Gobblespeak, part 548,395

Both laws and the rules and regs implementing them are written in a bizarre language often called "bureaubabble."  Or "gobble-speak."  It's a language that while technically using English words, uses them in ways that seem designed to be as impenetrable as possible.

Example: If some agency said you were to "operationalize the premium stabilization programs" does that mean to put them into effect?  What does "premium stabilization" even mean? Before stabilization do the little bastards spontaneously increase or decrease on their own?  Is there a glossary?

I wanted to see how the emperor's lackeys went about implementing one of the emperor's press-release changes to Obamacare, so I went to what's supposedly the official word on such things, the Federal Register.   The following footnote is typical of the whole thing--and there are probably 100 pages of confusing crap just like this:

1. The word “Exchanges” refers to both State Exchanges, also called State-based Exchanges, and Federally-facilitated Exchanges (FFEs). In this proposed rule, we use the terms “State Exchange” or “FFE” when we are referring to a particular type of Exchange. When we refer to “FFEs,” we are also referring to State Partnership Exchanges, which are a form of FFE.

Let me try to decipher this:  There are two different "exchanges"--state and fed.  Got that.  State exchanges are also called "state-based."  Fed is also called "FFE."  Okay.  But when they use the term "FFE" they mean BOTH types??  Because, they helpfully explain, the state exchanges "are a form of FFE."  Oh wait, "State Partnership Exchanges" are a form of FFE.  But just two lines earlier they listed just two names for the state exchanges, and "Partnership" wasn't mentioned.

Okay, it's probably safe to assume that a "state partnership exchange" is the same as the state exchange or state-based exchange, but would you bet your company on that?  I've submitted several appeals to federal agencies based on the fact that they were interpreting statutory or CFR language that clearly said "X" as "not X."  Or else doing the functional equivalent: "Oh, well, maybe you can make a case that X really does mean X, but in this case it's very clear that it doesn't."

You listen to bureaucrats say crap like that and it drives you nuts.  Dude, when the language says "X", how the hell is anyone outside of your office supposed to know that--as you put it--it clearly. doesn't. mean what it equally clearly says?

Aw the hell with it.  In this day and age, it wouldn't really matter what the law said until a group of judges put their twist on the thing anyway.

I think it was the Red Queen in one of Lewis Carroll's novels who said "Words mean exactly what I want them to mean--nothing more and nothing less."  That's from memory, which I'll cheerfully admit has gotten a lot more sketchy over the years, but it's pretty close.