Bruce Bartlett argues that reading the health care bill is a waste of time. Not only is it all written in legalese, but also, many of the provisions simply alter sections of other bills, so unless you have some sort of hyperlinked database, much of the language is meaningless.
I'm sure a link to Bartlett or Julian Sanchez or some Reason tea-bagger will be a more than adequate alternative, since McArdle admits she would not be able to understand it anyway.
4 comments:
I'm sympathetic to Bartlett's argument, in part because he at least looked at the bill.
But if you're going to put yourself forward as an expert on politics and the health industry, as she does, then you should at least read the bill to determine how your Pet Issue (the "R&D will drop because all those Swiss and German companies will be disincented to do research after the Americans give up their own efforts") is being addressed.
As with invitations from the Treasury Department, McMegan can't be bothered. After all, she has a wedding to plan.
The ostensible topic today was bank regulation.
Megan felt the need to say something, even though (this time) even she realizes she has no clue. A couple of the commenters do know something, but what's the point? They end up talking about patent applications.
Also noted, Bruce Webb at AB, who does read the bills, came up with a rather cogent post on the bill, only a few hours after McMegan announced that she had given up.
And to think one of them gets paid for blogging.
And it's not just that she wouldn't be able to understand it. She claims that the language "is meaningless." So it's not her fault, of course.
Post a Comment