Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by Gatorrick22, Sep 27, 2013.
Again, without the bill the regulations do not exist.
To your question, not exactly (mainly because "attached" is imprecise. "Dependent upon"? Yes.). To your statement, correct if you sub "law" for "bill."
The enrolled bill is the "law implemented" and specific authority for the regs.
The regulations are the teeth in the bill/law, including the thousands of pages still being written. So defunding those thousands of pages essentially kills it's implementation. Unless Obama steals the money from somewhere else.
Yeah, the 27k pages is bunk. It has the same number of words as one of the early Harry Potter novels.
But it doesn't take a legal scholar to realize that a health care law will involve the Department of Health and Human Services in its administration. And it isn't exactly legalese to recognize that administration of Medicaid involves the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
If it involved the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that might be a surprise. Those agencies are pretty much common sense.
Still digging I see. You're like a dog with a bone, pal. Let it go already. Did you know that there are 11 agencies responsible for the Salmon fish? Maybe we can talk about that waste next time you act all high and mighty.
You guys are playing semantics by separating the two, but I'm sorry it's one in the same. That bill produced those regulations.
Yes, he's playing games. I wouldn't talk to g8rjd. He's not interested in having a good healthy debate like Ben is.
It's not really semantic. The argument when ACA was being passed was it was too big because of the size of the bill, now a law, and people didn't read it and know what was in it because it was so big.
Well, now the argument has focused to the regulatory regime that was a result of the law under the "gosh, it's SO big" argument. Regulations are not part of the law. They are agency ironing out details delegated to them by Congress. Importing the "it's so big, no one in Congress knew what they were doing" argument into the regulations that resulted from the law is not just a basic misunderstanding of our system of government, it is an attempt to mislead from an earlier specious argument into an even worse specious argument.
Oh Rick...you know you love me. Smooches.
On that note, y'all should watch the Federal Register. You can catch an ongoing notice and comment period, send the issuing agency a nasty letter about their proposed reg, and have it become part of the administrative record for that rule! How exciting! :laugh:
Hey Rick, you're the one who was "shocked, just shocked" that a health law involved the Department of Health and Human Services, after spouting off for as long as I can remember since the bill was initially proposed, much less enacted, about how horrible the law is. Seems odd from someone who tells us how ignorant we all are about what the law does that you discovered years after its enactment that it involves a Department in charged of health laws and the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
Since you often suggest that a little common sense is what you have but others lack, I just figured you might exercise it when you think about whether health-based agencies would administer a health law. If that's what you deem "high and mighty," more power to you.
That's not really all of it. I'm shocked because no matter how much defunding the House implements Obama will just find money from some other agency/s and give it to his ACA, then railing against the Pubs for defunding the wrong agency in the HHS.
That's why I'm shocked at the Pubs for not seeing and preempting an argument against Obama's soon to be tactic.
Nothing is getting defunded.
You'd be better off waiting for aliens to land in your backyard.
Lol... I like you Fred, you make there boards entertaining.
As do you.
I don't know how they're doing the CR, but a full appropriations bill would have line items of what specifically (in terms of individual budget item project) each block of funding is for and not for. It's not just "HHS - $690 billion." I assume the CR is not completely dissimilar.
Well in theory that sounds right, but we also have an Immigration Law that seems to have been co-opted by Obama, so anything is possible with that man running the show.
I hope the House is very spending specific as you assume it can be then we'll seen all the tricks come out on the table... for Obama's pet project.
And since the government shut down is not really as big a deal as the Dems make it out to be I think more and more people will scrutinize Obama's ACA for what it really is... and then the tide of support will trend towards the Pubs more and more.
I just found out the Treasury Department works with money!
tell us more Fred. What exactly do they do with money...and how do they relate to the fed.