SENATE BILL: ...Mental Health Reform Act of 2013 (Failed)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I count 15.4 billion in the first year, a large pecentage of which will end up not being spent because of delays in implementation and so forth. Especially since you can can't spend seven billion dollars maintaining facilities that have not been built yet. That is returned to the general fund. So we are talking $5 to $6 billion over the course of the time between now and August 2014, ample time to amend the bill.

I would love to know where Nix got $100 billion from. You could have at least asked me about the numbers instead of pulling some big scary number out of your ass that has no basis.

And people wonder why in the words of George Carlin, "I get pissed god damn it". This veto is based on arguments which are a failure of logic and a failure of math. It is complex, because the problems are complex and in the past we have been able to do comprehensive bills (financial regulations, Social Security) on issues such as this. In fact, small bills have often proved problematic (Fritzcare a prime example) on the more complex issues. Whatever problems are present are minor and can be fixed by amendment, I thus call for a veto override (yesterday was garbled a little).

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I'd be cool with a max of two years, which would equate to about 24 RL years.

This is the time standard that the Judicial Tenure Amendment, which you supported, was based off of as a justification

24 years/2 = 12 years to 1 RL year. 10 x 12 is 120 years.

One year in Atlasia is ample time to amend a small section of the bill, where all this spending occurs and over the course of that, less then 10% of that will be spent, Nix. It is why I said a failure of logic and math.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Maybe it's just a matter of this being vacation season, but in this discussion and in others I'm looking at a Senate in which all but a few members are failing to provide their constituents with active representation. My initial enthusiasm for the de facto two-party system that's emerged over the past month will begin to wane if this is the best that my colleagues in the Labor Party and our counterparts among the Federalists can do. Maybe we need to clear the way for people who actually give a crap.

Whether you realize it not, whether you have intended it or not Nix, you have contributed to to damaging of this situation and many of the very things you claim to hate about what others are doing.

What kind of message do you think it sends to people to let someone take three months of hard work and just tank it because 1) "I forgot to mention that I have an issue here or there" and 2) "It is just too much to comprehend" even though it was built just piece by piece over that period and not thrown out all at once.

There is no reason why this thread couldn't have been followed and questions been asked at each stage and instead people just sat idly by as I spent days grinding away on my dial up connection, on borrowed computers when my computer quit to put this together to then come back at the end and just "ah no" and then give me bullsh**t justifications for it. That is the silent no vote, that is the very problem we have with getting people to participate, Nix. Because people don't want to engage and spend precious time on a game, only to have get blind sided by lazy opposition or opposition justified by ignorance induced by previous laziness on their part. It is as if that discussion the other day in the Impeachment thread never happened Nix.

I don't know about you, but I actually like playing this game. To the extent that people need to "clear the way", I think they should seriously consider doing that. Up until now, it gave me satisfaction in knowing that you were not part of that problem. Lately, across a number of areas you just don't make sense anymore.

This is a good bill, it is a solid bill. Is it perfect no, but no one considered voting against Fritcare or the CSS for that reason and no one should accept that as justification for doing nothing here. Every section of this bill has a purpose, a significant and important purpose. I will gladly work to improve it, but I am not going to accept this whole thing being trashed on the grounds stated.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I want people to care enough about all of this just as much as you do, Yankee, and I have never hesitated to call anyone out for inactivity. Elections and governance in Atlasia should be dynamic, fun, and thought-provoking, and that requires some level of commitment.

BUT we can't expect people to participate unless we make this game enjoyable to play and accommodating to its players. Unlike you, I would prefer to take some parts of the game a bit less seriously if that is what encouraging broader participation requires. We need to accept the conceit that this is a simulation played voluntarily over the internet and work within the bounds of that reality.

In this case, a long, abstruse bill failed to inspire much interest or debate. We can express our frustration with this, but we also need to work with people. I realize that I'm just as guilty of this as anyone else, but we should acknowledge that we're losing people not just because they are lazy or careless, but because they can't keep up. I'm an energetic perfectionist - I'm capable of putting a lot into Atlasia without losing my balance. Not everyone has the ability or desire to do that. It shouldn't prevent them from contributing.

Even my unhealthy level of interest in Atlasia wasn't enough to inspire me to check this thread regularly after it had been on the floor for a couple of weeks. A thread in which one Senator has nearly three times as many posts as the four other Senators who actually bothered to comment at some point is a clear sign that we are doing something wrong. Maybe everyone will vote in favor of this now because it's easier than demanding that you go back to square one and write a proposal that people will actually read, analyze, and discuss. I'll be disappointed if they do. The purpose of Atlasia is debate and elections; laws don't really matter after they leave the Senate floor. Let's not lose sight of that.

It is not preventing them from contributing, but when you have an activity problem the worst thing possible is to discourage those "evil, crazy" perfectionists as well, Mr. President. And this is a real problem. I have numerous people complaining that they cannot stand Atlasia anymore for that reason just as you can name several people who claim the contrary. The biggest mistake you guys are making is setting it up as a false dichotomy and in the process you are robbing peter to pay paul on activity and getting neither.

BUT we can't expect people to participate unless we make this game enjoyable to play and accommodating to its players. Unlike you, I would prefer to take some parts of the game a bit less seriously if that is what encouraging broader participation requires. We need to accept the conceit that this is a simulation played voluntarily over the internet and work within the bounds of that reality.

The problem is that it isn't working, Nix. You seem to forget this bill was put together the exact opposite way of the Education bill and yet produced a similar result. And frankly I cannot for the life of me support this justification of "since nobody else participated, we have to tank it for the game", that is counterproductive and stupid. Involvement isn't wealth to be spread around Nix, it is an individual choice and you either incentivize it or you discourage it. And trying to provoke it from group at the expense of another is a losing proposition.

You have a distorted view of this game and the history Nix, not me. It wasn't like this just a year ago, or two years ago. We had more involvement and the President at the time didn't dream of vetoing the CSS on the grounds that it was too big, or not enough were involved. That took seven or eight months, three PPTs and far more Senators came and went during it's debate. The message sent by vetoing this on the grounds stated above, is that is if you work hard and enjoy doing it, that you are going to get screwed simply because so many others are silent. That will discourage people from engagement, discouraging people from running for the Senate.

You people have come to view me as some kind of out of touch fruit cake, who operates in complete isolation and doesn't give a  about others in this Senate or this game. It is the exact opposite, but when it comes to the problem you guys have it flipped up side down on what needs to happen to correct it and thus come to view it that way. You think I don't understand the consequences of my temper, when it is the exact opposite and I know exactly what the impacts of my actions will be hence why I refrain from using it save to highlight a key problem, whilst you guys who think nothing of bitching about the way people treat someone one day, screw someone over the next and then run and hide behind "It's Just a Game". If that were true then why is it so serious that you have to do that to people? You think I am the one who is blinded to someone else's perspective? No, I hear this exact complaint all the time and the reason from people who are sick and tired and leaving because of it.

That might not be your desired intentions, that might not be what you want, Nix, but that is the perception being created amongst a lot of people because of your actions and others.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

^
Now there is something that needs a rewrite.

A request for an override has been entered by the sponsor within the specified time limit and a vote is now open on the motion to override the President's Veto, please vote, Aye, Nay or Abstain.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

AYE


This is a largely good bill, it is not perfect but most certainly should not be tanked because of that. We have ample time before the spending begins to kick in and thus a full range of options to fix it afterwards. I urge my collegues to override the President's Veto.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I'm not just vetoing this legislation because most Senators weren't engaged in its creation, although I believe that a lack of broad engagement is at the root of the bill's failure. If I thought this was a good bill I would sign it. But that's not what I think. It's an expensive, bloated mess of legislation, and I'm not convinced that it is worthwhile on the substantive merits. Signing it in the hope that someone will suddenly take an interest in fixing it after it becomes law would be delusional.

1. It is expensive because since 1950's we have short changed in patient care in the hopes that everyone could be dealt with out-patient. I am fully in favor of treating as many as possible in the latter fashion, but there are some that need the intensive care. That said this bill spends very little initially and the looming expense to come should provide the motivation for peopel to work together to improve. Doing nothing, keeping the status quo, provides no incentive to do anything and is unnaccetable.

2. This bill is not a bloated mess. It is a effective set of instructions, which work to provide functionality, the appropiate agencies are stated, the first time that has been done that I can recall. Calling it a bloated mess is an insult and calling it not a worthwhile endevour is an insult to those who know anything about the issue of mental health.

3. I am interesting in fixing, I am sure you will be as well. I am sure amongs all your Labor friends we can find someone who gives a sh**t about helping those with mental illness and mongst my Federalist friends who give a sh**t about money to put together an amendment(s) together to improve this legislation.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I count 15.4 billion in the first year, a large pecentage of which will end up not being spent because of delays in implementation and so forth. Especially since you can can't spend seven billion dollars maintaining facilities that have not been built yet. That is returned to the general fund. So we are talking $5 to $6 billion over the course of the time between now and August 2014, ample time to amend the bill.
[/quote]

[TNF]

Nay.

[Sbane]

Aye

[Marokai Backbeat]

I'm sorry, I must be reading something incorrectly here. Is part of the supposed justification for vetoing this that the subject matter isn't exciting or interesting in an election simulation, and so we should move on to sexier topics? What?

[Marokai Backbeat]

I apologize; I fully believe you care about the mentally ill and mental illness more broadly, and I didn't mean to pile onto that assertion.

[MaxQue]

Aye.

Perfectible bill, which surely can be improved, but better than nothing.

[Napoleon]

Aye

[TJ in Oregon]

Aye

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I'm sorry, I must be reading something incorrectly here. Is part of the supposed justification for vetoing this that the subject matter isn't exciting or interesting in an election simulation, and so we should move on to sexier topics? What?

I hadn't expected that the exchange between us would be this intense or protracted, but if you start reading at the post in which I announce my veto you'll see that that isn't the case.  Despite Yankee's attempt to portray me as some kind of monster who doesn't care about the mentally ill, my ultimate justification for vetoing this bill is based on the legislation's substantive merits. I don't object to addressing the subject, and I sincerely hope that no one has come away from this with that impression.

It is not my problem that your words and your intent don't match, Mr. President. You are the one who keeps lobbing criticisms that are without basis. You keep criticizing the content and keep insisting on placing quantity over quality on this as "because of it is length, there is no fixing it". Its length isn't because of bloating, it is because of quality and functionality. It is because I don't settle for garbage and if you want a five line Mental Health Reform Bill, then you aren't serious about the issue.

Lastly I never questioned that you had an issue here, a legitimate issue. What I have a problem with is that 1) You waited until after the vote to speak up and 2) Utilized convoluted bs to justify an outright veto instead of the rewrite process. If you had bothered to contact me before vetoing it I would have told you that "all you had to do was rewrite a small portion, a single sentence even and that would have given me the option to open the debate back up before the Senate (when that options arises in the rewrite process)". Then we could fix that problem about the costs and any other issues at that point. But no, you ran to this bs argument about it being inaccessible and convoluted and bloated and aimed to kill it thus and then you justify not contacting me because I lose my temper? Really? How did running help you there, slick?

You are President, you knew this was eventually going to come to your desk. You should have posted a list of concerns and said "You want my signature, then do this, this and this, and don't forget this". You could have have PMed me, and said "how do we fix these things so that we can get this into law". There was never any desire though on your part to make this work, to work with me, or do anything except to give the impression that your were fine with it at the beginning, several times in your office thread and in subsequent posts only to then blindside me with a veto at the end, at least half of the justifcations for which are garbage.

You wonder why you feel the need to defend against charges of dishonesty and are being accused of not caring about this issue? Your approach and your words is what has given that impression, Nix, not me.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Mr. President, I am not entitled to anything here. If this bill is to be passed, it is because it has earned the support that it carries and I am confident that it has. What I would appreciate is a basic level of respect for the issue and a desire to work constructively to make it work, instead of just tanking three months of hard work not just by me, but by Duke, the SoIA, the GM and the several others who contributed before we even went to the floor with the "OMG, a blank bill", simply because "oh, comprehensive sucks".  I hated about losing two weeks then, and I hated losing two more because of the Pacific, but it wasn't my expectation to have a computer die on me the day after this came to floor or the NM-AM to do what they did. It happened it is over, it is not blank, it is a rather solid bill now.

I also find it laughable that you label a complex, but purpose driven piece of legislation (in which each section was backed up by research), a piece of feel-good legislation, Mr. President.

So because the education bill failed, this has to fail too? That is a ridiculous knee-jerk approach that would have tanked both our Financial Regulation Overhaul and the Comprehensive Social Security bill. It is a difficult model to get things done with, that is obvious, but we shouldn't work to ensure it fails in all circumstances, just because it fails in most, Mr. President.

This is not the education bill, Mr. President. That had deep ideological divides on most of the core components, and thus agreement could not be reached. That isn't the case here. Most of this is common sense responses to the various problems that are present on this issue. Only one section is controversial and that one is because of the amount of money spent and as I have said a million times, I find it much more reasonably to pass this and then amend that section later, then to tank the whole thing and risk large aspects if not all of this never happening when we have an alternative and that altenrative is to pass the bill.

I didn't want the Educaiton bill to fail, I didn't even want to vote for cloture on it. The fact that it did though is no justifcation to artifically conflate the problems of that bill, with the difficulties on this one, Mr. President.

[Napoleon]

Lol

[Gass3268]

After hearing the argument made by the President, I am going to switch my vote to Nay

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Disappointing, but unfortunately not surprising.

[tmthforu94]

Your reaction is not a surprise to me, and to be brutally honest, I suspect that may be why Senators who otherwise might have expressed concerns with the direction of this bill earlier failed to speak up.

If folks are too afraid to speak up to Yank, they probably shouldn't be in the Senate in the first place...


Disappointed to see this fail, but hopefully we can work with President Nix to address some of his concerns so this can go through, though I doubt any amendment will make this issue highly interesting to The People.

[Napoleon]

This isn't failing and the concerns could be addressed if they were made clear at any point. The President didn't follow the debate (no excuse) and could have presented a redraft (chose not to) or could have actually raised specific concerns so that the Senate could resume debate (chose not to). My fear is that this veto is more personal than political and I know that I am not alone in holding that opinion.

Considering how past Presidents have been treated for less, I am surprised there isn't an eruption of faux outrage on cue.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

This is a difficult vote for me... on one hand, this is a Bill with promise, but I think quite expensive and over-complex in its governance. I erred on the side of supporting it because I thought like Senator Max, something is better than nothing.

But I do admit over recent days become less and less sure about my vote.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

There is a reason I avoided this thread like the plague. I talked with the president on this bill privately, and I'll just come right out and say that I was one of the ones who thought it was over-long and difficult to approach. There is a problem with inactivity lately. I am a huge part of that problem. But at some point down the line, we are going to need to stop to evaluate the "scope" of Atlasia. Hard work goes into bills like this one, sure—but some people just can't commit to tackling this type of monster. Same goes for a lot of these Nix bills too. When is it just too much? I miss the days when we were having ten-page debates on 200-word bills.

Anyhow, I'm getting off track. Nix brought up concerns about no one knowing what this particular bills does, and I'm kind of disappointed that we just got more novellas in response to his critique.

I will go through the bill and cast my vote based on the merits of the text. But I agree with the president... like the education bill, this thing has been daunting to approach.

[DemPGH]

Look, FWIW, a person can agree or disagree with the veto of the bill, but it was not personal at all. I know that because of the deliberations that went on and the reflection on the bill. What does this mean versus that and the cost of this and the cost of that, and in the end, agree or disagree, folks, a veto of a bill that's too big and too expensive is a valid reason. There can be difference of opinion on the latter point, but the veto was on the perceived merits.

I'm not happy with a recent case into which a lot of work went, but it's yesterday's lunch. The battle will be fought another day. Same here should the veto stand. The administration is not in any shape, manner, or form closing out the issue of mental health - rather, it is attempting to reset, IMO.