pass the House. Any real change requires the inclusion of a strong public option to promote competition and bring down costs,” Pelosi said. “If a vigorous public option is not included, it would be a major victory for the health insurance industry.” {snip} “Eliminating the public option would be a major victory for the insurance companies who have rationed care, increased premiums and denied coverage.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/26742.htmlObama:
ny plan I sign must include an insurance exchange: a one-stop shopping marketplace where you can compare the benefits, cost and track records of a variety of plans - including a public option to increase competition and keep insurance companies honest - and choose what's best for your family.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/07/obama-demands-the-bill-i-sign-must-include-public-option.phpThis very tough letter sent last night by House progressive leaders to Health and Human Services secretary Kathleen Sebelius, stating unequivocally that 60 House Dems will not support a health care plan without a public option:
Dear Secretary Sebelius,
We write to you concerning your recent comments about the public option in health insurance reform.
We stand in strong opposition to your statement that the public option is “not the essential element” of comprehensive reform. The opportunity to improve access to healthcare is a onetime opportunity. Americans deserve reform that is real-not smoke and mirrors. 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.
To take the public option off the table would be a grave error; passage in the House of Representatives depends upon inclusion of it.
We have attached, for your review, a letter from 60 Members of Congress who are firm in their Position that any legislation that moves forward through both chambers, and into a final proposal for the President’s signature, MUST contain a public option.
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/health-care/sixty-house-liberals-to-white-house-no-public-option-no-health-care-reform/Barney Frank: I am a strong supporter of single payer, and I do reluctantly accept a full public option as the best we can do. So I am strongly committed to a public option and I will not vote for a bill that does not include a nationwide, genuine public plan. But I do not agree that it has to be available on day one. It is conceivable that to get the votes to get this done, we might have to accept, for example, a six month delay on a public plan going forward. I am not talking now about a trigger, which I greatly oppose, but simply a time delay for reasons that might be put forward either legitimately but politically.
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/07/28/barney-frank-will-not-vote-for-co-ops-takes-the-pledge/Reid: U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., said today there will be a "public option" in whatever health insurance reform bill comes out of Congress.
"We are going to have a public option before this bill goes to the president's desk," Reid said in a conference call with constituents, referring to some kind of government plan.
"I believe the public option is so vitally important to create a level playing field and prevent the insurance companies from taking advantage of us," he said.
http://www.lvrj.com/news/breaking_news/Reid-Final-health-bill-will-have-a-public-option-63155937.htmlFeingold: But the equation is more complicated than that. Increasingly, there are senators on the liberal side of the spectrum who say they won't pass a plan that includes the trigger provision.
"To me that would be a very serious gap and it would be a very strong reason not to support it," Sen. Russ Feingold told CBS' "Face the Nation" on Sunday. "We need a public option. We need something that would cause some control over the abuses that have occurred in the insurance industry."
Triggers, Feingold added, are "just an invitation for the insurance industry to manipulate the situation for a couple of years just so they can avoid the trigger and so they can convince members of Congress to delay it again. We need to do something now."
Feingold did not say (nor was he asked) if he would participate in a filibuster of a bill that included triggers instead of an opt-out public plan. And that seems likely to be the major question mark going forward. While conservative Democrats may be comfortable allowing the broader effort to pass health care reform fail over their objections to the public plan, it's not clear if their progressive counterparts will make that leap.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/25/feingold-no-public-option_n_333012.htmlhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/25/feingold-no-public-option_n_333012.htmlSuch pretty, pretty, pretty words.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
