Senator Tom Carper (D-DE), a member of the Senate Finance Committee, says the legislative language in the Health Care Bill is basically unreadable. He says it is “among the more confusing thing I’ve ever read in my life.”
Just minutes after hearing Senator Carper say the above, I ran across this, which says that Carper has written a “compromise” for a public option:
The Carper Amendment would allow states, where affordable insurance is not available -or where the market is dominated by one or two key players – to field a public insurance option seeded with federal money.
Anytime a politician uses the word “seeded,” beware. The same article says that Senator Olympia Snowe (DR-ME) “has been talking up the creation of a national nonprofit corporation….” That’s terrifying. The second video below describes what a nonprofit corporation is:
A nonprofit corporation (501-C3) is a business that is established for the public good, under the IRS code, and you must be able to justify “for the public good” to the IRS. Such entities must expense all revenue and not declare a dividend, as opposed to a for profit corporation. However, a nonprofit corporation may own a “for profit corporation.”
We know the best way not to make a profit, is to expense the profit – pay it out in salaries, and conferences and other bennies. And what “for profit corporations” could this proposed “national nonprofit” buy, and then “expense out?” Hilarious that the expert in the video had to read this short explanation. Makes me wonder how this production was “expensed out.”
Rick Unger, writing for TrueSlant has some pertinent thoughts about Carper’s “compromise.” Read it here.
Back to the original CNSNews piece about Senator Carper: He says he does not expect to actually read the “legislative language” of the health care bill.
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.
Here is how things are handled in our out-of-control Senate:
Instead the senators have been working with “conceptual language”—or what some committee members call a “plain English” summary or description of the bill.
Isn’t this what these hard working Senators have been trying to sell all along: a concept? Nothing like signing a concept into law. The Senate’s version of Cliffs Notes.
Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) says there is nothing new here. This is what the Senate Finance Committee always does when it passes legislation – AND THEN, the “plain language” is turned into the legislative language, incomprehensible, arcane gibberish that becomes law.
Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) says, well, ya know, “things can be slipped in.”
“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.
Cornyn wants both the “conceptual language” and the “detailed legislative language” and he wants to know in advance what “secret deals” have been cut on the side….” Yes, that’s a good idea.
Carper sees no reason to read the legislative language:
…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.
The interviewer does not ask Carper if he will vote in favor of the arcane gibberish, after reading the conceptual summary. I’ve read his website and I assume he will – and then there is that public option compromise.
It would have been a good question to ask Senator Carper…will you vote for the incomprehensible gibberish?
Carper says that anyone saying they are reading the legislative language, is “the triumph of man’s hope over experience!” And “anyone who says they have read it and gets much out of it, are pulling the wool over our eyes.”
Comforting to know, however, that Carper says he will “probably” read the “plain English version.”
Did I mention that Carper is a member of the Senate Finance Committee? Knowing what we know about language in the bill, who on the Committee is writing it? Obviously, no one on the Senate Finance Committee is writing it. That leaves….?
“We” the people, and “they” the Senate just are not bright enough to understand it, because it is un-understandable. In all seriousness, it makes sense to me. What does not make sense is that it will get passed anyway, full of confusing and arcane, incomprehensible gibberish.
So the Senate will vote on a concept, a summary. It’s enough to ruin a really good day.
Senator Tom Carper(video)