| Submit your comments on this article |
| Government |
| Baucus warns of 'huge train wreck' enacting ObamaCare provisions - The Hill |
| 2013-04-18 |
| Sen. Max Baucus (Dumbocrat-Mont.) said Wednesday he fears a "train wreck" as the Champ administration implements its signature healthcare law. Routinely happens when you sign before you read. Baucus, the chairman of the chamber's powerful Finance Committee and a key architect of the healthcare reform law, said he fears people do not understand how the law will work. The little people once again, failing to understand. "I just see a huge train wreck coming down," he told Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius at a Wednesday hearing. "You and I have discussed this many times, and I don't see any results yet." Baucus pressed Sebelius for details about how the Health Department will explain the law and raise awareness of its provisions, which are supposed to take effect in just a matter of months. Oh, so it's a advertising and sales problem. "I'm very concerned that not enough is being done so far -- very concerned," Baucus said. |
| Posted by:Besoeker |
| #5 Baucus didn't just vote for it, he helped write it. Literally. Now he's seeing the effects around re-election time and is quivering in his boots. |
| Posted by: Charles 2013-04-18 21:05 |
| #4 There is a more fundamental and bigger problem: the ones who created the problem are declaring themselves the only ones qualified to fix the problem they created. This doesn't apply only to Obamacare, but also to illegal "immigration". The solution for this KIND of problem is to REPLACE the people who created the problem with DIFFERENT people capable of FIXING the problem. The first step of implementing this solution is to RECOGNIZE the STUPIDITY of the people who created the problem. In a democracy, the way of implementing the solution to the more fundamental problem is VOTING THE STUPID PEOPLE OUT. This is hindered at the outset by a complicit media who actively prevent the recognition of stupidity and the identification of the stupid. Citing Jefferson on his trust of a Free Press evades the fact that this Press is totally unlike the Press that locked horns with the government of Jefferson's day. Obviously, in a democracy/republic, the ballot box is the preferred way of getting the stupid out, but it is not the ONLY way: The Declaration of Independence was a justification for the Bullet Box, the OTHER (admittedly much less preferable by all reasonable people) way. In recognition of this, the Declaration laid down markers by which one could distingush between a short-term stupid government and a malicious one (see this article on a red herring argument). By the way, the applicability of the Declaration of Independence today needs to be viewed in the context of Merchantilism, which was an implementation of the BCG Matrix in the 18th century. In a nation implementing Merchantilism, colonies were seen as distant "cash cows" providing funds to the Monarch without the need of imposing taxes on the locals, and thus avoiding the risk of tax revolutions from local people. What the monarch forgot was that, like dirt under the rug, the potential for a tax revolution was not eradicated by merchantilism, but was merely displaced: If the English in Britain were treated exactly the same way as the British colonists in colonial America were, then the revolution would have happened in London, not Boston. In our "politically correct" day, colonies in which merchantilism can be enthusiastically practiced (such as the Belgan Congo colony) is rightly condemned. BUT, because equal taxation in a high spending environment is political suicide, the Democrat/Socialist Left has implemented a class based merchantilism: AKA welfare, where cash is moved from the capable and productive to the voting lazy non-productive. If one sees the similarities between the implementation of British Merchantilism and the implementation of Welfare, then the arguments of the Declaration of Independence begin to make sense. What also makes sense is the hostility of government officials and workers to those who insist on adherence to the Constitution and the applicability of the Declaration of Independence: The British monarchy disliked the Declaration as well, AND FOR THE SAME REASONS. It is truly argued that the Declaration of Independence is "not legally binding, since it is not the law of the land". Of course: it was NEVER made the Law of the Land, because laws can be abolished, and it is the nature of the Declaration of Independence to NEVER be abolished. "Laws", per se, are created by the Government and enforced by the Government, but the Declaration is a recognition of natural laws created by God and is intended to be enforced By The People. Governments create, enforce, and abolish laws, but the Declaration gives the People the right to create and abolish GOVERNMENTS. The continual references of those waging the Revolutionary War to the grace and actions of God helping the colonials to successfully throw off the British yoke were not spouting pious palatitudes and empty thanks: The success of the Revolution was seen as a Divine endorsement of the validity of the premises in the Declaration that moderated and informed the commands of Paul in Romans 13:1-7. Paul, in that passage, emphasized the positive side of government that obligated citizens to obey that government. The Declaration asserted that there was a flip side: a government that did NO good did not deserve obedience. John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, denied such a flip side, but the founders argued that the success of the Revolution proved them right and him (and all liberal "c"hristians) wrong. |
| Posted by: Ptah 2013-04-18 14:39 |
| #3 You know of course, the legislation is much too complex. They should have broken this beast down into easily comprehensible pieces and enacted it in a logical order. Now we have about six agencies and three departments of the Federal government writing legislation not counting the IRS who are licking their chops at getting their hands into our pockets for more money. I think Baucus is right, the devil is in the implementation and what he sees he doesn't like. The Democrats will repeal Obamacare before it is all said and done. When the entire thing falls apart, those who voted for this mess will have to run for cover or lead the charge to repeal it or get voted out. As things stand the midterm elections are going to be very hard on the jackasses. |
| Posted by: Bill Clinton 2013-04-18 12:22 |
| #2 Should have thought of all that *before* he voted for it. |
| Posted by: Iblis 2013-04-18 11:16 |
| #1 |
| Posted by: junkiron 2013-04-18 02:37 |