HR 3200 Considered As Software 296
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."
The worst excesses (Score:4, Informative)
From the article:
Heh. HR 3200 "represents the worst excesses of the waterfall development lifecycle"? I love it.
It's a valid point, though. I am deeply suspicious of "big bang" plans in either software development or legislation.
So, how do we apply "agile" software development practices to legislation? All I can think of is: develop a new system in the small (pick one or a few states to try it) and establish a time box, and evaluate whether the legislation accomplishes its goals, then decide whether to spread it to more states, scrap it and start over, or what. That seems like a great idea to me.
President Obama has promised that, if passed, this will simultaneously expand health care coverage to everyone; improve the care everyone gets; and lower costs for everyone. Once a few states have adopted this and all those promises prove out to be true, then everyone will see how well it works and there won't be a bitter political battle to adopt it.
Unless of course it turns out that the promises are not in fact kept, and it doesn't work as planned. Then we will have been spared from putting 1/6 of our economy through a disaster.
Agile law development for the win.
steveha
Re:Something needs to be done as today's system is (Score:4, Informative)
That is your sig and you are suggesting kieth olbermann?
Does it hurt your head to have that much doublethink going on?
Re:OP missed the biggest one! (Score:5, Informative)
Further, the "necessary and proper" clause was intended in a similar way and must meet two criteria: (1) it does not allow operating outside the explicit restrictions, and (2) anything justified under the "necessary and proper" clause must be LESSER than anything allowed by the explicit restrictions. For example: it might be "necessary and proper" to build a structure adequate to house the House and Senate, so that they may do their jobs. It would not, however, be allowable to spend even more money building roads directly from the houses of each Senator and Representative to those buildings. The "necessary and proper" clause is one that has been grossly abused, by being used far outside any meaning it ever really had.
Re:OP missed the biggest one! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Something needs to be done as today's system is (Score:1, Informative)
Socialist: Why don't you want public healthcare?
Me: I'll pay for my own healthcare.
Socialist: What about all the people that can't afford health care?
Me: That's not my responsibility.
Socialist: Isn't that heartless?
Me: Yes.
Socialist: But you have more money then they have, isn't it your responsibility to give some of that money to those who don't have any?
Me: No.
Socialist: The fact that you have money can only be a result of 1) your privileged position or 2) evil deeds.
Me: Well, I was born to a family that easily falls below the poverty line, so 1 probably isn't true. And I wouldn't consider writing software evil. Perhaps you feel this way because YOU could not achieve success without 1 or 2?
Socialist: No. You are lying. The poor are noble. The rich are evil. The rich get and stay rich by oppressing the poor. Therefore it is the right of the poor to take what they need from the rich.
Me: That sounds like robbery.
Socialist: No. The poor don't rob the rich. The government passes legislation to tax the rich and then decides who gets the money.
Me: Isn't that robbery?
Socialist: No, that is socialism. From each according to their ability to each according to their needs.
Me: I'm not a socialist. I believe in individual responsibility, personal property, and personal rights.
Socialist: So do I! I am protecting the rights of the poor.
Me: The right to what?
Socialist: The right to healthcare. Unlimited and free access to healthcare for those in need.
Me: And you propose paying for it by robbing me?
Socialist: It is not robbery, it is progressive taxation.
Me: What about my right to personal property?
Socialist: The right to healthcare is more important than your right to have personal property.
Me: I disagree.
Socialist: Its for the the greater good. Besides you will have equal access to healthcare.
Me: I already have access to healthcare.
Socialist: That's not the point. There are millions of people without healthcare.
Me: That's not my problem.
Socialist: What if you need more healthcare than you can afford?
Me: Then I will probably die. Besides, I can afford more healthcare if you don't rob me first.
Socialist: But wouldn't you want someone to help you?
Me: Probably, but I wouldn't rob someone to pay my bills. If someone chooses to donate to my cause, I would be eternally grateful, but I wouldn't expect or demand it.
Re:Something needs to be done as today's system is (Score:4, Informative)
Olbermann he is ONE OF THE VERY FEW that attacks BOTH sides. (can you produce 3 videolinks of FOX news or glen beck criticizing bush ?)
Well, I'm no fan of Beck, but, well... yea:
Yea, so what?