Two legislative plans, a presidential speech and no cost containment

So now we have the Ryan plan and the Lieberman plan both of which put the major burden on the retired beneficiaries.  We have a presidential speech which sounds somewhat more fair, but the president has not actually asked for legislation. 

But where in all this political noise is there even a discussion of cost containment?

One would think that there has been no discussion at any level of cost containment.  One would think there have been no ideas.  Wrong. . .

Here is a link to a summary of a discussion from the National conference of State Legislatures.

http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=14465

Briefly some of their ideas.

1.Direct Cost Containment Ideas
I-1. Repeal or modify "any willing provider" (AWP) laws
I-2. Enact a Certificate of Need law if your state doesn't have one.
I-3. If your state has a certificate of need law, apply it to only those circumstances where it is likely to be effective in controlling costs.
I-4. Regulate prices for health care.
I-5. Require public posting of prices for specified common procedures and tests
2.Prescription Drug Ideas
II-1. Institute a preferred drug list under Medicaid, similar to Oregon's.
II-2. Implement a preferred drug list with a supplemental rebate similar to Michigan's.
II-3. Join with other states in a drug purchasing pool to obtain volume discounts.
II-4. Hire pharmacists to provide patient education about how to reduce drug bills and avoid dangerous drug interactions.
II-5. Require pharmacies to publicly post the prices of drugs, grouped by class so people can see where substitutes may save money.
II-6. Implement a Medicaid "Pharmacy Plus" section 1115 waiver to cover Medicare recipients with incomes up to 200 percent of federal poverty guidelines.
II-7. Require state employees to use a mail-order pharmacy benefit manager for all maintenance drugs.
II-8. Encourage greater participation of safety net providers in the "340B Federal Drug Pricing Program."
II-9 Audit pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) and administrators (PBAs).

There can be no reason for cost containment not to be part of the legislative discussion.  Does anyone think there are political agendas at play?