After the jump is Raúl Grijalva’s response to tonight’s speech. Further reactions from Grijalva are in a piece in TPM.
Among the points TPM reported on: Obama’s promised meeting with leaders of the various caucuses never happened. Geez.
I am pleased that President Obama made the right choice to recognize the importance of a public option as part of the health care reform legislation.
A public option is the most effective way to achieve our goals of controlling costs, eliminating abuses of patients by insurance company abuses, and providing quality health care to all.
However, the President needs to be more direct on what the public option means and what it will do for the American people.
President Obama was elected to bring change and progress. I fear that if my party and the President do not appreciate the mandate the American people have given us, the people will lose confidence in the idea that they can vote for change and get what they voted for.
We in the majority must have the courage to do what is in our power to do, and pass a bill that guarantees access to affordable, quality health care.
Doing nothing is not an option. That is why I oppose efforts to delay and kill real reform with a so-called “trigger”. We cannot wait and just hope that the insurance companies will develop a conscience.
The defenders of the way things are want to diminish and destroy the public option because they fear it will be effective. A national insurance plan would have the bargaining power to get lower drug prices and better deals with health providers.
We cannot rely solely on the insurance companies’ good faith efforts to provide for our constituents. A robust public option is essential, if we are to ensure that all Americans can receive healthcare that is accessible, guaranteed and of high-quality. Health insurance reform is an investment in our future that we cannot afford not to make.
9 Comments
I wonder why bipartisanship is needed for this. Don’t we have the majority in both houses of Congress and the White House? This is an honest question to those of you who understand politics better than I. Why can’t we just gather our 50%+1, including in the Senate, and just say, “Fillibuster me, mthrfkr!”? Is there a significant risk of losing it all?
p.s. I can’t stand the term “public option.” Yuck, it’s like brussels sprouts — good for you but unappetizing. We should come up with a nice term like “The American Plan” or something that sounds nice and patriotic and gets to people’s hearts rather than their heads.
Dr L: If the Senate really worked like “Mr. Smith Goes To Washington”, then setting up a filibuster showdown would be great politics. The problem is that it doesn’t–a filibuster no longer requires some long-winded blowhard (isn’t that the definition of “Republican Senator”) to hold the floor forever, making for great TV. Now a filibuster is a nice, quiet affair that doesn’t have any public face on it–the R’s just threaten to vote against cloture, and the D’s don’t bring it up for a vote because they don’t have 60 votes (thank you Ben Nelson!). (To be fair, it worked the same way when the R’s ran the place and the D’s threatened a filibuster.) Damn, I miss the good old days.
If O wanted the public option, he could strong-arm DEM Senators (and f’in Joe) to vote for cloture (once MA has 2 senators), with the threat of a primary against a REAL Democrat if they don’t.
Grijalva for President and Medicare for All!
Dr. L
You bring up a good point. Why don’t the D’s use the nuclear option to push thru whatever agenda they wish? The answer, although some would like to say it is complex is not.
Simply stated, if the nuclear option were used it would put at jeopardy Democratic seats in swing Districts in the 2010 election. Arizona’s CD-8 would be an example.
Walt,
For your assessment of CD-8 to hold any water at all, your party will have to find a better candidate than whats-his-face.
The truth is that some health care bill would have passed already if it were not for the fact that some Democrats made sincere but misguided efforts to work with Republicans whose motives were certainly less than sincere. It appears that some folks have figured out that policy results are more important than compromise for the sake of the mere appearance of bipartisanship, particularly when the other side really does not care about results.
Tom,
I mentioned nothing about Candidates and didn’t try to spin it. I look at the dynamics of CD-8 every week and the results of current polls and past election results as I’m sure you do. With that in mind I stand by my statement, no spin.
Your second statement is pure, unmitigated garbage. The reason there is no health care package is the more moderate D’s and those representing moderate districts are sincerely afraid they will not get re elected if the proposed health care plan were to pass.
Why would Giffords or any other member of the House be harmed by the use of the Nuclear Option in the Senate?
Eff the Insurance Companies Plan would be pretty popular.