A few years into my career, I was asked to write a substantial document that was both difficult and controversial. The purpose of the document was to articulate a product vision for a major commercial software program and define the capabilities and features for the next several versions. It was the most difficult assignment to that point of my career. After several weeks of writing, discussions, debates and arguments, I was discouraged about my ability to get consensus and support.

A big meeting was scheduled to discuss the proposals and ideas contained in the document and I was concerned that people would come to the meeting not having read it. Before distributing the paper, I included a single sentence buried in an innocuous paragraph in the middle of the paper: “If you read this sentence, I will buy you a milkshake – you choose the flavor.”

The day of the meeting came and nearly 20 decision makers assembled. When it became clear most hadn’t read the document, I walked up to the whiteboard and asked people for their orders. One person said “chocolate”; blank stares from everyone else.

People were used to ‘faking’ their way thru meetings and relying on their cursory knowledge of the issues to engage in the debate. Some actually complained the document was too long and needed to be summarized in a PowerPoint slide deck. Not having actually read the document, they didn’t understand the proposal, the tradeoffs, or the issues.

Some things are too important or too complicated to be reduced to bullet points on slides.

This brings us to bill H.R.3962, The Affordable Health Care for America Act. This bill is 2,070 pages and 351,993 words long. The Senate’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590) is 2,500 pages. Combined, these prospective laws represent a stack of 8.5×11 pages more than 17 inches tall.

Some interesting questions come to mind:

• How many of our politicians, pundits and talking heads in the media have actually read these bills in their entirety?
• Is it really possible to have a rational debate about the contents of a bill when people skim the contents looking for sound bites to support their views rather than materially understanding what it means?
• How much does a congressperson really understand about a bill when the “skimming” is done by staffers?
• Perhaps most important: Should politicians who haven’t read a bill be allowed to vote on it?

We get what we deserve if we let our policy-making representatives vote on laws they haven’t read and don’t fully understand.  Perhaps we need a quiz before each legislative vote.

There should be a ‘milkshake rule’ in every new law.  It would be good for our health.