You Want the Truth? You Want the Truth?

You can't handle the truth. That's pretty much the gist of the AP article:

It might sound like a no-brainer. President Barack Obama has made transparency a watchword of his administration, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi pledged upon taking office to "create the most open and honest government in history."

The Internet makes it all possible.

So what's the problem?

Well, have you ever tried reading a bill?

Take Medicaid. An average person might describe it as the federal-state health insurance program for the poor. But to the authors of the House Democrats' health care bill, "The term 'Medicaid' means a State plan under title XIX of the Social Security Act (whether or not the plan is operating under a waiver under section 1115 of such Act)."

The bill goes on to say, "The terms 'premium plan' and 'premium-plus plan' have the meanings given such terms in section 203(c)."

Like those examples, the legislation is peppered with cross references to other laws or statutes that are never explained, defying understanding by anyone without a law degree or years of legislative experience. Most lawmakers have never read the bills; that's what staff members are for.

Call it the "Math is hard" excuse for keeping you in the dark. The fact is, if the bills can be understood, they can be understood by others outside of the legislative branch.

They aren't breaking their promise on transparency because they suddenly realized that the hoi polloi are too simple understand legislation. There are lawyers, and people with legislative experience, who aren't working for Harry Reid. No, they don't want to post proposed legislation on the internet because they don't want you to know what they're getting you into until it's a fait accompli. That's why everything is a rush these days. They even want to limit the time opposition legislators have to read the bills.

For example, the latest iteration of health care reform is going to have an extra tax for "Cadillac health care policies". But how many citizens think that the definition of "Cadillac policy" should be a lower dollar value in their state than in Harry Reid's state of Nevada? (and a few other states where votes are needed) How many 20-somethings are thinking that they'll get free health insurance, when in fact, they'll have to pay for it, or face a fine if they don't?

Anyway, I say getting it right is more important than getting it right now. Health care reform is fine. But the Democrat push is to transform health care. And they want to transform it into a system that has its own problems, as evidenced in Massachusetts.

Can government run health care work? Why not fix Massachusetts and we'll see. Because if you can't make it work in a single state, it's not going to work in the other 56.