PDA

View Full Version : Finance Commete senator won't read the healthcare bill because it is jiberish.



Silverhandorder
10-05-2009, 13:08
I want to see partisans on this forum spin this.


http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/54930


Finance Committee Democrat Won’t Read Text of Health Bill, Says Anyone Who Claims They’ll Understand It ‘Is Trying to Pull the Wool Over Our Eyes’
Friday, October 02, 2009
By Nicholas Ballasy, Video Reporter
(CNSNews.com) - Sen. Thomas Carper (D.-Del.), a member of the Senate Finance Committee, told CNSNews.com that he does not “expect” to read the actual legislative language of the committee’s health care bill because it is “confusing” and that anyone who claims they are going to read it and understand it is fooling people.

“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 told CNSNews.com.



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.

Last week, the Finance Committee considered an amendment offered by Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) that would have required the committee to post the full actual language of the proposed legislation online for at least 72 hours before holding a final committee vote on it. The committee defeated the amendment 13-10.

Sometime in the wee hours of this morning, according to the Associated Press, the Finance Committee finished work on its health-care bill. "It was past 2 a.m. in the East--and Obama's top health care adviser, Nancy-Ann DeParle in attendance--when Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., the committee chairman, announced that work had been completed on all sections of the legislation," said the AP.

Thus far, however, the committee has not produced the actual legislative text of the bill. Instead the senators have been working with “conceptual language”—or what some committee members call a “plain English” summary or description of the bill.

Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), who sits on the committee, told CNSNews.com on Thursday that the panel was just following its standard practice in working with a “plain language description” of the bill rather than an actual legislative text.

“It’s not just conceptual, it’s a plain language description of the various provisions of the bill is what the Senate Finance Committee has always done when it passes legislation and that is turned into legislative language which is what is presented to the full Senate for consideration,” said Bingaman.

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.”

Carper said he would "probably" read the "plain English version" of the bill as opposed to the actual text.

In a Thursday afternoon interview outside the hearing room where the Finance Committee was debating the final amendments to the still-unseen bill, Carper explained why he believes it would be useless for both members of the public and members of the Senate to read the bill’s actual text.

Committee members did not have a “clue,” he said, when one senator recently read them an example of some actual legislative language. When you look at the legislative language, he said, “it really doesn’t make much sense.”

“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.”

Carper questioned whether anybody could read the actual legislative text and credibly claim to understand it.

If this bill became law, it would mandate dramatic changes in the U.S. health care system.

“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.”

Carper compared the full legislative language of the bill to credit card disclosure documents that he described as “gibberish,” meaning that “you can’t read it and really know what it says.”

When asked if Republican members of the committee should have a chance to read the full text of the bill if they believe they are capable of understanding it, Carper suggested Republicans would only pretend to understand the bill when in fact they would not understand it.

“They might say that they’re reading it. They might say that they’re understanding it,” said Carper. “But that would probably be the triumph of man’s hope over experience. It’s hard stuff to understand.”

Carper said if Americans were given the chance to read the actual text of the bill he believes they would decide that it made little sense for either them—or members of Congress—to read such texts because of the difficulty in understanding them.

“I think if people had the chance to read that they’ll say you know maybe it doesn’t make much sense for either the legislators or me to read that kind of arcane language,” said Carper. “It’s just hard to decipher what it really means.”

CNSNews.com correspondent Edwin Mora contributed to this report.

Bissen
10-05-2009, 13:10
Same problem with the european constitution they never allowed the populations to vote for.

Can't be read.

Btw Ireland Voted yes the other day after voting no to it 1 year ago.

GG democracy!

Silverhandorder
10-05-2009, 13:22
Same problem with the european constitution they never allowed the populations to vote for.

Can't be read.

Btw Ireland Voted yes the other day after voting no to it 1 year ago.

GG democracy!

They are waging full blown economic warfare against Ireland. I consider them done for.

However we got some wins with Germans and Japs moving away from Keynesian politics in order to brace them selves for the coming depression.

Ziegler
10-05-2009, 13:51
Obviously he's a republican plant.

jonyak
10-05-2009, 13:54
what I got from that, was that your politicians are to stupid to read a normal legal document.


I am sure it is full of legalese, but you would think a politician would be able to read that kind of thing... maybe its just me.

Silverhandorder
10-05-2009, 14:08
what I got from that, was that your politicians are to stupid to read a normal legal document.


I am sure it is full of legalese, but you would think a politician would be able to read that kind of thing... maybe its just me.

The bills refer to other bills that refer to other bills. It's hard to even get to the bottom of it. The meaning is lost in between. Most people never bother with such a waste of time. Those that do are ignored.

Sqarak
10-05-2009, 14:15
All bills refer to other bills that refer to other bills. It's hard to even get to the bottom of it. The meaning is lost in between. Most people never bother with such a waste of time. Those that do are ignored.

Fix'ed that for you.

When will you Americans start realising that all this democrat vs concervative vs liberal vs left vs right vs libertarian vs fox vs msnbc vs.. is just all the same bullshit given different spins.

Did anyone of the pro or anti faction ever realise that any system might need some updating, changing or improving. No instead you only bitch against each other because you don't like that a certain group offered the idea and rest blindly support the idea because their group launched it, hence it is infallible.

Learn to walk in the middle once in a while. You might have more useful discussions and accomplish more useful things.

Blixa
10-05-2009, 14:20
They are waging full blown economic warfare against Ireland. I consider them done for.

However we got some wins with Germans and Japs moving away from Keynesian politics in order to brace them selves for the coming depression.

As for Germany... no, not really. We do have a more market-friendly government now, but they would still bail out everything "important" if it came down to it again. Free market capitalist is a swearing word around here, all major parties prefer a "social market system" with the government establishing tight business rules - some parties want them to be more tight, some less; there's no real party against this whole system though.

From what I read about Japan, it seems you are right. Their newly elected party feels that a free market system is favorable and that the government's objective is merely to create a basic rule-set in which a society can develop itself. I liek :)

Silverhandorder
10-05-2009, 14:25
Learn to walk in the middle once in a while. You might have more useful discussions and accomplish more useful things.

We walked the middle to the point where the government is socializing industries left and right, propping up monopolies and is waging war against it's own citizens.

Walking the middle means allowing crooks from both sides to screw you.

The Cougar
10-05-2009, 14:25
Same problem with the european constitution they never allowed the populations to vote for.

Can't be read.

Btw Ireland Voted yes the other day after voting no to it 1 year ago.

GG democracy!
Have you read "The Great European Rip-Off" by David Craig and Matthew Elliot?

Bissen
10-05-2009, 14:33
The bills refer to other bills that refer to other bills. It's hard to even get to the bottom of it. The meaning is lost in between. Most people never bother with such a waste of time. Those that do are ignored.

Just like the Lisbon treaty lol. The similarities are getting creepy.

They also said the Lisbon treaty should be a mini treaty. So theymade the distance between the lines shorter.

It ended up having 8500 more words than the Nice treaty and 67 pages less.

Don't you just love politics?

Ketu
10-05-2009, 14:33
Did anyone of the pro or anti faction ever realise that any system might need some updating, changing or improving.

Learn to walk in the middle once in a while. You might have more useful discussions and accomplish more useful things.

What is the middle ground between good and evil?

If someone wants to kill you with an axe, are you suggesting a compromise by letting your arms and legs to be chopped off?

Bissen
10-05-2009, 14:34
Have you read "The Great European Rip-Off" by David Craig and Matthew Elliot?

Nope. Goes off to investigate.

Edit. Looks interesting. Maybe I'll have a look.

jonyak
10-05-2009, 14:44
What is the middle ground between good and evil?

If someone wants to kill you with an axe, are you suggesting a compromise by letting your arms and legs to be chopped off?

thanks for proving his point.

88Chaz88
10-05-2009, 14:47
What is the middle ground between good and evil?

If someone wants to kill you with an axe, are you suggesting a compromise by letting your arms and legs to be chopped off?

If he chops your arms off you could replace them with bear arms!

jonyak
10-05-2009, 14:49
If he chops your arms off you could replace them with bear arms!

they do have a right to bear arms.

I wonder if bear arms taste good... like chicken wings.. only bear arms.

Sqarak
10-05-2009, 15:27
What is the middle ground between good and evil?

If someone wants to kill you with an axe, are you suggesting a compromise by letting your arms and legs to be chopped off?

Thank you for proving might point of how certain mindset won't accomplish shit.

I hope you can show some comparison between an axe-wielder who's about to chop of your arms and political discussions that don't boil down to throwing shit at each other and screeching like monkeys.

Drool111
10-06-2009, 00:14
lol thats epic