Comments (28) | Add a comment
EDITORIAL
Indecipherable gibberish
Tools
Updated: Apr. 10, 2012 | 9:32 a.m.
The details of health care legislation hardly matter anymore; it's the vast expansion of federal bureaucratic control over medicine that counts to proponents.
Throughout the summer, the country was roiled in a curiously shifting debate. President Obama insisted something be passed quickly -- before August, if possible. Democratic leaders made no bones about the fact they wanted something rammed through before a summer recess.
Forced to act quickly, defenders of the free market in medicine -- or as much of a free market as remains -- seized on a few obvious implications of the proposal, including the kind of financial triage that would cut costs by rationing expensive care to those near the end of life, characterized by the critics as "death panels."
Proponents insisted there were no death panels in the legislation -- at the same time they insisted they were removing that provision.
The odd thing about this whole debate about what was "in there," is that there wasn't any "there." That is to say, there was no single definitive version of a Democratic health care reform bill that all parties could study, analyze and debate.
And it now appears there never will be -- right up to the hour of a final vote.
Republicans -- and even some Democratic senators, more recently -- have been insisting that a final version of the bill be posted on the Internet for the public -- and members of Congress -- to read, at least 72 hours before any final vote.
But the Senate Finance Committee defeated that amendment, 13-10.
And at least one Democratic senator has now been honest enough to say it wouldn't matter, anyway, because the actual legislative language being hammered out is such indecipherable gibberish that no one could understand it, anyway.
Instead, Sen. Thomas Carper, D-Del., says committee members are working from a plain-English summary of what's supposedly in the bill.
"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," Sen. Carper told CNS News correspondent Nicholas Ballasy last week.
Sen. Carper described the type of language in which the actual text of the bill would finally be drafted as "arcane," "confusing," "hard stuff to understand," and "incomprehensible." He said he'll read the plain-English version but, "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, says the descriptive "plain-English" summaries the committee is working with are misleading because new provisions can be slipped into the actual text unseen.
One-sixth of the American economy is about to be restructured through legislative language that even one of its proponents admits will not be read, cannot be read because it is indecipherable, by those who will vote it up or down on our behalf.
And to think some people, this week, are tuning in old Jamie Lee Curtis movies on TV, or visiting Halloween haunted houses for the thrill of spending a few minutes being afraid.
Trending topics:
Comments
Terms & Conditions
The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The Review-Journal does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please use the Report Abuse button.
Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 24 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
How come Harry is not out there bragging about Nevada's old SIIS state run insurance? That's a good example of state run insurance.
Let's see, Rangel heads up the Finance Committee, and Titus and Berkley "passed" on the vote to remove him. Nice job ladies, get a backbone please.
Both of you are supporting this corrupt politician, and this travesty called health care reform.
For that, I will vote to remove you from office, at the next opportunity.
No more worries! No more having to work! Obama Money for everybody! This is the best thing to happen to me, since my momma kicked me out of the house! ObamaLove = ObamaCare!
How could anyone not love this? Unless you're a racist! Maybe your tax paying kids are racist?
Obama love and Obama money. We're knee high in cotton, now!
Don't worry LVRJ,
Your reporters will be covered under the Obama Health Care Bill. I read it.
Not Vinny. Vinny has alot of money, old money that he never worked for. Must be nice. He told us.
Dear Glenn Koons:
Timothy L. Pennell's letter on October 11, 2009 at 6:18 AM was actually a fairly brilliant piece of Sarcasm. Including his statement about race. He was commenting on the usual leftist arguments that are regularly spouted by our political appointees.
Just for your info.