I wonder how many Democrats have...

[Yonivore]

...looked at HR3200 like this.

William A. Jacobson, Associate Clinical Professor of Law, Cornell Law School and, blogger at Legal Insurrection, engaged in an interesting exercise…

Here, I’ll let him explain:

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, although sometimes quite boring.

For the Democratic proposals, I'm going to work off of HR3200, which also is known as the ‘‘America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009,’’ but for current purposes, the "House Bill." I've chosen the House Bill, rather than the Senate version, because the House Bill is just over 1018 pages, which works better with my random selection method. The Senate bill is 615 pages, and contains some real doozies, so I hate to pass up the opportunity, but the House Bill will work better.

I will look at my Sitemeter page count for seven straight days, and whatever the last three digits are on the page count, I will turn to that page in the House Bill. I will use whichever section of the House Bill appears at the top of the page, even if the section starts on prior pages.

I will try to explain what the section and provisions on the page mean. There is no guarantee that I will be able to do so, as some of these provisions may be incomprehensible. The fact that a particular page or section is incomprehensible is interesting in itself, considering there are over 1000 pages. I invite readers to post comments with alternative explanations, and corrections to my analysis are invited. Here goes.

Then, over the proceeding seven days, Professor Jacobson “threw darts” and tried to make sense of the provisions on the randomly, Sitemeter-selected, pages of HR3200.

Throwing Darts At HR3200 - Day 1

VERDICT: Close to incomprehensible. I think this 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 hours to figure out the full implications and all the conditions to 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.

Throwing Darts at HR3200 - Day 2 (Enhanced Penalties)

VERDICT: The lesson would be that if you do business with the government health care system, your business is an open book subject to inspection and access at any time.

Throwing Darts at HR3200 - Day 3 (Cost Sharing Limits Gone Wild)

VERDICT: Now I understand that the devil is not just in the details, it is the details. This random selection method has forced me to try to understand provisions which are so imposing that the eye naturally averts to something easier to understand.

Given a choice, I never would read these sections. And this is just day three.

Throwing Darts at HR3200 - Day 4 (Birth of a New En lement)

VERDICT: I propose changing the le of Section 1302 from the “Medical Home Pilot Program” to the “New and Permanent Medical Home Program En lement.”

Update: Some of the commenters at American Thinker note that the concept of a "medical home" is not new, it essentially is managed care. But what does seem new is the payment by the federal government for such services including services in a "home setting," which is the language used in this Section. I invite comments on this point, either here or at AT.

Throwing Darts at HR3200 - Day 5 (Cutting Hospital Readmissions)

Professor Jacobson didn’t provide a “verdict” summary so, I’ll quote his last paragraph which appears to be a summary of sorts.

By pitting individual needs against societal needs, Section 1151 is a microcosm of the health care cost debate. Once again, we seem to come back to a definitional problem. Whether Section 1151 is good or bad depends on what the definition of “excess” is.

Throwing Darts at HR3200 - Day 6 (No Mulligans)

Again, no “verdict” paragraph…

Under the plans for QHBP’s, it is not clear that a patient will be able to pay for services otherwise denied, and then seek reimbursement through the courts. When government decrees that a certain service or product is not to be provided, it is not provided regardless of the patient’s ability to pay.

Under the House Bill, there are no health care mulligans.

Throwing Darts at HR3200 - Day 7 (Don't Wish Too Hard)

The House Bill increases the rebate on prescription drugs dramatically. Will there be unintended consequences? While beating up the pharmaceutical companies will be popular, from where will the next miracle drugs arise? The same drugs which, while expensive, prolong lives, ease suffering, and often eliminate the need for expensive surgery.

When it comes to beating up the pharmaceutical industry, don’t wish too hard for something, you may get it.

Interesting reading if you’re able.

In addition, Professor Jacobson has written other analysis of HR3200 that should be troubling to anyone…

IRS as the health care enforcer

Bureaucracy Expansion Act of 2009

Professor Jacobson has expended considerable time on trying to make sense of HR3200. I would invite anyone in here to provide a similarly thoughtful examination of the legislation, from a pundit on the left.

[clambake]

"Here, I'll let him explain." lol

[Viva Las Espuelas]

"Here, I'll let him explain." lol

he's helping the lazy ass rookie google users.

[George Gervin's Afro]

is this final bill that will be passed?

[Yonivore]

is this final bill that will be passed?

It's the only one out there right now...

[George Gervin's Afro]

It's the only one out there right now...

Oh ok. I guess this will be relevent if it does pass in it's original form.

[fyatuk]

is this final bill that will be passed?

Not likely, but it is by far the most discussed. Thomas.loc even provided a link to it outside of their search and browse functions with larger than normal text and highlighting.

Considering there are usually half a dozen amendments added within an hour or 2 of any major bill passing, we can't see a "final bill" until the day (or sometimes 2 or 3) after it passes.

Aka, your argument is stupid.

Should we not pay attention to what the government is doing until after it does it?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Not likely, but it is by far the most discussed. Thomas.loc even provided a link to it outside of their search and browse functions with larger than normal text and highlighting.

Considering there are usually half a dozen amendments added within an hour or 2 of any major bill passing, we can't see a "final bill" until the day (or sometimes 2 or 3) after it passes.

Aka, your argument is stupid.

Should we not pay attention to what the government is doing until after it does it?

so it's not the final bill. thanks for verifying that. so why are we attacking it again?

[johnsmith]

so it's not the final bill. thanks for verifying that. so why are we attacking it again?

I'll ask the same question fyutak asked just to make sure you read it, "should we not pay attention to what the government is doing until after it does it"?


The only reason I ask is because it seems far more relevant then your stupid ass question.

[LnGrrrR]

I agree here with fyatuk. If a bill sucks on its way to getting approved, much better to voice opposition to the crappy parts BEFORE it gets passed.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I'll ask the same question fyutak asked just to make sure you read it, "should we not pay attention to what the government is doing until after it does it"?


The only reason I ask is because it seems far more relevant then your stupid ass question.

I have hard time attacking something that's not relevent yet. If that is the final bill then please feel free to attack it so until the senate and the House reconcile thier respective bills it's stupid to attack it.


Now on to the question:

Paying attanetion to the govt is a good thing. of course your side was silent during the previous 8 yrs so you have zero standing to demand it from anyone else.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I'll ask the same question fyutak asked just to make sure you read it, "should we not pay attention to what the government is doing until after it does it"?


The only reason I ask is because it seems far more relevant then your stupid ass question.

So now your going to answer my questions. right? or are you going to run away like all of your coward bretheren?

[BadMoodBob]

I remember a New York Times (or one of those newspapers) reporter who studied up on deeep deeeeep deeeeep finance Wall Street elitist of the elite corporation mumbo jumbo after the Credit Crisis.

What he found was the profession itself is so complicated, on purpose, that they can pretty much keep the inner workings of deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep Wall Street in control of the select elite who have mastered the art. It is why they will never be busted. Only hands full of people in the world have any idea how to decipher the mess, on purpose.

Looks like Government has caught on.

[DarrinS]

Some people say, "Well, when the GOP gets power back, they can just reverse this."


I'm here to tell you, there's probably nothing harder to get rid of than a government en lement program. Social Security has been with us since 1935.

[Yonivore]

I agree here with fyatuk. If a bill sucks on its way to getting approved, much better to voice opposition to the crappy parts BEFORE it gets passed.

That's how they get changed. If no one opposes them, they just skate through...

Did George Gervin's Afro and Chump go to the same school? You argue the same.

HR3200 is the bill Obama supported and pressed Congress to pass before the August break.

HR3200 is the only written "plan" for ObamaCare currently being considered.

President Obama didn't suggest any changes to HR3200 in his speech last night.

President Obama didn't complain about any provisions in HR3200 in last night's speech.

President Obama needs to come up with a plan we all can read for ourselves and, until then, HR3200 is HIS plan. And, it doesn't matter how much what comes out of his mouth contradicts what's in the bill. Because, if Congress passed HR3200 tomorrow, as is...he'd sign it. He's said so.

[ChumpDumper]

Some people say, "Well, when the GOP gets power back, they can just reverse this."


I'm here to tell you, there's probably nothing harder to get rid of than a government en lement program. Social Security has been with us since 1935.

Who tried to get rid of Social Security?

[Nbadan]

Who tried to get rid of Social Security?

The GOP apparently, along with Medicare and Medicade...

[George Gervin's Afro]

The GOP apparently, along with Medicare and Medicade...

They support medicare now..i think..?

[fyatuk]

so it's not the final bill. thanks for verifying that. so why are we attacking it again?

Because we should pay attention and to our Reps and Senators about things BEFORE they pass them.

You're position makes very little sense. "Let's wait until after something bad happens before we try and do anything about it."

Especially when talking about a bill that most people want to make sure everyone has access to PREVENTATIVE medicine.

Should we be able to wait until we get sick to get insurance? Should people wait until they are conquered to fight back? Should we wait until after an election to decide which candidate we want in office?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Because we should pay attention and to our Reps and Senators about things BEFORE they pass them.

You're position makes very little sense. "Let's wait until after something bad happens before we try and do anything about it."

Especially when talking about a bill that most people want to make sure everyone has access to PREVENTATIVE medicine.

Should we be able to wait until we get sick to get insurance? Should people wait until they are conquered to fight back? Should we wait until after an election to decide which candidate we want in office?

Let's wait for the final bill before we b*tch about it. Jesus how hard is that to understand? Complaining about a bill that's not going to be voted on is a waste of time. Sheesh

Yeah let's start complaining about the 2011 budget!

[fyatuk]

Let's wait for the final bill before we b*tch about it. Jesus how hard is that to understand? Complaining about a bill that's not going to be voted on is a waste of time. Sheesh

Yeah let's start complaining about the 2011 budget!

Just a disagreement.

I don't see why we shouldn't complain about the leading contender bill for our healthcare reform, and you don't see the point of worrying about it until the bill that will be voted on comes forth (which we won't know until it actually is being voted on).

, if people are active enough, we can influence our representatives and senators enough to influence which bill WILL be voted on (kind of the point of elected representatives).

If you don't want to join in the discussion, don't. Doesn't mean you have to waste your time (and ours) telling us we shouldn't be discussing it when we have valid reasons to do it.

[101A]

There are at least three instances of attempted thread hijack on this page; and absolutely NO defense of the bill discussion in the OP.

Equivocation, denial; weak sauce.