JONATHAN CHAIT JUNE 13, 2011
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
The strengthened Independent Payment Advisory Board is a crucial part of the Affordable Care Act, which has naturally given it a prominent place in right-wing demonology. One underlying problem is that Medicare pays for all sorts of procedures of dubious value. IPAB is a board of experts who use medical research to propose cost savings. There have been previous attempts to rationalize what Medicare pays for, but they are usually overridden because Congress tends to be beholden to the narrow interests of medical device-makers and other providers. IPAB circumvents this dynamic by making its proposals automatic, and they can only be overruled by a vote of Congress.
George F. Will considers this a massive affront to democracy:
Each proposal automatically becomes law unless Congress passes — with a three-fifths supermajority required in the Senate — a measure cutting medical spending as much as the IPAB proposal would.
Supermajority? Did somebody say supermajority? That's funny. Will, of course, is a fervent champion of the filibuster. He considers the filibuster near-divine, and wraps it in the language of the Founding Fathers, even though the Constitution only authorized supermajorities for ratifying treaties, endorsing constitutional amendments, overriding vetoes, expelling members and impeachment convictions.
I am not such a champion. I say that if you worry about the possibility that a senate minority will block a needed action, we should reform Senate procedures to limit or abolish filibusters. Will disagrees. Could a minority block needed reforms? No, says Will circa last year:
[H]as a filibuster ever prevented eventual enactment of anything significant that an American majority has desired, strongly and protractedly?
So what are you griping about? If IPAB makes any decisions that the great and good American people oppose strongly and protractedly, they will simply muster a House majority, 60 Senators, and a presidential signature to impose their will. Sure, that could take a decade a decade or three. But if we had to wait that long for civil rights legislation or universal health insurance or other measures long blocked by filibuster, I don't see why ineffective government-financed medical care should be on a faster track.
4 comments
Several problems with Will's formulation of that question up there. The first is that the American Public has shown remarkable fragmentation, quite often pursuing policies in haphazard fasion, and even being heavily motivated to vote for things which are against their own self-interest -- like Supply-Side Economics, tax-cuts in a time of historically low taxation. So much so, that extremely useful policies like Civil-Rights for all, have been crippled and delayed for as much as a century. The way he formulates his question enables "the tyrrany of the minority" -- but perhaps he can't see that.
- AllanL5
June 13, 2011 at 10:51am
G.Will is dead set against undemocratic and minority rule, except when it benefits conservatives. Okay, now we are seeing some improvement. No caps! Next, trying writing in complete sentences.
- liberalref
June 13, 2011 at 11:23am
Just because 51% of the legislature thinks something is a good idea doesn't mean anything to me and when 41% oppose something on purely idealogical grounds that isn't an attractive alternateve. (The fact that some committee chairman is ushering a law through Congress because he got a lot of money from the beneficiary of that law doesn't sound good either.) I can only judge the quality and benefit of a law by the distortions made by the opposition. If the Rebublicans decry "death panels" and socialism and "Job killers!" then we must be on the right track.
- Nusholtz
June 13, 2011 at 11:57am
Fuck off, lib. No one needs you here as literary critic. You remain ever the consummate pompous ass.
- roidubouloi
June 13, 2011 at 12:35pm