Friends have been writing me about a recent op-ed piece in The New York Times on plain English.

The contribution, by the executive counsel for the Rhode Island state insurance authorities, bemoaned the lack of clarity in health insurance policies.

The problem is quintessentially American: in the United States, private insurers offer 200 million Americans with private health insurance a patchwork of policies, with variable benefits. The policy determines whether or not it covers an affliction, condition, or procedure.

The author played up readability and comprehension tests to support his argument that policies were incomprehensible. I understand the point but disagree with the tactics. Arguing that a text is “too complicated” makes the insured look simpleminded and the policy-drafters smart. It also points to “dumbing down” as a possible remedy.

I take another view. Insurance policies often are drafted so that they fail to communicate and can’t be understood, by anybody. They perpetuate ambiguity. This makes some sense because the insurer can make a case-by-case determination and, as the case may be, argue its position in court (even if the judge follows a cannon of contract interpretation that resolves ambiguity in favor of the insured).

Ultimately most drafting problems stem from laziness: reusing old text, making piecemeal changes, having no incentive to draft clearly.