Does the House health Insurance bill contain a 'robust public option'?

[bigtree]

Does it contain a robust one that the Progressive Caucus pledged a month or so ago that they would hold out their votes for?


Here's the Co-Chairman of the Progressive Caucus in September: http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/10/key-house-liberal-no-public-option-no-deal.html

On ABCNews.com’s “Top Line", Rep. Raul Grijalva, the co-chair of the House Progressive Caucus, said he will join liberal colleagues in voting against any health care reform bill that doesn’t include a strong “public option” that would compete with private insurers.

“I venture to say that without a robust public option, a bill cannot get out of the House of Representatives,” said Grijalva, D-Ariz. “If that’s not in there, I can’t support it.”


and again: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathleen-wells/congressman-raul-grijalva_b_282965.html

Kathleen Wells: So, the pledge that you signed for a robust and strong public option?

Congressman Grijalva: It's active.

Kathleen Wells: It's active. You are still holding firm to that pledge?

Congressman Grijalva: I am and I think there's been some slippage; no question
.
Kathleen Wells: Can you be more specific when you say "slippage?"

Congressman Grijalva: There are some members that now say a trigger is not the death knell for a public plan. I disagree with that. But generally speaking, I think the Progressive Caucus has grown up and I think we are very committed to the fact that we have to have that.

Kathleen Wells: This trigger mechanism is off the table for you entirely?

Congressman Grijalva: Yes. It hasn't been defined, but the way it's been defined by others it is dependent on what the private insurance companies are doing. Do they satisfy the needs of the uninsured, working families and working poor and if they don't, then it will trigger a public option. Well, you know, if working off government subsidies, of course there is going to be an effort. If the gauge is going to be when the insurance companies self-certify themselves that they have passed this, that they can't meet the needs of the American people (which has already been proven and I don't know why we need another five years to find that out), then that would trigger the public plan. Well, that effectively says it won't happen.

That's my problem with the trigger, fundamentally, is that it is dependent on whether or not the private insurance companies do their job. So, you are delaying something for more than five years. You are actually delaying it for 10 years and waiting. And even if it were triggered at the end of 10 years, I think our system would be in such stress that a public plan would not have a chance to develop or get strong or to really compete with these companies.


Congressman Raul Grijalva, who voted for the bill, over the phone after last night's vote: http://www.kold.com/Global/story.asp?S=11464790

He said it was a humbling and overwhelming experience voting for such an historic bill.

Grijalva explained a couple of the highlights he says are in the bill. He told us there's no pre-existing condition denial, meaning if a person has a pre-existing condition they can't be denied services. He also said this bill will extend benefits to millions of American's who don't otherwise have an opportunity to receive health care coverage.

Representative Grijalva said, "It's not as strong as many of us wanted it, but it does provide for private insurances a competitive competition that will keep costs lower and make some of the premiums we see and some of the costs that we see from private insurance carriers are going to have to reduce their costs to compete with this public option."


and responding to the vote again here: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/11/07/20091107azdeleghealth-ON.html

Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., said he was unhappy the proposed government-run "public" health insurance option in the bill was watered down.

His preferred plan would have paid most health care providers the same rates as Medicare and would have required them to accept all public-plan patients if they also treated Medicare beneficiaries. Under the compromise bill, doctors and hospitals will be able to negotiate their rates and will not be forced to accept public-plan patients.

"I am disappointed that this bill does not include the robust public option I and so many others fought for," Grijalva said. "However, voting yes will move the issue forward."


Only two members of the Progressive Caucus stuck to their pledge . . . did what they promised just months ago.

[BrklynLiberal]

1. The answer to your question has to be "NO."

[BzaDem]

2. No, but this was established a month ago. n/t

[bigtree]

3. that's like the meme 'this was already discussed in the campaign'

It's no less relevant today to the flaws in this bill than it was when the principle was conceded just weeks after the pledge was made and signed. I sure hope that these folks who voted for what they once stood firm against are 'working' to have their core principles included in the final legislation. "Work to be done" . . . and all of that.

[bluetrain]

4. These reps are enemies of the people. They work against our best interests at ever possible turn.

We should not have to petition our reps to remind them to serve us. They should not feel they have the right to vote away our rights.

[bigtree]

5. The House is actually the most representative body

. . . with congressfolk, generally and traditionally more responsive to the politics of their own district. We should continue to lean on our reps, even though they don't seem to be taking our concerns seriously. Remember the mid-terms. Never surrender to these privileged pols.

[robinlynne]

14. not exactly these reps. you are mistaken.

[Echo In Light]

6. "I think there's been some slippage; no question"

No question = no shit

[Hepburn]

7. Fuck no!

It's a sell-out on all fronts.

[MattNC]

8. NO

Which is why the House bill does little, if anything to control costs over the long-term.

[ProleNoMore]

9. Not No, But Hell No - The House Sold Out

eom

[kath]

10. Yep, so even the freakin' "Progressive Caucus" sold us out, along with all the other corporate

whores.

"Only two members of the Progressive Caucus stuck to their pledge . . . did what they promised just months ago."
and those two who actually stuck to that pledge are getting viciously attacked here. Jeebus H. Christ on a trailer hitch.

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[Xithras]

11. It's a PO only a Republican could love.

I heard a local talking head on the radio make a good point this morning. The new PO only pays the bill for the poorest of Americans who make under $10k a year, and the majority of them already qualify for Medicaid and various state programs anyway, so the actual number of NEWLY insured people under the PO will be quite small. Most of the estimates of the number of people who will "qualify" are failing to factor out the poor who are already covered under existing programs. It's a very low-impact public option.

On the flipside, the bill will REQUIRE people who have lost their jobs and are barely surviving on unemployment to dedicate a portion of those unemployment checks to their health insurance premiums. Paying off the health insurance vampires is more important than feeding your kids.

[SammyWinstonJack]

16. Smart move, passing the bankruptcy bill before mandated health insurance

:evilgrin:

[Individualist]

12. NO

[pampango]

13. The Progressive Caucus voted for the bill with 2 exceptions. Odd "bedfellows" in opposition. Two

progressives, a bunch of Blue Dogs and 99+% of republicans. If the opposition to House bill holds a planning meeting to advise the repubs and Lieberman in the senate on how to defeat HCR, I would suggest that the 2 progressives not try to attend. :) I doubt that the Blue Dogs, house republicans and certainly not senate repubs and Lieberman want to hear their reasoning.

[bigtree]

15. If you are focusing on blind politics, you can indeed lump the two in with Blue dogs

. . .and other opponents of health insurance reform.

But if you're being honest, these two Progressive caucus members who stuck to their SIGNED PROMISE to hold out their votes for a 'robust public option' have very credible objections, unlike the Blue Dogs and republican obstructionists. It serves politics to blur those distinctions, but it's not honest or credible at all to just ignore the substance of the Progressive Caucus dissenters complaints against the bill. Their reasoning is just as valid as when 57 members of their caucus made and signed the pledge. Their reasoning is just as valid now, as the co-Chair of the PC admits that - even though the majority of Progressive Caucus politicians caved - the bill falls far short of that supposedly non-negotiable demand.

[pampango]

17. Unless you have a definition of "robust public option" that is universally accepted,

it's hard to make the case that 55 of the 57 progressives who signed "caved". They may have a different definition of what represents a "robust" public option and feel that they voted consistent with their written pledge.

Some may look at the fact that 55 of 57 progressives who committed to holding out for a "robust" public option voted for the House bill is evidence that the bill (and its public option) are better than some contend. Others may look at the fact there there were 2 defections from the Progressive Caucus as evidence that the bill did not have the "robust" public option and the 55 are PINO's (Progressives in name only) who are incapable of living up to their SIGNED PROMISES. Might as well disband the PC if that's what it is made of.

In the Senate it would be surprising if any Democrats vote against HCR because it is not progressive enough. The opposition will be, almost exclusively, from those who oppose any HCR - repubs, Lieberman, and perhaps a few moderate Democrats (guess they don't call them Blue Dogs in the Senate). Other than 2 progressives that is same collection of opponents that almost defeated the House bill.

[bigtree]

18. The sad fact, which you acknowledge in outlining the Senate opposition

. . . is that the piddling public option that survived the House vote will be used as the main objection to the holdouts in the Senate. It's easy to predict the entire notion being stripped completely from some compromise Senate bill.

From what I see, the House Progressives decided to punt the thing forward more than they were convinced the bill lived up to their earlier demands. I don't believe you're going to find ANY of them touting the PO they ultimately compromised on as anything resembling what they were insisting was a deal-breaker. I notice you didn't provide any evidence that any of them feel that they 'voted consistent with their written pledge.'

[kath]

19. Kick -

Need to shed light on how even the Progressive Caucus (except 2) sold us out.
DIsgusting that they reneged on their pledge.