Shock Video: Finance Committee Democrat Calls Health Care Bill 'Utterly Incomprehensible'
We have avoided the health care reform debate as much as possible (for no other reason than to remain focused on the criminal, generational rapists who run our nation's failed banks and their captured apostles in Washington) but occasionally something surfaces that trumps the rule. Allow us to present exhibit A.
This clip is frightening when you consider the immense power of legislative language and the inherent ability to twist the proposed meaning of entire paragraphs to suit any particular interest, in this case the interest of private insurance monopolies, hospitals, big pharma, the government, you name it. If no one can even understand the language in the original bill, then call us radicals but we're guessing the odds for post-legislative 'intent-twisting' are pretty high.
Do not miss this short video and then please send it to all your friends.
Watch (video is below)
From Democratic Senator Thomas Carper we have the following bombshell quotes:
- “I don’t expect to actually read the legislative language because reading the legislative language is among the more confusing things I’ve ever read in my life.”
- Carper described the type of language the actual text of the bill would finally be drafted in as "arcane," "confusing," "hard stuff to understand," and "incomprehensible." He likened it to the "gibberish" used in credit card disclosure forms.
- “When you get into the legislative language, Senator Conrad actually read some of it, several pages of it, the other day and I don’t think anybody had a clue--including people who have served on this committee for decades--what he was talking about,” said Carper. “So, legislative language is so arcane, so confusing, refers to other parts of the code—‘and after the first syllable insert the word X’--and it’s just, it really doesn’t make much sense.”
- “So the idea of reading the plain English version: Yeah, I’ll probably do that,” said Carper. “The idea of reading the legislative language: It’s just anyone who says that they can do that and actually get much out of it is trying to pull the wool over our eyes.”
But Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), who also serves on the committee, said the descriptive language the committee is working with is not good enough because things can get slipped into the legislation unseen.
- “The conceptual language is not good enough,” said Cornyn. “We’ve seen that there are side deals that have been cut, for example, with some special interest groups like the hospital association to hold them harmless from certain cuts that would impact how the CBO scores the bill or determines cost. So we need to know not only the conceptual language, we need to know the detailed legislative language, and we need to know what kind of secret deals have been cut on the side which would have an impact on how much this bill is going to cost and how it will affect health care in America.”
******************************
Thank you!
If you have a Twitter account and agree with our sentiments, then PLEASE re-tweet this post to all your followers.
Oct 3, 2009 at 2:09 PM
Reader Comments (16)
I think I just had a mini-stroke.
On the other hand... this kind of talk will be very useful. I mean, if these drooling mouth-breathers (congress) can't understand what they're reading, then they sure as hell don't have any right to be legislating JACK SQUAT for their moral and intellectual betters (us). If you remember, John Conyers said something similar a while back -- but we expect that kind of crap from him. Now we're starting to see a pattern of this kind of behavior. The dumbasses have totally overreacted to the "Read the Bill !" harangues and they are so arrogant that they say they don't have to read the damn bill (you stupid rubes!). This is a green shoot, alright. Let's see what we can do to nurture it and see what kind of fruit it will bear.
I have to admit my admiration for the reporter doing the interview. How he refrained from hitting the son of a bitch is beyond my ken.
*********************
Comment is from James H.
Private insurance monopolies are being strengthened and NOT weakened by the proposed bill.
Anyone else have ideas or contacts for this? This is just unbelieveable -- and it's easy for the MSM to turn into a brief, digestible story: Congressman says he won't read bill because it's too complicated, shouldn't you be outraged? Simple. Easy peasy. Even Brian Williams could do it.
SNL, wow, and I lived to see the day.
Barry, what have you done for us lately, NOTHING!
This is one area where I think "big government" *could* be better. If Senators/Representatives have more money to hire aides to write and analyze bills, they'll be less likely to have corporations do all the legislating work for them. So upfront, it seems more costly, and would lead to cries of "big government!". But over time, it will save us a LOT. Outsourcing legislation to corporations is a continued recipe for disaster and citizens losing money.
This is why I continue to be a fan of the great Senator Russ Feingold:
"LAMB: Could we do this briefly -- because we don't have a whole lot of time -- just to get you on the record as to where you stand.
You voted against the U.S. Patriot Act. You're the only senator that did. Why?
FEINGOLD: Because, as I like to say, I took an unusual step for a legislator -- I read the bill.
I was chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee. I thought that we had to have a bill to strengthen our powers against the terrorist elements in the world, and much of the bill made sense.
But when I read that bill, I found provisions relating to business records, library records, sneak-and-seek -- sneak-and-peek searches of a person's house -- that were not tailored to the terrorist threat at all. That's not how the language read."
And he also voted against the Military Commissions Act. And TARP, which not many other Democrats did. So I share Cenk Uygur's mancrush on Sen. Feingold:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/mancrush-list_b_43673.html
He is dreamy.
The same is true with the law. The Congressman is simply telling the truth. If Congressmen can NOT understand these laws in a reasonable amount of time (obviously anyone could understand them if they had unlimited time and energy) then they are poorly worded and bad laws. Most Congressmen ARE lawyers but they don't have time to read over hundreds of pages of intricate byzantine legalese. Even their assistants can't do it and they are hired to do it and give their Congressmen bosses the synopses.
Again, the only thing surprising about this is that the Congressman told the truth. That's getting rare these days, isn't it?
He is obviously right and something needs to be done about it.
Federal government has done little to monitor the problem, AP finds
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33008932/ns/health-kids_and_parenting//
Pretty shocking details...one more thing to worry about...
We also give him credit for telling the truth....takes courage....this stuff is incomprehensible...i tried reading a bit this weekend and the language was more akin to algebra than english...yet still somehow different...algebra is simple...this language...not so much...
@Assassin
Feingold got it right about the Patriot Act and the bailouts...good work in reminding everyone...excellent comment.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/26/AR2009092602706.html?wprss=rss_business
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/us/29states.html?_r=4&hp
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/60939-senators-turn-back-id-requirement-for-immigrant-healthcare#
http://www.businessinsider.com/medicaid-unwittingly-becomes-a-drug-dealer-2009-9
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/03/02/mass_healthcare_reform_is_failing_us/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/22/competition-lacking-among_n_266153.html
I'm glad to see that even Berkshire County "progressives" can see that Romney-care is a disaster. Of course, they come at it from the left. What to do to solve the problem? Single payer cures all ills. Just remember to add a dash of economic hocus pocus and it's all good in the hood:
"Costs would be controlled because health planning in a national health program can reestablish needed balance between primary/preventive care and high-tech tertiary care. A modest, progressive tax would replace what people currently pay out of pocket. This program would pay for itself by eliminating the wasteful administrative costs and profits of private insurance companies, and save $8 billion to $10 billion in Massachusetts alone."
That's right, more "planning," higher taxes and magical "preventive" care will take us to the Promised Land. Too bad these folks aren't half as smart as they like to think they are.