In Bureaucrats We Trust

I get irked when I hear that our representatives in Washington D.C. have not, and will not, read some massive bill such as the stimulus that passed earlier this year, or the Carbon Tax that has made it through the House, or any of the five health care reform bills currently on the table. But the real issue is not that they don't or won't read the bills, it's that they can't and realistically no single human can.

Have you taken the time to read any legislation out of Congress lately? I mean the actual bill as opposed to the distilled talking points that get shoved at us via the mainstream media. Well if you have a broadband connection, go ahead and take a look at one of the health care bills, HR 3200.

One of the keys to understanding what a bill means is knowing what the definitions of certain terms are. The first section after the table of contents in HR 3200 provides general definitions of terms used in the bill. The relatively easy stuff, and I do mean relatively, are the definitions that look like this:

3 (1) ACCEPTABLE COVERAGE.—The term ‘‘ac-
4 ceptable coverage’’ has the meaning given such term
5 in section 202(d)(2).

Okay. Why they couldn't put the definition there and then reference it, I don't know. But at least one can do a search for that section and look it up within the same document. But then you start seeing stuff like this:

7 (6) EMPLOYMENT-BASED HEALTH PLAN.—The
8 term ‘‘employment-based health plan’’—
9 (A) means a group health plan (as defined

10 in section 733(a)(1) of the Employee Retire-
11 ment Income Security Act of 1974); and
12 (B) includes such a plan that is the fol-
13 lowing:
14 (i) FEDERAL, STATE, AND TRIBAL
15 GOVERNMENTAL PLANS.—A governmental
16 plan (as defined in section 3(32) of the
17 Employee Retirement Income Security Act
18 of 1974), including a health benefits plan
19 offered under chapter 89 of title 5, United
20 States Code.
21 (ii) CHURCH PLANS.—A church plan
22 (as defined in section 3(33) of the Em-
23 ployee Retirement Income Security Act of
24 1974).

So now, just to know what they mean when they use the term "Employment-based Health Plan", you need to go searching for a completely different law, actually two, and go find the four sections within those laws, just to figure out what is meant by "Employment-based Health Plan."

What could be simpler? If you think I exaggerate, just take a look at the following two pages and the laws you will have to look up, just to get the definitions of terms on those pages:

• section 673(2) of the Community Services Block Grant Act(42 U.S.C. 9902(2))
• section 2791 of the Public Health Service Act
• title XIX of the Social Security Act
• title XVIII of the Social Security Act
• section 3(16)(B) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974

And on and on it goes.

But wait, as Eric at Classical Values points out, it gets even better. The bill is also riddled with language like this example that he gives:

SEC. 1233. ADVANCE CARE PLANNING CONSULTATION.
6 (a) MEDICARE.--
7 (1) IN GENERAL.--Section 1861 of the Social
8 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x) is amended--
9 (A) in subsection (s)(2)--
10 (i) by striking ''and'' at the end of
11 subparagraph (DD);
12 (ii) by adding ''and'' at the end of
13 subparagraph (EE); and
14 (iii) by adding at the end the fol15
lowing new subparagraph:
16 ''(FF) advance care planning consultation (as
17 defined in subsection (hhh)(1));''; and
18 (B) by adding at the end the following new
19 subsection:
20 ''Advance Care Planning Consultation
21 ''(hhh)(1) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the
22 term 'advance care planning consultation' means a con
23 sultation between the individual and a practitioner de
24 scribed in paragraph (2) regarding advance care planning,
25 if, subject to paragraph (3), the individual involved has not had such a consultation within the last 5 years.

Why yes, of course.

And that is not some cherry-picked example either. To you and I and nearly all of our representatives this is gibberish. But it is not meaningless to the lobbyists and special interests and the bureaucrats who will write the regulations and enforce the law. This bill was not created by a bunch of monkeys in a room banging away on typewriters. All of that "add this" and "strike that" is because someone wanted that particular bit there.

Who is that "someone" and why did they want it there, and exactly what does it mean? Good luck finding out. I'm not sure what is going on here, but I'm certain it has nothing to do with representative government or liberty.

Comments

[Marie]

Dave, I agree with you on this one. I think they deliberately make these bills difficult just to keep non-politicos like us away. However, I have read HB3200, but not all at the same time.

[Dave E.]

I'm impressed that you have made it through all of that, Marie. I'm guessing that you did not go back and forth to look up every add this or strike that in the bill though, did you? Because then you would be, like, my Goddess.

[Marie]

Dave, sorry, no.

[Dave E.]

Heh, don't be sorry. You'd be one scary Goddess if that was the case.

[Da Goddess]

I've read the damn thing and it's scary. There's so much fluff that obfuscates the true intent of the bill.

It's bad news for doctors and nurses, that's for certain. It's even worse news for patients.

[Dave E.]

You know, I haven't seen much rank and file support from nurses and doctors. Actually I've seen little reporting on that in the media at all. What I have seen from clips of town hall discussions has been overwhelmingly negative comments from nurses and doctors, but I don't know how broadly that applies.