Senate Finance Dem: Health Care Bill Text Is 'Gibberish,' 'Incomprehensible,' 'One of the More Confusing Things I've Ever Read'...

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

(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-Tx.), 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 have understood it.

Were it to become law, this bill 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."