Thursday, August 20, 2009

retired doc's thoughts: Ambiguity in Legislative language in HR 3200 may be there for a reason

Woke up at 3 AM with fuctional specs for the claims processing system for the Gov plan turning in my head. Visions of companies dumping employees into the Gov Plan and taking the 8% tax instead, claims rolling in for a yet to be defined benefits plan. Contracts being let to the Blues to process this whole mess. Congressionals rolling in..powerpoints for Congress to explain the blow ups and backlogs. 'Cause as the retired doc notes, all the details have yet to be written.
Everyone with any interest in the proposed health care legislation should go here to read DrRich's latest blog entry in which he tell us what the ambiguity in the house bill is really all about.

I have blogged briefly before on the ambiguity and cognitively impenetrable nature of HR 3200 and suggested that is was not due to ineptitude of the authors of the bill and their inability to clearly put in words what they were proposing. As DrRich points out it is ambiguous for a reason.

The reason is that the lack of meaning will be supplied by the rule making processes of the various government agencies and this will be an unending process as opposed to a one time rule setting.
Deliberate because there is no other way an overhaul this comprehensive can be spelled out in a law. It all falls on the shoulders of the nameless folks who draft the regs, and then implement the procedures.

No comments: