Lame Duck Promises
Ronald Szabat, J.D., L.L.M., Director
Governmental and Legal Affairs
ccording
to common usage and The Random House College Dictionary,
“lame” is generally first defined as “crippled
or physically disabled, especially in the foot or
leg.” A “duck,” of course, is a
commonly known animal, but more precisely is, “any
of numerous wild or domesticated web-footed swimming
birds of the family
Anatidae, especially
of the genus
Anas and allied genera, characterized
by a broad, flat bill, short legs and depressed body.”
So what do you get when you put “lame”
and “duck” together? Not a pretty picture!
Historically the label or idea of being a “lame
duck” dates to 18th century England where it
was applied to those who defaulted in stock market
transactions, signifying the powerlessness of their
position and unpaid debts. Origins there appear to
have related certain dimly regarded birds to ducks.
It is said that the United States borrowed and used
this expression in this way until it took on today’s
common meaning. As part of this story-line lore, there
was supposedly a Congressional “Lame Duck Amendment”
of 1934, cutting off the perks departing lawmakers
would vote to themselves once freed from public accountability,
which led to the 20th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
A colorful etymology indeed!
As it is used today, “lame duck,” when
preceding “Congress,” for example, refers
to that small amount of time from November to about
late December when U.S. Representatives and Senators
who will be leaving Congress through retirement or
defeat return to Washington for a short number of
legislative days. But in a stricter sense, the term
still conjures up a picture of former power now just
serving out a term of office.
So what are we to make of Congress insisting that
its work this November and perhaps December, in a
lame duck session, will be filled with action on important
issues such as fixing the Medicare Sustainable Growth
Rate (SGR) formula? As one endangered Senator told
me before the election, “lame duck sessions
are wonderfully productive things.” With all
due respect, I wondered when that had been the case.
True, major legislative action can frequently occur
late in the year, but my personal memories of working
on physician issues such as those in the landmark
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Acts of 1987 and 1989,
for example, occurred in non-election years. My own
memories aside, however, the general sense in Washington,
and perhaps the nation, is that a “lame duck”
session is high-stakes drama, if anything, with little
chance for high-stakes legislative relief.
Will 2006 prove different? We need to make it so now
that the elections have sealed the fate of incumbents
and challengers. As all sides move to “bury
the hatchet” — another wonderful expression
best left for another article — much, much work
remains in 2006, especially as it affects physicians
and their patients.
At the top of anesthesiology’s legislative list
for the rest of 2006 are two major issues, namely
relief from cuts under the Medicare SGR formula and
reform of the anesthesiology teaching rule.
On the first major issue, all of organized medicine
is working hard to avert a scheduled 5.1-percent Medicare
fee schedule cut on January 1, 2007, absent Congressional
action. To date, ASA members have helped to flood
Congress with messages that have demanded action.
If you are reading this and have not been informed
that a deal has been finalized, please use the following
easy link to make your views heard!
<capwiz.com/asa/issues/alert/?alertid=8893631&type=CO>.
In terms of the movement of H.R. 5246, H.R. 5348 and
S. 2990, our much-needed bills to restore Medicare
payment to fund our academic anesthesiology programs
and save our residency programs, there are encouraging
signs and widespread Congressional interest, yet more
work remains. Again, all ASA members are encouraged
to make their views and support known by contacting
Congress now at
<capwiz.com/asa/issues/alert/?alertid=8748511&type=CO>
(House) or
<capwiz.com/asa/issues/alert/?alertid=8790776&type=CO>
(Senate).
As with any political fight, those at the table can
hope for a feast or at least to be fed. Otherwise,
as the expression goes, you just might be on the menu,
and the main course just might be lame duck!
return to top