Out of almost nowhere has come momentum for a proposal to create a
bipartisan entitlement and tax commission to draft proposals to control
the long-term costs of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. The
idea would require the Congress to quickly vote the recommendations up
or down via a super majority vote.
The idea isn't new--proposals for a such a commission have been around for a longtime.
What
is new is the bipartisan enthusiasm that is growing--particularly in
the Senate. Coming out of the Budget Committee, and Chairman Kent
Conrad and Ranking Republican Judd Gregg, the idea is picking up
bipartisan steam with, among others, Republican Senate Minority Leader
Mitch McConnell expressing general support for the idea.
A number of Senators have threatened to tie their votes to raise the deficit ceiling to establishing such a commission.
If
the recent Democratic health care bills have made one thing crystal
clear it is that the Congress is wholly incapable of dealing with cost
containment under present circumstances.
Comments
I'm not sure why it's so difficult for people to understand that health care is important to anyone with a body: ALL OF US. It shouldn't be as expensive as it is, and far too many hard-working Americans don't have health care access. It's a shame, and I hope something can be worked out relatively quickly.
Posted by: Robert | Nov 11, 2009 10:08:39 AM
So now we're supposed to be impressed with Republicans trying to contain costs after spending months trying to scare old people about death panels?
Please.
Posted by: Steve | Nov 11, 2009 11:17:00 AM
Hopefully the Democrats and Republicans can work together better on cost containment than they have on reform. We all know that reform could have been a bipartisan effort with good ideas from both sides, but instead we now have a bill that may or may not sneak by the senate.
Posted by: Wellescent Health Blog | Nov 11, 2009 7:02:57 PM
The concept of a bipartisan commission has great appeal -- if everyone on it acts in good faith. Such a commission is a convenient way to insulate politicians from unpopular decisions, and has been used very effectively to close unneeded military bases.
My fear is that such a commission in healthcare might backfire. The will of the majority of Senators already is being thwarted by a minority. Will reducing the number of decision makers to a small commission get a better result?
Personally, I'd rather go the other direction and ask the American public their opinions on contentious healthcare issues such as public options, universal coverage, single payer, etc. This could be accomplished by referenda. That way we would enlarge rather than shrink the number of people contributing to a decision.
Posted by: Merle Bushkin | Nov 11, 2009 7:31:37 PM
People we are moving to a big socialistic government. Thomas Jefferson said "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have." Presidents Obama's version of a socialist utopia; a Paradise for Underachievers.
Posted by: marlo reijersen | Nov 11, 2009 7:57:34 PM
The debate about big government and a socialist society is currently being aimed at Obama, and specifically government health insurance, but this is not a new problem. Take a look at your pay stub...see that line that says FICA with a big chunk of money taken out? That stands for Federal Insurance Contributions Act. You already pay for ... Read Moregovernment insurance and it's called SOCIAL security. They didn't hide that it was a socialist program when it was established in 1935. So-called news personalities and economic experts are saying that our economy is in recovery. Truthfully, we haven't recovered from the depression of the 1930's!!!! Oh, and how do you think the Federal Insurance plan that is Social Security is doing at providing a high quality retirement at minimal cost to tax payers? Aren't these same social security recipients the ones we are so concerned may starve or freeze to death because they live on such a "fixed" income? So now, you want to support federal insurance for health care? I think I better open a second investment account (in private sector enterprise). The first one to pay my own way when I am no longer capable of earning a living, and the second one to pay for health care without government intervention when they have "fixed" that issue.
Posted by: marlo reijersen | Nov 11, 2009 7:58:57 PM
Steve you might want to research liverpool panels before you go running off about the right scaring people. Know your history buddy or you bound to end up in a similar panel. If you don't think it can happen here then look up what our government does to you if you try to drop medicare.
Is this all a payoff to insurers to stop bringing up MA? Everything in here would seem to imply they are going to continue working with the same couple insurers that aren't doing that great of a job now and continue under the same payor model.
Posted by: Nate | Nov 11, 2009 9:39:22 PM
Now this is what actually you can say a better liberalization and enforcement of ideas to be loaded on the country holders... well if this idea is worth enough to work through, it will surely gets some better results throughout.
Posted by: health care | Nov 11, 2009 11:46:49 PM
This is just what we need. Good government should be involved with big programs. Why do people view highway construction as good government, but healthcare as government instrusion?
Posted by: Marc | Nov 12, 2009 7:05:13 AM
I agree with Merle. This is not a new argument either. Back during the founders' days, the "radical" Thomas Paine suggested that each colony sends 30 representatives to congress and he based it on the same argument. The more representatives, the more granular the representation and the harder it is to corrupt it.
This is not a debate of big vs. small government. The debate is about true and honest representation of the people vs. small but financially powerful special interests.
Posted by: Margalit Gur-Arie | Nov 12, 2009 7:23:05 AM
eNetInsurance is a free health insurance agency providing medical quote comparison and affordable health insurance plans for individual, families, small business groups and senior citizens from the nations top carriers. www.enetinsurance.com
Posted by: julie madison | Nov 12, 2009 11:22:34 AM
Nice post, thanks for sharing this wonderful and usefull information with us.
Green Tea
Posted by: Jemerin | Nov 12, 2009 9:43:51 PM
"Why do people view highway construction as good government,"
Marc do you consider the Big Dig to be good government? I don't know anyone that thinks so. Would the highway to no where have been good government?
You need to seperate your political bias from the actual argument. People don't consider all government involvement in health care as intrusive, they view the current proposal as intrusive. This is a major difference most people of the left can't grasp.
If the government proposed a cost effective health care bill that had an actual purpose and chance of working people would support it. We have yet to see any such bill. i.e. any bill addressing just tort reform and medicare fraud reduction would have 80%+ approval, that is the difference you miss
Posted by: Nate | Nov 13, 2009 10:35:21 AM
Nate, Congress could easily pass a bill with 99%+ approval. The bill could consist of a statement encouraging Americans to exercise. Such a bill might even get all 435 votes in the House.
However, the purpose of Congress is not to pass bills that everybody likes. The "actual purpose" of the House bill is to provide insurance to 36 million uninsured, to provide additional coverage to ~20 million under-insured, and to provide security to millions more who may lose coverage because of financial hardship or pre-existing conditions. This is something that neither the GOP plan nor your plan addresses.
Posted by: Paolo | Nov 13, 2009 1:16:29 PM
Paolo you can click your heels as many times as you like your not going to end up in Kansas. If you really think the house bill will do anything you list I doubt you will ever see reality again your so far gone.
They have these books full of things that happened in the past, you might want to pick one up some day and see how 44 years of Congressional intent turned out.
Posted by: Nate | Nov 13, 2009 5:07:44 PM
Nate, you don't need to click any heels. The three items I listed are in HR 3962 and/or its CBO reports (both are publicly available).
Posted by: Paolo | Nov 14, 2009 11:44:45 AM
Nice post, thanks for sharing this wonderful and usefull information with us.
Green Tea
Posted by: Jemerin | Nov 16, 2009 3:19:25 AM
Any predictions on where the senate plans to take this reform bill ?
Posted by: daniel lane | Nov 18, 2009 5:51:19 PM
Post a comment
MOST COMMENTED
