
I just got off the phone with Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ)--co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. His takeaway from the speech was pretty simple: Though the President didn't go all the way on the public option, the fact that he addressed and endorsed it means the fight for the public option will live another day.
"It was very encouraging," Grijalva said. "Obviously our policy point is the public plan and I thought the President dealt with it. He didn't get into a lot of specificity of what he does support and doesn't support."
In an official statement, which I've pasted below, Grijalva said "the President needs to be more direct on what the public option means and what it will do for the American people."
Grijalva's bar was admittedly pretty low: "The fact that the public plan was not thrown under the bus keeps our expectations that we'll be able to work with at least the House leadership to pass a strong public plan," Grijalva said.
"If he would have mentioned nothing of a public role in health care it would have made our effort much, much more difficult," Grijalva added. "Going in we really didn't know what the President would do."
As I reported earlier today, a planned meeting between House liberals and Obama scheduled for yesterday never happened
Noted Grijalva: "The fact that he didn't mention triggers is encouraging. the fact that he didn't mention co-ops is encouraging." (The President did not use either the word trigger or the word co-op, but he did allude to both policy proposals)
Ultimately, though, Grijalva gave the speech a fairly positive review--he said that it will allow a strong press for the public option to continue.
"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."
Smooth Jazz
September 9, 2009 10:02 PM
Yeah, I remember someone who went all the way on health reform.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/may96/background/health_debate_page2.html
* Threaten to use vetos
* Supporters rally but in late September are surprised by a GOP filibuster
* Reform defeated
Any lessons we can draw from this?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Eric Jaffa
September 9, 2009 11:19 PM
Re: "(The President did not use either the word trigger or the word co-op, but he did allude to both policy proposals)"
He did use the word "co-op:"
==========================================================
For example, some have suggested that that the public option go into effect only in those markets where insurance companies are not providing affordable policies. Others propose a co-op or another non-profit entity to administer the plan. These are all constructive ideas worth exploring. But I will not back down on the basic principle that if Americans can't find affordable coverage, we will provide you with a choice.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/us/politics/10obama.text.html?pagewanted=all
==========================================================
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cornelius
September 10, 2009 12:59 AM
Grijalva is happy Obama didn't throw the PO under the bus - meaning he's just happy to still get the crumbs. Yes, another great speech saying nothing new except he's gonna take it to those bad Republicans. Big nothing for me. After a while the speeches are meaningless bec there is no commitment, no follow through, just blah, blah, blah. Now he decides to get all worked up. It's way to late Mr. President, the battle is over, you didn't draw that line in the sand, and tonight we still have no idea what's up with the PO. What is this s hit about it's gonna be part of the "Exchange" 4 f ing years down the road. WTF, where did that come from. This is 3 card monty with Alexrod and Gibbs as lookouts. Really pathetic. If the progressives were happy with this speech they're losing focus - remember it's what you do that matters, not what you say.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jesus B Ochoa
September 10, 2009 9:38 AM
I think the good rep. from a sorry state is seeing things as they are.
The President simply will not lead on this issue. I remember LBJ when he championed Medicare.
To paraphase Lloyd Benson, Obama ain't no Johnson. That is abundantly clear.
Grijalva is looking reality in the eye, and he ain't blinking. The work will be in the house, and I hope to god the progressives face the moment squarely and defeat anything lacking a robust public option.
I think O'Donnell is probably right. The Senate will never accept a public option, particularly given the pablum that passes for leadership on the issue from Obama.
Given that, the house should kill the bill and not give the dinosaurs and a chance to scuttle it down the road.
And please don't remind me about the people who will be hurt by this approach, because what will probably emerge will be a bill that makes the insurance criminals wealthier while penalizing those with fines, hefty in the proposal, who can't afford insurance, a la Baucus.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?