And the point remains that legislators who make hay of a bill’s length are being disingenuous. The length of a piece of legislation has no bearing on its legitimacy.

The fact is, no bills are read cover to cover like one would read a novel. It’s just not how the process works. Legislators have staffers that monitor the entire process, tracking the language of the bill, reporting on what may go into or be taken out of the legislation during the committee process, etc. You may not like that system (I understand that impulse), but it’s how things are done. But when a legislator says “they didn’t read that,” they are being hypocrites and cynically manipulating a public that doesn’t know much about the process, plain and simple.

As for the length of bills, legislation requires a very specific kind of technical writing that must leave as little as possible to, let’s say, “creative interpretation.”

For instance, in order to, say, expand Medicaid eligibility, legislation wouldn’t (and can’t) just say, “More people shall be eligible for Medicaid.” Not how it works. Where is the funding coming from? What disqualifies an otherwise eligible recipient? Is eligibility tied to the Federal Poverty Line? What services are covered? What portion of funding are states responsible for? And so on. And on. And on.

The more complicated a bill’s subject matter and/or the more provisions a bill has, the longer it will be–and rightly so. To write a 50 page bill that completely overhauls the nation’s health care system is not just bad legislating, it’s irresponsible legislating.

You may not like the Affordable Care Act. Indeed I have many concerns myself. There are MANY legitimate problems with the law, but its length is not one of them.