Good morning, dear readers. Today we’re going to look at a systemic problem that has blocked politics, law, and economics from being accessible to the people who are supposed to be helped by those systems. That problem is the overuse of jargon, specifically the use of legalese and cumbersome writing style to make those who are attempting to discover the methods by which their country is being run give up trying to understand and just assume that those methods are to their benefit.
We all understand that every industry has a language of its own, that once it is assumed that all parties involved share a basic level of understanding more detailed, more industry-specific terms and manners of speech relying on that understanding may be used. The use of those terms and that language, however, are intended for people all of one profession to engage in conversation inaccessible to people unaffiliated with that trade. The purpose of the lack of exposition is not exclusion, but efficiency, and in most cases this is not harmful. If no one needs to understand the conversation beyond professionals acquainted with that discussion, and if the outcome is going to be broken down into understandable terms for those who, while not sharing the understanding of the aforementioned professionals, need to have an appreciation of the subject and how it relates to them, use all the jargon and industry-speak you want. BUT… if those discussions are of a political nature, politics being an industry whose very nature
1. has wide-reaching effects for a country’s citizens and
2. does not explicitly bar representative policymakers based on professional training,
the assumption of any language, linguistic style, or modus operandi that cannot be easily recognized and understood by the vast majority of a country’s citizens runs the risk of escaping the grasp of those citizens’ representatives and therefore robbing them of the ability to do their jobs. And it is my firm belief that if you alienate one representative, if you compromise in any way the ability of any person who within the structure of a government has been elected and trusted by the people he or she represents to look out for their best interests, you compromise the legitimacy of that government as a whole.
One might say, “Well, that’s just politics. This is not an economic issue.” Consider the following example taken from the current version of HR3200, the health care bill under such vigorous debate in Congress.
Here is Subtitle B, Section 112 of Title 1 of HR3200’s latest version:
SEC. 112. GUARANTEED ISSUE AND RENEWAL FOR INSURED
PLANS.
The requirements of sections 2711 (other than subsections (c) and (e)) and 2712 (other than paragraphs (3), and (6) of subsection (b) and subsection (e)) of the Public
Health Service Act, relating to guaranteed availability and renewability of health insurance coverage, shall apply to individuals and employers in all individual and group health insurance coverage, whether offered to individuals or employers through the Health Insurance Exchange, through any employment-based health plan, or otherwise, and shall apply to the public health insurance option, in the same manner as such sections apply to employers and health insurance coverage offered in the small group market, except that such section 2712(b)(1) shall apply only if, before nonrenewal or discontinuation of coverage, the issuer has provided the enrollee with notice of non-payment of premiums and there is a grace period during which the enrollee has an opportunity to correct such nonpayment. Rescissions of such coverage shall be prohibited except in cases of fraud as defined in sections 2712(b)(2) of such Act.
Only the coldest of hearts could not be moved by such poetry.
Translation: An earlier piece of legislation, the Public Health Service Act, made provisions applying to one part of the insurance market. Those provisions now apply to all individual plans (the sort one person buys for himself) and group insurance plans (the sort in which you enroll through your job). If someone misses a payment, they have a certain timeframe in which to pay, and need to be warned before coverage stops. Stopping that coverage earlier is not allowed unless fraud has occurred.
The original version of the House bill, released on the 14th of July, 2009, was 1,017 pages long. The website HearTheBill.org, on which visitors can hear voice actors read pieces of legislation, offers a full audio version of that bill, the complete runtime of which is 23 hours and 33 minutes. The new version of the bill was released on October 14, 2009 and is 2,454 pages long. Assuming the new version is read at the same speed, it would take 56 hours and 42 minutes to read it. Keep in mind, though, that this just entails reading the bill itself, which no one could reasonably call a page-turner. If you will refer back to the text above, there are a number of references to previous legislation and other sections of the bill, all of which would have to be perused if total comprehension of this section were to be achieved. That takes more time. Count further the hours needed to consult insurance professionals, lawyers, doctors, and patient advocacy groups to get a feel for how the appropriate portions of the bill will affect them and the resulting time commitment to understand what it is to which one must say yes or no begins to gain some heft.
There is an alternative. As Michigan Congressman John Conyers said, “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?” I sympathize with Mr. Conyers. I have never to my knowledge been described as stupid and have no qualms about reading material I find dense, but any friend of mine who forced me to sit through 2,454 pages of the sort of prose you read above would lose for a considerable period of time the pleasure of my company. Then again, if I had sworn an oath before my Creator to make decisions to the best of my ability, an ability that would be greatly facilitated by reading those 2,454 pages, I would do it. Let us also not forget also Mr. Conyers’ post within the House of Representatives: Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, head of a body whose jurisdiction includes “Revision and codification of the statutes of the United States.” If the head of the very group of policymakers who job it is to at least understand the “statutes of the United States” laments the impossibility of that very task, changing the group might help, but changing the task certainly will.
How might we change the task? If the main obstacle is the length of the bill, break it into sections and debate each separately. Politicians are always eager to home in on particular bits and pieces of bills already, and this would at least remove the possibility of important snippets passing under the radar.
If the main obstacle is the writing style, change the style. Get rid of the references to other sections of bills (which also send the reader off on labyrinthine odysseys), both past and present, and write the definition where appropriate. I guarantee any representative would rather read another few sentences than have to thumb through the pages of a second piece of equally long legislation to find out how to understand what is being said in the first. I went through the Public Health Service Act to try to find what “sections 2711 (other than subsections (c) and (e)) and 2712 (other than paragraphs (3), and (6) of subsection (b) and subsection (e)” said. I will not subject you to a full recounting of those provisions, but if you care to see for yourself (Acrobat Reader’s Find function is strongly, strongly, strongly recommended), here is a link:
If you care not to, let me assure you it is no easier to read than HR3200.
Finally, when writing what is in essence a business plan for a government program (laws are in all cases government programs as they all must involve some form of enforcement), hire those who write and present business plans for a living. There is not a banker or executive on earth who has the time or the patience to read through a business plan or proposal 2,454 pages long, no matter how riveting.
This is really where the economic application lies. Laws, their implementation, and their enforcement always cost money. Just how much money cannot possibly be fully appreciated if the bill it is supposed to fund is incomprehensible (incomprehensibility can be borne out of a tedious writing style) as well. A full picture of a bill and its repercussions must include a full accounting of its costs (it never does, but it should); but if a representative can’t understand that bill, they can’t know what to look for as far as costs; won’t know the amount of money budgeted for it; won’t know the source of the required funds; won’t know the safeguards installed in the bill to ensure budget integrity; and won’t know the possible tax implications for his or her constituents. If the bills were to take on more of the appearance of a business plan and less of the appearance of the small print on a car sales contract, it would go a long way toward achieving the transparency to which every politician pays lip service but few know how to bring about.
If none of this is attainable, then at the very least the representatives MUST have sufficient time to get a feel for legislation. The idea of the Executive Branch giving the Legislative Branch (a body given purposefully more power than the Executive), or the heads of the House or Senate giving members of Congress an edict on how long they have to deliberate over a bill makes of the entire representative process a sham. If, however, any representative is given the time to read legislation, does not take advantage of it, and still votes yea or nay, it is the duty of his or her constituents to elect someone else immediately.
Posts
0 gems of wisdom:
Post a Comment