Interview with Congressman Grijalva, Co-Chair of Progressive Caucus on Obama's Speech on Health Care

[Better Believe It]

CONGRESSMAN RAUL GRIJALVA'S RESPONSE TO THE PRESIDENT'S SPEECH ON HEALTH CARE REFORM

Interview wiih Congressman Raul Grijalva, Co-Chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (83 members).


Kathleen Wells: As a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, do you believe the President's speech last night was strong enough in supporting the public option as part of health care reform?

Congressman Grijalva: I think the expectations were such that the fact that it was mentioned and it was a component that had to be part of the reform is important. It keeps us in the fight. I think it would have been disastrous if he would have not mentioned it and basically given it away. Then our struggle, both internally and externally, would have been that much more difficult.

But having said that, by not defining what he believes the public option to be, he leaves it open for this struggle to go on. Many of us wanted it to be more definitive. It must be based on Medicare, Medicare-like, Medicare network, no trigger, no co-opts as a phony replacement for a public plan. That didn't happen. But it keeps our momentum going and obviously we are going to continue to push the point of what we believe a defined public plan should be and why it has to be part of the package in order to pass Congress.

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.

Please read the rest of the interview at:

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