  I wouldn't even hazard a guess at the page length of the entire 4 chapters. Let's just call it long enough. Even the title is too long!

Stayed tuned for it's a long journey into legislative "sausage making."

Please check us out on Facebook and If you like what you see, please "Like" us. You can find us here.


Publius Nemo said...

Great contrast. Peace and Plenty, PN

Right Wingnut said...

Wait a minute...one of the main talking points out of the Romney camp has been that RomneyCare is only 72 pages, compared to ObamaCare's 2300. Are you saying that isn't true?

Lionhead said...

RW, it appears to me it's longer than Mitt might have advertised. I suppose it's subject to how small you make your font size when printing it all out. ;)

The last Chapter 205, was added in 2007 to iron out some issues in the original legislation. I suspect as time goes on, things will be added or subtracted as needed once the larger ObamaCare Act takes effect. Such is sausage making in the 21st Century.

I'll have somemore review & comment on this soon. It's a key issue in the 2012 Campaign.

BOSMAN said...

Good stuff LH.

I guess whem Mitt passed MA Health Care, he wasn't tryinging to hide anything or sneak anything in.

Just stop the freeloader problem and help those who couldn't get affordable health care, finally get some.

Anonymous said...

You may want to check out the links below as you do your research. A lot of work, pro and con, has been done over the past 5 years on the Massachusetts Health Care Reform Law of 2006.


ObamaCare vs RomneyCare: Ready for the Truth?

Lionhead said...

@Bosman, yes, I think we'll find that to be the case in the review. All parties to it seem to have been in agreement for the Plan.

TeaPartyForRomney.com said...

Lionhead, Funny that you would reference 'chapters' that are sections of all the laws that were passed in Massachusetts, not the health care bill. Romney's health care plan is only 72 pages. The other 'chapters' you reference are not part of the health care plan. And it is great that you added 'Chapter 205, which were signed in November 29, 2007. Romney was released on January 4, 2007. Right before he left office he passed Chapter 450, which struck out sections of the previous laws because of their overreach. Chapter 324 was written to clarify and amend the law as well. Chapter 58 is the only part of RomneyCare which is 72 pages.

Anything else you need clarifying? These are simple things you could actually read to find out instead of simply trying to smear.

Slick-Willy said...

Brilliant post Tea Party. I especially enjoyed how RW immediately hopped on the train assuming w/o hesitation that the worst and most unlikely scenario was the correct one.

Lionhead said...

@TeaPartyForRomney.com, my comparison of RomneyCare & ObamaCare was to show the number of pages in the legislation, not as a direct comparison between the plans. Comparing a Federal to State plan involves much more complexity to conform to already existing Federal Law & Regulations.

All four Chapters are indeed part of RomneyCare. The 'seed' chapter, 58, was the first to implement, while the remaining three were to modify, add, or strike out certain sections. I'm looking at the Plan in it's entirety, you're looking at the 'seed' only.

Now, to your allegation what I wrote is a 'smear.' Smear to what? Page length or complexity? Sorry, I reject your 'clarification.'

I posted the legislative links for all to see. The passage dates are clearly stated under each Chapter. All four make up RomneyCare in its entirety. That is fact; not my opinion.

Lionhead said...

@TeaPartyForRomney.com, please give readers your comments & clarifications on this:


Is this conservative or liberal?

TeaPartyForRomney.com said...

Though there are some good pieces of information in there, that post is so full of problems I don't know where to start. It was never to be used in a federal system because under the US Constitution it would be unconstitutional, but under the Massachusetts constitution is was allowed/constitutional.

This was not something he came up with to help him in his presidency, as well as I can tell because he started researching this in the first year he took the governorship and worked on it for 2.5 years then gave it to the Mass. legislature who changed major parts of it.

You know what instead of me saying more on this, lets go to the source, Heritage Foundation, right after Romney and Heritage finished it and gave it to the legislature: http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2006/01/mitts-fit

Then after the Legislature was done with it and the compromises that were made: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2006/04/the-significance-of-massachusetts-health-reform

Then a one year update of the plan, and how the legislature took it for a ride and hurt some basic and very important measures: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/04/the-massachusetts-health-plan-an-update-and-lessons-for-other-states

ASnd finally the 4 year update and how the state beaurocracy destroyed it, not to say there are no good parts, there still are, but the key issues Romney fought for were almost all altered: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/09/massachusetts-health-care-reform-has-left-small-business-behind-a-warning-to-the-states

To show the plan in whole. The first link was full of praise and inspiration, the next link is caution but still praise, after one year there were cautions and red flags, and after four years it was a warning to other states.

Clarification: Romney's original mandate was good: 'Pay for your insurance or pay your own bill.' Yet the federal government won't let a governor withhold services to those who don't pay.

Yet the results of the bill are still good, 64% of Massachusetts still supports it, 98% of residents are insured. Now Romney is there defending the states rights to have it under his federalist beliefs and if people don't like it they can move. That is the greatness of federalism, states can do these things and if you don't like it, you can move to a state that shows your principles.