LETTER FROM WASHINGTON:

‘Have you read it?’ isn’t a complete test for lawmakers

Reading health care bills is one thing, understanding them is another entirely

ASSOCIATED PRESS FILE

A version of the health care reform bill and its amendments sit at the place of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., before a Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee meeting in June.

By Lisa Mascaro (contact)

Sunday, Oct. 25, 2009 | 2 a.m.

More Sun politics coverage

Politics: The Early Line

U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records

Shelley Berkley

Dina Titus

Washington — Almost everyone loves the gotcha question in this town: “Did you read the bill?”

It’s a great way to corner lawmakers. If they say yes, then they should be able to account for the most minuscule detail. If they say no, well, that’s a whole other problem.

Both of Nevada’s Democratic representatives, Shelley Berkley and Dina Titus, have been ambushed with this question by activist citizens hoping to publicly corner them in the political Catch-22. (Both answered affirmatively.)

But seriously, have you tried reading the legislation that is produced on the Hill?

Consider the 1,502-page health reform bill from the Senate Finance Committee posted online last week. Or better yet, check out the 2,454-page House health reform bill.

“H.R. 3200,” the House bill begins. “To provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans and reduce the growth in health care spending, and for other purposes.”

So far so good. Lots of pages of tables of contents, definitions and such before getting to the thick of it.

Deeper in, the legislative lingo picks up, but isn’t so bad.

The jargon begins to take on an endearing rhythm, in a sort of Stockholm syndrome kind of way. After stumbling over “QHBP offering entity” a few times, you start to feel a kinship with the reference to Qualified Health Benefits Plan. You just roll with it.

And some sections are crystal clear. Consider this explanation in the House bill of the government-run insurance plan, the proposed public option that has generated so much controversy:

“SEC. 229. Enrollment in public health insurance option is voluntary. Nothing in this division shall be construed as requiring anyone to enroll in the public health insurance option. Enrollment in such option is voluntary.”

No complaints there.

But trouble spots do surface, as with all legislation. Bill writers have a habit of mentioning previously passed laws. This leads to a lot of cross referencing if you don’t remember much about, say, the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

Bill writers also like to shorthand other sections of the bill, which you might have ignored in the quest to find the juicy parts.

Consider this otherwise bland section of the Senate health bill:

“Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), in the case of a high-need State, during the period that begins on January 1, 2014, and ends on December 31, 2018, the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for each fiscal year quarter occurring during that period with respect to amounts expended for medical assistance for newly eligible individuals described in subclause (VIII) of section 1902(a)(10)(A)(i), shall be equal to 100 percent.”

That’s a doozy. But it is important: It means Nevada and a few other states will have the cost of covering the uninsured through their Medicaid programs fully paid for by the feds for five years.

This isn’t to say that elected officials should not read the bills they will be voting on. They should. It’s their job.

But sometimes summaries and the wisdom of congressional aides can help.

So go ahead, give the bills a read. Or, if you prefer, a listen — one group is posting audio readings of the legislation online at www.hearthebill.org.

Volunteer voice-over actors fill your head with line-by-line coverage of the most massive health care reform since Medicare in the calm, clear voice of the person who tells you to buckle your seat belt before take off and attach the oxygen mask in the event of a drop in cabin pressure.

Not that listening is the easy out. The House bill requires about 50 hours. The Senate bill clocks in at a little more than 17 hours.

And in the end you would know what is in the bill — and whether your elected officials are bluffing.

Discussion: 7 comments so far…

By judgesmales

10/25/09 at 3:18 a.m.

Suggest removal

Of course, Lisa Mascaro could stop acting like Harry Reid's stenographer for five minutes and ask him the same question: Did you read the bill? I'm going to hold my breath, starting ......... now!
By dwms

10/25/09 at 3:53 a.m.

Suggest removal

Good article - Our politicians' interpretation of the bill is key. For example, our current politicians voted implementation and funding of the "Family Reunification Plan" for Nevada. As a result, after six months, Nevada's children's wrongful deaths, abuse and neglect escalated eight fold over the year before. Now the court ordered monetary judgments have bankrupted Nevada. Our tax dollars are going to the litigation and billions in monetary judgments. YOUR RIGHT!
By SgtRock

10/25/09 at 5:03 a.m.

Suggest removal

I would hope that lawmakers would have the expertise to be able to read a major bill.

I think it would be very sad state of affairs if bills were not readable by lawmakers.

Then what the heck are they up there for.

If they are unable or unwilling to read a major bill then they should resign immediately.

They have a job to do. They should do it.
By wegoaxleguard

10/25/09 at 5:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

Contrary to myth, not only do they not read or understand the bills, they don't write them. As for the job they have to do, they have been doing it for a long time, they line their pockets and screw the people. I submit that mandatory reading of the Federalist Papers be a requirement for public office.
By boingo

10/25/09 at 6:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

Asking anyone if s/he has read a bill is like asking a computer user if s/he has read the programming code behind a new software program. I looked at those bills linked from this article - the legislative text is another language. That's why some Congressional committes just put out "conceptual language" bills.

It's even more laughable when ordinary people from the public claim they've read the bill and understand what's in it. I don't understand why "I read the bill" is being bandied about like a badge of honor - to me, it just means they wasted a bunch of time glossing over "1 and 0"s that makes sense to no human except the "software programmers," i.e. the legislative technicians. Sheesh.
By texexnv

10/25/09 at 9:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

heh heh heh... I'm enjoying coming to these Sunday articles BEFORE opening the comics section.

Summary: It' OK not to read what you've crafted (or allow to be crafted) because EVERYONE doe$ it. (Reading campaign contribution$ is a lot more fun.)

It just seem$ odd that Pre$ O could get a "$timulus" bill for the HEALTH of Big Bi$ and Big In$urance through but can't manage in$uring America'$ most preciou$ re$ource: The HEALTH of it$ people.

But the average UNIN$URED per$on i$ al$o not the $ource of large campaign donation$ like in$urance companie$, are they?