Obamacare Regulations 30x as Long as Law

[BlackCrypt]

11,588,500 Words! This has to be on record as the longest drivel ever put on paper.

Bureaucracies in the Obama Administration have thus far published approximately 11,588,500 words of final Obamacare regulations, while there are only 381,517 words in the Obamacare law itself.

That means unelected federal officials have now written 30 words of regulations for each word in the law.

What is commonly known as the Obamacare law includes both the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (HCERA). Since these bills were signed into law by President Barack Obama in March 2010, various agencies in the administration have published 109 final regulations spelling out how they are to be implemented.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/pen ... x-long-law

[Danzig in the Dark]

Ok, KissTroll2, what prompted you to copy pasta this nugget?

[BlackCrypt]

At least I gave the link on where I stole the story from. Is there anything wrong with the info shared?

[Luminiferous]

At least I gave the link on where I stole the story from. Is there anything wrong with the info shared?

Not surprising it comes from a Brent Bozell organization...

[Danzig in the Dark]

At least I gave the link on where I stole the story from. Is there anything wrong with the info shared?

No, you copied and pasted the original article correctly, just like KissFAQ2 had when you called him out for mindlessly copying and pasting an article. Great job with the link, you deserve a Hero cookie. It's no surprise you're a Republicant, you fucking hypocrite idiot.

[BlackCrypt]

At least I gave the link on where I stole the story from. Is there anything wrong with the info shared?

No

So, KissFAQ is cool to post an unreferenced article about the death of Christianity in America and it is all ok, but I post a link and snippet about the ridiculous aspects of the bureaucratic BS attached to the Affordable Care Act and you give me shit but about the copy pasta, but yet do not refute the statements in said article.

Hypocrisy much?

[Danzig in the Dark]

At least I gave the link on where I stole the story from. Is there anything wrong with the info shared?

No, you copied and pasted the original article correctly, just like KissFAQ2 had when you called him out for mindlessly copying and pasting an article. Great job with the link, you deserve a Hero cookie. It's no surprise you're a Republicant, you fucking hypocrite idiot.

So, KissFAQ is cool to post an unreferenced article about the death of Christianity in America and it is all ok, but I post a link and snippet about the ridiculous aspects of the bureaucratic BS attached to the Affordable Care Act and you give me shit but about the copy pasta, but yet do not refute the statements in said article.

Hypocrisy much?

I don't pay much attention to KISSfag2. He's RattRules with better punctuation.
Are you saying this is unprecedented, that normally there is little or no bureaucratic BS attached to other laws? That's what the article you cited implies. The whole idea that it takes a shitload of regulations to actually implement a law is old news. Of course, we must take into account that the targets of this article are Republicans and other ignorant morons.

[BlackCrypt]

I don't pay much attention to KISSfag2. He's RattRules with better punctuation.

And now the backpedaling begins...

What I was hinting at was that the amended regulations to the Affordable Care Act are far more confusing than the actual "law" itself. No one who voted and put it in to law actually read the whole thing, and yet we trust the pencil pushers to make it work?

[Danzig in the Dark]

I don't pay much attention to KISSfag2. He's RattRules with better punctuation.

And now the backpedaling begins...

What I was hinting at was that the amended regulations to the Affordable Care Act are far more confusing than the actual "law" itself. No one who voted and put it in to law actually read the whole thing, and yet we trust the pencil pushers to make it work?

Why didn't you say that? I know why. Someone, like me for example, would ask for some actual evidence of this confusion and you don't have any. Well? Let's see what you've got.

[DEATH ROW JOE]

What I was hinting at was that the amended regulations to the Affordable Care Act are far more confusing than the actual "law" itself. No one who voted and put it in to law actually read the whole thing, and yet we trust the pencil pushers to make it work?

No offense but you're an imbecile who has once again been duped by another stupid GOP talking point. Regulations explain how to comply with the law. A regulation will quote the statute, explain the statutory language in plain english, and then give hypotheticals explaining how to comply with the statute. So of course the regulations include far, far more words than the statute.


Here's an example from the Tax code. One simple sentence in statutory language becomes a page full of information in the treasury regulation.

Gross Income defined by statute (26 U.S.C. § 61):

gross income means all income from whatever source derived, unless excluded by law.


Regulation for 26 U.S.C. § 61:

§ 1.61–1 Gross income.
(a) General definition. Gross income
means all income from whatever
source derived, unless excluded by law.
Gross income includes income realized
in any form, whether in money, property,
or services. Income may be realized,
therefore, in the form of services,
meals, accommodations, stock, or
other property, as well as in cash. Section
61 lists the more common items of
gross income for purposes of illustration.
For purposes of further illustration,
§ 1.61–14 mentions several miscellaneous
items of gross income not
listed specifically in section 61. Gross
income, however, is not limited to the
items so enumerated.
(b) Cross references. Cross references
to other provisions of the Code are to
be found throughout the regulations
under section 61. The purpose of these
cross references is to direct attention
to the more common items which are
included in or excluded from gross income
entirely, or treated in some special
manner. To the extent that another
section of the Code or of the regulations
thereunder, provides specific
treatment for any item of income, such
other provision shall apply notwithstanding
section 61 and the regulations
thereunder. The cross references do not
cover all possible items.
(1) For examples of items specifically
included in gross income, see Part II
(section 71 and following), Subchapter
B, Chapter 1 of the Code.
(2) For examples of items specifically
excluded from gross income, see part
III (section 101 and following), Subchapter
B, Chapter 1 of the Code.
(3) For general rules as to the taxable
year for which an item is to be included
in gross income, see section 451
and the regulations thereunder.