Originally published November 5 2013
Obamacare regulations 'incomprehensible' warns congressman
by J. D. Heyes
(NaturalNews) The more Americans see of the massive Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, the more confusing and baffling - and punishing - they find it.
Now that it's law and as more congressman "find out what's in it," as former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi once advised, the more they see what a mess has been made of the nation's health insurance industry and healthcare system.
In a recent interview with Rep. John Fleming, Louisiana Republican, CNSNews.com asked if he had read all 10,535 pages of final rules and regulations issued by the Obama administration and published in the Federal Register; he said that no, he had not, and said that it was because they were "incomprehensible."
"Well, of course, I voted against [Obamacare], and I have not read all the rules and regulations," Fleming told CNSNews.com earlier this month at the Capitol. "They're extremely complex."
What's more, he said, "An average person even with a law degree or a medical degree like me can't understand them. They're incomprehensible."
Fleming was also asked if he was taken aback or surprised by the very large number of pages of regulations. He said, actually, he thought the number of pages will eventually grow.
"I don't think that 10,000 pages is going to end," Fleming said. "I think it's going to grow over time as long as this bill continues to be in place."
Without a single Republican vote, a Democrat-majority House and Senate passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in 2010, along with the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (HCERA), various federal agencies have written and issued a staggering 109 final rules and regulations governing the implementation of Obamacare. In all, the rules total 10,535 pages.
Here is the entire exchange between the news site and Fleming:
CNSNews.com: I've been asking the people who voted for Obamacare, in other words Democrats, about the 10,535 pages of final regulations that are in the Federal Register. And I've asked them have you read all those regulations and, of course, they don't want to answer at all. So I wanted to ask you that same question.
Fleming: "Well, of course, I voted against it, and I have not read all the rules and regulations. They're extremely complex. An average person even with a law degree or a medical degree like me can't understand them. They're incomprehensible. And so we have to depend on people who have very special training just to explain how the exchanges work, how do the subsidies work, and after a couple questions to them, their third answer is usually we haven't got that information. Businesses that are reaching out to consultants that part of the information is not available. We don't know. We don't have an interpretation. So it's both complex and also there's just a lot of questions that can't be answered."
CNSNews.com: "Are you surprised at that number: 10,535?"
Fleming: "Not at all considering the complexity of the underlying law. It leaves so much room for decisions and rules and regulations from HHS. I don't think that 10,000 pages is going to end. I think it's going to grow over time as long as this bill continues to be in place."
Fleming, of course, isn't the only lawmaker to proclaim Obamacare a regulatory disaster. In fact, in April, one of the law's primary authors, Democratic Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, called it a "train wreck" waiting to happen - a statement that stunned administration officials.
"I just see a huge train wreck coming down," Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, told Obama's health chief, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, during testimony about the law's implementation.
How prophetic. But then again, as we stated, Baucus should know... he was a principle author.
In September, Baucus recanted his statement, but it turns out he was right after all [http://thehill.com].
Sources:
http://cnsnews.com
http://www.huffingtonpost.com
http://thehill.com
All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole responsibility for all content. Truth Publishing sells no hard products and earns no money from the recommendation of products. NaturalNews.com is presented for educational and commentary purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice from any licensed practitioner. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. For the full terms of usage of this material, visit www.NaturalNews.com/terms.shtml