House Bill Offers Lawyer Wonderland

Jul 17, 2009

By Ken.

Law

Allow me to be blunt: if we required our elected officials to read, understand, and be conversant with the bills they voted upon, Congress would not be able to enact more than a fraction of a percent of the legislation it currently considers, and the legislative branch as we know it would collapse. More later — soon, I hope — on whether that is a consummation devoutly to be wished.

Today I only have time to point to one glaring example, ably documented by Walter Olson at Overlawyered: a recent draft of the vast and fluctuating health care reform bill in the House included buried and unannounced terms that would result in a bonanza for lawyers and a surge in officious litigation. Specifically, the draft contained qui tam provisions (to nonlawyers, provisions letting private persons sue on behalf of the government without prior government approval) that would permit lawyers to sue anyone they claimed was responsible for Medicare incurring costs — from the guy who runs over grandma’s foot in the parking lot (thus causing her to use Medicare to get treatment) to the companies that sold grandma gin, cigarettes, and fatty foods for the last half-century. Read Walter’s post to get a sense of it; its scope can hardly be exaggerated.

Meanwhile, contemplate this: what does it say about our society that it is impossible — absent a revolutionary reboot — for our elected officials to read and understand the laws they vote upon?

Last 5 posts by Ken

You Know Who Else Disapproved of Anne Frank's Vagina? HITLER. - January 29th, 2010
Television Is Like A Frog - January 28th, 2010
Don't Badmouth the Black Robes - January 28th, 2010
Also, His Elf Wizard Failed To Exhaust Administrative Remedies - January 27th, 2010
Letters That I Did Not Send Today, Though I Wanted To - January 26th, 2010

7 Comments

6 Comments

Mark • Jul 17, 2009 @3:35 pm

Absent a legal background, it took me a second or two to grasp the implications of the qui tam provisions, whereupon I promptly freaked out.

Under this language, what in our lives wouldn’t be open to litigation? Especially once governmental rent-seeking forces us all onto a public ‘option’?
Patrick • Jul 17, 2009 @3:38 pm

Only medical claims involving the disabled and elderly would have been subject to this Mark. That’s only around 50 million people.
TomH • Jul 17, 2009 @4:04 pm

READ it? Remember, they are politicians. Perception is more important than truth, or reality or the unintended consequences of ridiculous law.

I recall being at a meeting with a New York State Senator (truly a breed apart). I asked him about the effect of recent procedural legislation, and how it effected a client. He had voted on it a month before, but a) had no idea what I was talking about, and b) even less idea about its consequences. He was “to busy to know everything.” I was dumbfounded.
PatrickKelley • Jul 17, 2009 @4:45 pm

What it means is that every bill that comes before Congress is by design loaded down with so man unnecessary provisions that its impossible for one person to have any kind of comprehensive knowledge of most of what went in it, and they need to change that, not accept it as inevitable.
EdinMiama • Jul 18, 2009 @11:31 am

To be fair, only a fraction of the bills get voted on and passed in a given term. If memory serves, 10,000 bills are brought up and only around 400 passed in a two year term (they dont vote on 10,000; most never make it out of committee by intent).
rsm • Jul 18, 2009 @8:27 pm

Allow me to be blunt: if we required our elected officials to read, understand, and be conversant with the bills they voted upon, Congress would not be able to enact more than a fraction of a percent of the legislation it currently considers, and the legislative branch as we know it would collapse.

And the problem with this is?

Really, I as a matter of habit follow the legislatures of 3 of the countries that I am strongly affiliated with. Quite often discussions are held, and laws are signed things that simply the government has no business getting involved in morally or constitutionally. For the most part I’d be happy to see nothing happen in a legislative session as it is far more likely that a given piece of poorly thought-out and sight-unseen legislation will do harm than benefit anyone. In many cases the most well intentioned, well thought out pieces of legislation have far-reaching consequences that are negative for the country as a whole. “Think of the children” and “think of the poor downtrodden”…