cnsnews: Conyers Sees No Point in Members Reading Health Care Bill

[Thiebear]

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=51610&print=on

CNSNews.com

Conyers Sees No Point in Members Reading 1,000-Page Health Care Bill--Unless They Have 2 Lawyers to Interpret It for Them

Monday, July 27, 2009

By Nicholas Ballasy, Video Reporter

(CNSNews.com) - During his speech at a National Press Club luncheon, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Democratic Congressman John Conyers (D-Mich.), questioned the point of lawmakers reading the health care bill.

“I love these members, they get up and say, ‘Read the bill,’” said Conyers.

“What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?”

And i say: Have you lost your mind?

You don't have 2 days and 2 lawyers around? too busy to read it?

Recess: Friday, July 31 (COB)

Reconvene: Tuesday, September 8

[Duckus]

That is a sentence I bet he wishes he could have back. What a ****ing idiot. Yes, that is exactly what we expect you to do. You, your senior staff, and lawyers to sit down and read it.

[Kilmer17]

How soon will THAT become a campaign ad?

[SparkleMotion]

What a buffoon. The answer's in the question dummy.

[PeterMP]

Let's be realistic. Does anybody actually believe that more than a very few people in the world can read and understand all of the legislation Congress passes and do the campaigning and fund raising they have to in a years time?

I have a PhD in chemistry. Just for fun (thinking about the implications for healthcare) I tried to read my car insurance policy (20 pages) from Geico. I got through 3 pages in about 20 minutes, and I realistically didn't understand it all.

For most people, you could give them all of the time in the world, and they REALLY wouldn't understand 1,000 pages of legal text from reading it, and I've never heard anybody claim we are electing the best and the brightest.

[aREDSKIN]

That is a sentence I bet he wishes he could have back.

Why, he's just speaking his mind. Congresspeople are a worthless lot. How your wife doing Mr. Conyers??

[Kilmer17]

Let's be realistic. Does anybody actually believe that more than a very few people in the world can read and understand all of the legislation Congress passes and do the campaigning and fund raising they have to in a years time?

I have a PhD in chemistry. Just for fun (thinking about the implications for healthcare) I tried to read my car insurance policy (20 pages) from Geico. I got through 3 pages in about 20 minutes, and I realistically didn't understand it all.

For most people, you could give them all of the time in the world, and they REALLY wouldn't understand 1,000 pages of legal text from reading it, and I've never heard anybody claim we are electing the best and the brightest.

Yes, but you WOULD expect your Insurance Agent to understand it right?

[TimmySmith]

I think he is really saying "this thing has become so convoluted and overblown that it is not worth my time". The bottom line is none of these guys read bills, they have staffers for that.

[PeterMP]

Yes, but you WOULD expect your Insurance Agent to understand it right?

My insurance agent is trained to understand it. Legislators don't have any special training to become legislators in most cases. They just happened to get more votes than some other guy that didn't necessarily have any special training to become a legislator.

[SnyderShrugged]

sounds like its more a case for bill simplification and common sense

Our elected representatives are making life changing decisions for millions of Americans. I think its more than proper to expect them to understand, in minute detail what they are voting for or against.

[SparkleMotion]

Let's be realistic. Does anybody actually believe that more than a very few people in the world can read and understand all of the legislation Congress passes and do the campaigning and fund raising they have to in a years time?

I have a PhD in chemistry. Just for fun (thinking about the implications for healthcare) I tried to read my car insurance policy (20 pages) from Geico. I got through 3 pages in about 20 minutes, and I realistically didn't understand it all.

For most people, you could give them all of the time in the world, and they REALLY wouldn't understand 1,000 pages of legal text from reading it, and I've never heard anybody claim we are electing the best and the brightest.

So we should give them to power to draft huge legislation that will have a sweeping effect on people's lives but we shouldn't expect them to understand it?

They should be the ones who understand it better than anyone else.

[PeterMP]

So we should give them to power to draft huge legislation that will have a sweeping effect on people's lives but we shouldn't expect them to understand it?

They should be the ones who understand it better than anyone else.

sounds like its more a case for bill simplification and common sense

Our elected representatives are making life changing decisions for millions of Americans. I think its more than proper to expect them to understand, in minute detail what they are voting for or against.

Do they have to understand or do they have to have gained that understanding of it by reading the whole bill?

[SkinsHokieFan]

Stuff like this gives us an 8,000 dollar tax credit which expires December 1st, 2009, rather then December 31st, 2009 as it was supposed to be

Someone didn't catch the typo

[MEANDWARF]

Why am I not surprize.

[SnyderShrugged]

Do they have to understand or do they have to have gained that understanding of it by reading the whole bill?

They should, at a minimum, seek clarification on the details that they dont understand after reading the entire bill. Anything else is a disservice to their constituency.

[ACW]

Let's be realistic. Does anybody actually believe that more than a very few people in the world can read and understand all of the legislation Congress passes and do the campaigning and fund raising they have to in a years time?

I have a PhD in chemistry. Just for fun (thinking about the implications for healthcare) I tried to read my car insurance policy (20 pages) from Geico. I got through 3 pages in about 20 minutes, and I realistically didn't understand it all.

For most people, you could give them all of the time in the world, and they REALLY wouldn't understand 1,000 pages of legal text from reading it, and I've never heard anybody claim we are electing the best and the brightest.

Well then maybe the bills shouldn't BE so big :idea:

[wysknz1]

The they should just can it till it is understandable.

[SparkleMotion]

Do they have to understand or do they have to have gained that understanding of it by reading the whole bill?

If they actually read it we wouldn't have episodes like the one where Chris Dodd mysteriously inserted the AIG bonus provision into the stimulus and then claimed he didn't. Either he's a liar, somebody else (lobbyist?) wrote it for him, or he has a terrible memory and doesn't belong in Congress. But if people actually read it maybe somebody would have seen it before it got passed.

If congressmen don't even know what they put into these huge bills, something is very wrong.

I'm sure they may think they have an understanding of what's in it. But as we all know, reading the fine print is crucial.

[PeterMP]

Well then maybe the bills shouldn't BE so big :idea:

1. I agree for other reasons.

2. In terms of understanding and time, having lot's of little bill doesn't really help the situation, and I expect it might hinder it because it will likely results in lots of references to other bills and legislation, which results in a situation where you'd have to go back and forth.

Does it really matter if this is one bill that is 1,000 pages long or 100 bills that are each 10 pages long where instead of going intra-bill the references are inter-bill.

(Not only then what happens if 95 of them pass, but one of the ones that doesn't some how affects the the other 95.)

[twa]

Ain't half of them lawyers?

Including Conyers:silly:

[SnyderShrugged]

Let me also ask...what ELSE should they be doing if not reading and understanding key legislation?

[ACW]

2. In terms of understanding and time, having lot's of little bill doesn't really help the situation, and I expect it might hinder it because it will likely results in lots of references to other bills and legislation, which results in a situation where you'd have to go back and forth.

That's a bonus

[PeterMP]

Let me also ask...what ELSE should they be doing if not reading and understanding key legislation?

You seem to be confused. The question isn't should legislators read and understand the bill. The question is should EVERY legislator understand and read the ENTIRE bill.

Ever part of a study group. I'll take the first chapter right up a summary and highlights and explain it to you. You take the second. Charlie over there will take the third, and Sam will take the 4th.

Together you cover the whole thing and everybody gets to understand the bill. If there is a point that seems odd or contentious, then you go back and read that part yourself.

As for what else, they have to read other legislation (to a certain extant this is the legislation they DON'T have to read the whole thing because of plenty of outside groups are going to read it and prepare summaries (if no outside group has an issue with the text on pages 100-130, then those are 30 pages you can pretty much are fine and not a big deal. All the other laws that they will vote on, but essentially get ignored are a different issue), they have to raise money to and campaign.

[SnyderShrugged]

You seem to be confused. The question isn't should legislators read and understand the bill. The question is should EVERY legislator understand and read the ENTIRE bill.

Ever part of a study group. I'll take the first chapter right up a summary and highlights and explain it to you. You take the second. Charlie over there will take the third, and Sam will take the 4th.

Together you cover the whole thing and everybody gets to understand the bill. If there is a point that seems odd or contentious, then you go back and read that part yourself.

As for what else, they have to read other legislation (to a certain extant this is the legislation they DON'T have to read the whole thing because of plenty of outside groups are going to read it and prepare summaries (if no outside group has an issue with the text on pages 100-130, then those are 30 pages you can pretty much are fine and not a big deal. All the other laws that they will vote on, but essentially get ignored are a different issue), they have to raise money to and campaign.

Oh I'm not confused in the slightest. They should read the bills before they vote. Period.

No relying on outside opinions nor splitting out the bill to read in parts. If they need help doing thier job, then they can ask a lawyer to sit in with them to help with the "hard parts". Once they have their understanding personally, then they can listen to other opinions.

I'm honestly quite stunned that you, as a very intelligent man, would advocate for our elected officials to not read the bills before they vote on them.

[PeterMP]

Oh I'm not confused in the slightest. They should read the bills before they vote. Period.

No relying on outside opinions nor splitting out the bill to read in parts. If they need help doing thier job, then they can ask a lawyer to sit in with them to help with the "hard parts". Once they have their understanding personally, then they can listen to other opinions.

I'm honestly quite stunned that you, as a very intelligent man, would advocate for our elected officials to not read the bills before they vote on them.

Maybe it is just because I also am in a profession that requires large amounts of information be taken on a daily basis to the point that it isn't practical for anybody to do it all.

Reviews of the scientific literature are great things and greatly eases my ability to keep up w/ scientific literature.