Politics, Power & Policy Making: The Case of Health Care Reform in the 1990s

By Mark E. Rushefsky; Kant Patel | Go to book overview
Save to active project


At the beginning of this chapter we examined a number of factors that affect policy making in Congress. These factors were structure and process, and elections. How well do they explain health policy outcomes in the 103d and 104th Congresses?

Start with structure. We noted differences between the House and the Senate. The House, the larger body, was characterized by more frequent elections and reliance on rules to guide the process. The Senate was more informal, with fewer limits on debate and amendment and more freedom to individual members.

We also looked at the impact of the budgeting process and the budget deficit on policy making. Two important points were made here. First, there was a mechanism, reconciliation, for making significant budget cuts. Second, the PAYGO rule prohibited new programs unless they were budget- deficit neutral, meaning new revenues or other program cuts had to be found. This budget-deficit politics would work against new programs (such as national health insurance) and in favor of program cuts (e.g., Medicare and Medicaid).

The third element of structure involved committees. Committees are where much of the detail work of Congress is done. But the fragmentation of power and authority in Congress meant that complex plans, such as comprehensive health care reform, would be the subject of multiple jurisdictions. For cutbacks in a single program, such as Medicare, multiple jurisdictions were less important.

The other major area discussed focused on elections and related factors such as divided government, gridlock, and realignment. Members of Congress react to the imminence of elections because of their desire to be reelected and to maintain or gain control of the House or Senate. Much of the electoral history of the United States in the post-World War II era has produced divided government, where one party controls the presidency and the other controls one or more houses of Congress. Divided government exacerbates the institutional jealousies created by the constitutional system of separation of powers/checks and balances. The result can be, though it is not always true, gridlock, an inability to make policy. We suggested that the real issue was whether a working majority existed in a particular legislative body. Finally, realignment appeared to increase the ideological coherence of the political parties, making compromise more difficult.

All these factors were important in explaining health care outcomes. While Democrats had a numerical majority in the House and the Senate during the 103d Congress, they did not have a working majority. There was


Notes for this page

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Cite this page

Cited page

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited page

Bookmark this page
Politics, Power & Policy Making: The Case of Health Care Reform in the 1990s


Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this book

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen
/ 316

matching results for page

Cited passage

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?