|
| |||||||
|
« The Give-a-Damn Index reaches a new high (updated) |
Blog Home Page
| Statist Healthcare Logic and Mary Jo »
August 30, 2009 Throwing Darts at HR3200
[Editor's note: Prof. Jacobson has written a better blog entry than the original one posted here originally, so it is substituted, and will be the first of a series - TBL]
No one has been able to get a full grasp on the scope of the health care system restructuring proposed by the Democrats. I have written extensively on some of the more interesting tax provisions, but I only have scratched the surface. The pending House and Senate HELP Committee bills are the size of a major city phone book. So I decided to use an approach I have seen on television, where a reporter randomly throws a dart at a map of the United States, then pulls the phone book for whatever location was selected, picks a page and person randomly out of the phone book, then visits the person to get his or her life story. Often the result is interesting or unexpected. Each day this week at American Thinker I will select one provision from HR3200, the Democratic health bill, at random, using a dartboard method. Here goes, with the first random selection, page 780. Page 780 of the House Bill is part of Section 1721, setting forth amendments to the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 14 1396b(a)(13), by adding a new paragraph "(C)" as follows:
Try reading this language out loud. Plain English is nowhere to be found. Other equally obscure provisions in this section include a subsection on the "adequacy of payment for Primary Care Services and reimbursement rates." The Democrats propose to increase payments using "100% FMAP" (Federal Medical Assistance Percentages) under this new section "(C)":
VERDICT: Close to incomprehensible. I think this section means that there will be an increase in reimbursements to states for payments to primary care physicians under Medicaid. I could be wrong. There are so many cross-references, that it would take several hours to figure out all the implications and the conditions on which such payments are made, much less the source of revenue for the payments. What this section does show is the density of the House Bill. Understanding just this single provision is a daunting task. Call it the banality of bureaucracy. Someone, be it a lobbyist or staffer or both, spent an enormous amount of time writing this dense text to accomplish something which is not explained in a form almost anyone could understand or comprehend. William A. Jacobson is Associate Clinical Professor of Law at Cornell Law School in Ithaca, NY, and author of the Legal Insurrection Blog.
|
Recent Articles
Blog Posts
|
|
|