Slashdot Mirror
HR 3200 Considered As Software
bfwebster writes "Independent of one's personal opinions regarding the desirability and forms of government-mandated health care reform, there exists the question of how well HR 3200 (or any other legislation) will actually achieve that end and what the unintended (or even intended) consequences may be. There are striking similarities between crafting software and creating legislation, including risks and pitfalls — except that those risks and pitfalls are greater in legislation. I've written an article (first of a three-part series) examining those parallels and how these apply to HR 3200."
HR3200 considered by a software designer with no concept of how legislation works, aka: how to get my rant about HR3200 posted on Slashdot by superficially comparing it to software.
Okay, maybe that title is too long, but at least it's more accurate.
The bulk of the article is concerned with how HR3200 is an unmanageable mess because it's really really long and makes reference to lots of other laws. Well, surprisingly enough, this is how just about every other piece of legislation ever looks. Laws are not written in, and do not exist in, a vacuum. There is a tremendous body of legislation that already exists. New legislation has to modify parts of that existing legislation, while keeping other parts, deleting still other parts, and ignoring completely other parts that aren't relevant to the new law. It's sort of like revision control in software, except instead of having a bunch of diff files in the background and having the new law be the final combined output, the new law is basically a diff file itself, which in turn modifies earlier diff files, which may themselves modify earlier diff files, and so on. The entire revision history is kept in the legislation itself, basically.
HR3200 is very long and complex because it's seeking to overhaul a very large and very complex system with a vast number of laws already written about it. HR3200 has to modify a number of these existing laws in order to do what it aims to do. Frankly, I'd be worried if it came in at much LESS than 1000 pages, given the scope of what it is trying to do and the vast amount of legislation that's already been written regarding health care. The relevant government agencies have plenty of lawyers and other experts whose job it is to make sure the legislation is understood and implemented as written.
Basically, this whole article is an excuse to drive page hits to this guy's blog, and to Slashdot, by trying to come up with some excuse to get huge argument started about health care on a technology site.
Is this article a troll? Yes, I can see the utility in comparing legislation with software, although I was hoping for something a bit more than superficial analogies. But if the comparison is any use at all, then it will apply to legislation as a whole, so why choose one particular piece of current and controversial legislation to discuss? Surely the fact that it is both current and controversial is only a distraction from the main thesis, of comparing legislation with software? I suspect that the author has an agenda, of trashing the legislation. He also makes a rather fundamental misunderstanding, in his haste to criticize HR 3200. The 'spaghetti coding' is because he isn't looking at the source program itself, what he is looking at is a diff, between the existing regulation and the proposed amended regulation. That is a rather critical difference that invalidates 90% of his analysis.
[Corporations] will modify the healthcare system to favor themselves through government action.
Agree 100%. The more government is involved in economic decisions, the more corporations will try to insert themselves into the government to influence those economic decisions.
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
Sorry, but you are wrong. It is firmly established -- and has been for a long time -- that the "general welfare" phrase is SUBJECT TO the rest of the document.
Just as you might write: "We want to promote good nutrition, by going to the grocery store and doing the following:"
It is that following part that defines how the general welfare may be promoted.
This is further supported by the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions. Go ahead and look them up. They established, without any doubt, that the Federal Government has no power to do ANYTHING that is not specifically listed as one of its defined powers, despite any language about "general welfare" or "necessary and proper".
Even before that, it was thoroughly explained in the Federalist Papers (#41 is a good example) that the Federal Government did not have power to perform acts that are outside the specifically listed powers.
You can go off about "no variation of our language" and so on, but you are taking those phrases very definitely out of context. And in their original context and meaning, they DO NOT authorize the Federal Government to do things that are outside their specifically listed Constitutional powers.
You could argue with me for hours if you wanted, and I could just continue to supply you with historical documents and court decisions that show you to be wrong. But I probably wouldn't, because you would be wasting my time and everyone else's. You can look this stuff up yourself, guy. Get a little real education about it, rather than making assumptions about what somebody was saying 200+ years ago. The actual meanings of their words are a matter of record, and prove you wrong.
The minimum wage is set for certain companies via the "commerce clause" justification, which is not just arguably false but some states have already passed resolutions stating that they will not longer enforce it at the Federal Government's whim. Take a look at state marijuana laws as well... the Federal Government has tried to regulate marijuana and other drugs under the "commerce clause" umbrella, but certain states have balked and said "no more". And the Fed can't do anything about it, because the states are right.
So, I understand the basis of your arguments. But they are incorrect. And state after state, in just the last year, have been proving that in various ways.
Seriously. Read about the 9th and 10th Amendments. Look around you and see the laws that states are passing. Not only is your view incorrect, it is outdated, and states are taking back their rights. (By the way, several states already have proposed state laws to reject a National health care plan on the very bases I have already mentioned: the Feds don't have the Constitutional authority to do so. Go ahead... tell THEM they are wrong. They will laugh at you.)