This article analyzes the political and strategic reasons for the policy stalemate in Medicare reform in the United States. By using the specific case of the National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare, which was formed in 1997, this article attempts to explain the stalemate in the policy process by framing the activities of the various participants within the context of the “garbage can” model of decision making. It is equally argued that the utility of the model lies more in its ability to explain the dynamics of the policy process, and that the existence or nonexistence of a policy window provides the least logical explanation of how various policy episodes unfold. The cumulative effects of congressional behavior and whether members are engaged in the active-passive paradigm of policy making can provide more powerful indicators for policy events and outcome.
Bernstein, J., & Stevens, R. A. (1999). Public opinion, knowledge, and Medicare reform. Health Affairs, 18(1), 180-193.
2.
Blendon, R. J., Benson, J. M., Brodie, M., Altman, D., & James, M. (2000). Reforming social security and Medicare. Public Perspective, 11(1), 40-43.
3.
Cochran, C. E., Mayer, L. C., Carr, T. R., & Cayer, N. J. (2003). American public policy: An introduction (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
4.
Cohen, M., March, J., & Olsen, J. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 1-25.
5.
Congressional Budget Office. (1997). Budgetary implication of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
6.
Congressional Quarterly Almanac, 105th Congress (1st Session), Vol. L111, (1997).
7.
Gallup Organization. (1995, October/November). Medicare: A strong sense that change is needed (Survey by the Gallup Organization for CNN/USA Today). Public Perspective, 17.
8.
Hacker, J. S. (2003, July 2). How not to fix Medicare [Op-Ed]. New York Times, p. 1-3.
9.
Hall, R. (1996). Participation in congress. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
10.
Jones, B. D. (2002). Bounded rationality and public policy: Hebert Simon and the decisional foundation of collective choice. Policy Sciences, 35(3), 269-284.
11.
Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard School of Public Health. (1998). Americans know Medicare faces problems, but not ready to make hard choices. Available at www.kff.org/medicare/1442-index.cfm.
12.
King, D. C. (1997). Turf wars: How congressional committees claim jurisdiction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
13.
Kingdon, J. W. (1984). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
14.
Kingdon, J. W. (2003). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (2nd ed., with new foreword by J. A. Thurber). New York: Addison-Wesley/Longman.
15.
LeLoup, L. T., & Shull, S. A. (2003). The president and congress: Collaboration and combat in national policymaking (2nd ed.). New York: Longman/Pearson Education.
16.
Lindbloom, C. E. (1990). Inquiry and change: The troubled attempt to understand and shape society. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
17.
Marmor, T., & Mashaw, J. L. (2003, July 17). Prescription drug bill makes only politicians feel better [Commentary]. Los Angeles Times, p. 1. Available at latimes.com
18.
Marmor, T. R. (2000). The politics of Medicare (2nd ed.). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
19.
Marmor, T. R., & Oberlander, J. B. (1998). Rethinking Medicare reform. Health Affairs, 17(1), 52-67.
20.
Oberlander, J. B. (1995). Medicare and the American state: The politics of federal health insurance, 1965-1995. Doctoral dissertation, Department of Political Science, Yale University, New Haven.
21.
Oberlander, J. B. (1997). Managed care and Medicare reform. Journal of Health Politics, Policy, and Law, 22(2), 595-631.
22.
Oberlander, J. B. (2003a). The political life of Medicare. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
23.
Oberlander, J. B. (2003b, June 22). Slow acting relief [Op-Ed]. Newsday, p. 1-4. Available at www.newsday.com/news/healthy/ny-vpobe223340751jun22,0,2224642.story
24.
Peterson, M. A. (1990). Legislating together: The White House and Capitol Hill from Eisenhower to Reagan. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
25.
Rushefsky, M. E., & Patel, K. (1998). Politics, power and policy making: The case of health care reform in the 1990s. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
26.
Sabatier, P. A. (1996). The suitability of several models for comparative analysis of the policy process. In L. M. Imbeau & R. D. McKinlay (Eds.), Comparing government activity (pp. 101-117). New York: St. Martin’s.
27.
Schalger, E. (1999). A comparison of frameworks, theories, and models of policy processes. In P. A. Sabatier (Eds.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 233-260). Boulder, CO: Westview.
28.
Shepsle, K. A., & Weingast, B. R. (1995). Positive theories of congressional institutions. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
29.
Sinclair, B. (2000). Unorthodox lawmaking: New legislative processes in the U. S. congress (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
30.
Starr, P. (1982). The social transformation of American medicine. New York:Basic Books.
31.
Stone, D. (1997). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making. New York:Norton.
32.
Weissert, C. S., & Weissert, W. G. (1996). Governing health: The politics of health policy. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
