|
|
Congress does not pass “landmark” legislation very often – and it remains to be seen as to whether the health care reform bill (now moving to a conference committee and ultimate passage) will meet that standard.
However, I can say that when compared against other celebrated pieces of landmark legislation, it appears to fall short. The main reason is the lack of bipartisan support.
The Civil Rights Act and the Medicare program are two landmark laws that immediately come to mind. Both programs were enacted in the mid-1960s and both had bi-partisan backing. Why does support from both major parties matter? The answer: Because bipartisan support in Congress better reflects “common ground” within the American electorate. In addition, on an issue as important as health reform, good ideas are not the sole domain of either party. Without broad-based support from the voters – support that is clearly lacking for this health bill according to recent opinion polls – major reform is subject to reversal due to voter backlash. In short, major changes in social policy are typically not sustainable when enacted on a party line vote.
Second, there is the question of cost control. This health reform bill is heavy on provisions that will expand access to health care – a noble goal (but an expensive one). However, it is entirely too weak on controlling costs within the health care system. Most voters want to see government health care costs brought down before programs like Medicare and Medicaid bust the budget. This bill does little to address that concern (despite the much debated “cuts” in Medicare). Most voters also want to see reform that stops the annual double digit increase in private sector health insurance plans. Sadly, this bill does nothing to stop those increases from occurring – and, in fact, worsens the inflationary factor for those trying to purchase insurance on the open market.
Finally, this bill was processed in the worst possible manner. Forcing a vote under the pressure of a Christmas deadline meant that an inordinate number of deals had to be cut to garner the needed votes. For example, we saw Senators literally being bought off with promises of federal dollars for Medicaid to their states well in excess of the payments that would be made to other states. This kind of horse-trading is patently wrong, unfair and inequitable. Worse, it adds greatly to the future cost of this health reform bill (and will likely lead to many other states demanding the same sweet – and expensive - deal). In all, it was an ugly scene as these last minute deals were being cut. I do not think it bodes well for the Democrats who used these tactics to pass a bill that is opposed by a majority of the American electorate. That is my two cents.
Tim Penny
|
| |
|
|
|
