‘Gang of Six’ Not Quite the Voice of the Nation

[...] Senate, where 23% of the population elects 60 Senators, enough to control the chamber. Very bad. Mike Lillis ponders this problem in the Washington Independent: As select members of the Senate Finance Committee race to finalize [...]

I wonder if the framers of the Constitution would have agreed to equal representation for each state in the Senate if they knew how grossly disproportional the representation would become.

[...] Visit Source [...]

[...] have ignored the real benefits of the Obama plan to working folks in their rural districts) or the “gang of six” on the Senate Finance Committee (who collectively represent 2.75 percent of the nation’s population) appear ready to vest real [...]

[...] reform proposals in decades, and Conrad happens to be one of the Finance Committee’s “gang of six” — the group trying to hash out a health reform bill that would likely be the template [...]

@webcelt – do your hear the words coming out of your fingertips. This is exactly the reason that they mde equal representation. That way, thank goodness, California and New York wouldn't control the US.

[...] health care is occurring in the middle of the political spectrum, with the main focus on the “gang of six“. As for bipartisanship, on this issue (and perhaps many others) it seems like a faulty [...]

The 'gang of six' may not represent a significant % of the population, but the do appear to be intelligent, non-partisan moderates who reject the extremenist non-compromising views on both sides, (but especially within the House Democratic eadership).

The current system needs improvments, but not a drastic overhaul. If the current efforts for reform, it will be because of the hubris of the extremists in the Democratic party who over-reached.

With all due respect for the array of opinions – I write about States' Rights issues and concern over representatives who receive millions of dollars in donations from entities they are charged, in practice, to oversee and evaluate.

First, money. Max Baucus sounded level headed after eventually conceding to sit with inpatient and outpatient, mental health and med-surg providers who lobbied (without huge sums of money) and were recognized as a result of timely media coverage: in fact, all parties sounded level headed. Why weren't the providers given a sooner opportunity to speak? Why is Senator Baucus, the major recipient of insurance and pharma monies sitting as chair on that committee? Despite his experience and knowledge, why is he allowed to continue to sit on this committee?

Second, States' Rights. Specifically, the Seniors Mental Health Act of 2009 (S.671) now proposes that 2 new (state licensed, private practice) provider positions would become eligible for Medicare reimbursement — despite the fact that (as I understand it) some states do not recognize/license those specific positions. Broader language, allowing “all mental health providers AND alcohol and substance abuse counselors licensed for private practice by their respective states to become eligible for Medicare reimbursement”, allows each respective state to continue to determine who will practice within their jurisdiction and (the important change) receive concurrent Medicare reimbursement for respective services delivered to the elderly, those with chronic issues, and those with debilitating substance abuse struggles. I believe that: 1) the states can handle that responsibility and 2) the state populus is able to direct the respective state decisions. As I understand it, this change would not adversely impact the Medicare budget and, in some cases, would actually reduce Medicare expenditures by allowing Medicare to pay the provider directly, as opposed to paying the “signaturing” MD rate.

In appreciation for the work of the “committee of six” – here's to transparency.

[...] bill. It stinks. After spending at least the last three months holed up with the so-called “Gang of Six,” Baucus has produced a plan that quite possibly no one in that group (aside from Baucus) [...]

No member of Congress is to be believed until he/she embraces the same health care insurance provisions availbale tothe rest of the nation

[...] late Senator Ted Kennedy wrote and passed out of his committee. The framework put forward by the “gang of six” in the Senate Finance Committee does not have a public health insurance [...]

It is true that something does need to be done as medicare and medicaid are depleting the funds set aside, the fund that I paid into all of my life. What happened to that money? Could it be that it was used by other sources all these many years? Other sources that had no business using our money. Now the problem of a new health care arises that means that our country will be in such great debt we will never get out of it, nor will our children and grandchildren. Certainly there is a better way. I am happy with my health insurance (again that I worked for all my life). Let me keep mine, find a way to unite small businesses in a group to get insurance, get rid of the ability of lawyers to make such profits from health claims, help the people who can not afford health insurance obtain some, or help in finding care, do not offer health insurance to illegals (we can not afford this). We have the greatest medical system in the world. Let's not change it. You must do something to protect us, the tax payers of the US.

[...] late Senator Ted Kennedy wrote and passed out of his committee. The framework put forward by the “gang of six” in the Senate Finance Committee does not have a public health insurance [...]

[...] particular group of six Senators was chosen- they represent states whose population adds up to only 8.4 million people, less than 3% of the country’s total population.  (That would be like if only [...]

[...] relentless obstructionism, the corrosive influence of money, the absurdly unequal concentrations of political power, the acrid partisanship, and, reflective of all this, the general loss of trust in the governing [...]

“Combined, the lawmakers represent about 8.4 million people** — roughly the population of New York City — or 2.75 percent of the nation’s population” – that's a point of view. This numbers represent nothing comparing to the impact this law will have upon us.

2907242 beers on the wall. sck was here