TPMDC

Grijalva Requests Changes To Health Care Bill, Vote On Robust Public Option

Spread the word. Share this article on Facebook!

Share

Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ)

Share

Twitter Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

In a curt, terse letter delivered today, public option champion, and progressive caucus co-chair Raul Grijalva says he wants to see some major changes to the House's health care bill--reflected in a so-called manager's amendment--before it comes to the floor.

  • Americans in every state in the nation must be able to take advantage of the benefits of the bill; thus the bill shall explicitly state that the public option must be available without any triggers or opt-out provisions.
  • If the Secretary is forced to negotiate provider reimbursement rates in the public plan, a ceiling shall be determined and set for such rates.
  • The bill shall fully repeal the McCarran Ferguson Act for health and medical malpractice insurance, as oppose to merely amending the Act.

Included with the letter is bill text for a stronger public option than the one in the bill that was unveiled yesterday. Grijalva is asking for a floor vote on that amendment, but Pelosi has been pretty clear that she doesn't want to bring it up.

Comments (14) | Join the Conversation!

Recommend Recommend (1)

October 30, 2009 4:37 PM   

Progressive!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 30, 2009 4:42 PM   

For those not versed in Congressspeak, McCarran Ferguson is the law that exempted health insurers from federal regulation and antitrust jurisdiction.

I Googled it so you don't have to.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 30, 2009 4:51 PM   

Thanks for your stepping up to the plate and trying to move thru the many roadblocks the Progressives have encountered!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 30, 2009 4:59 PM   

•Americans in every state in the nation must be able to take advantage of the benefits of the bill

... but not ALL Americans in every state, right Raul?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 1, 2009 12:04 PM    in reply to Jim H

Could it be a slip up and not a cynical ploy? Dunno...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 30, 2009 5:57 PM   

They should be hammering 24/7 on the fact that the "fiscal conservative" assholes are trying to make coverage MORE expensive than it should be, because otherwise the MSM will carefully avoid reporting that little fact. Progressive messaging sucks eggs. That's why they're getting rolled for the 100,000th time.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

CJ

user-pic

October 30, 2009 6:30 PM   

"Americans in every state in the nation must be able to take advantage of the benefits of the bill; thus the bill shall explicitly state that the public option must be available without any triggers or opt-out provisions."

This man is my hero. The Senate opt-out compromise is not the public option, but actually the Blue State Public Option that leaves millions of poor and disenfranchised behind, despite the contributions of blue state progressives to Democratic victories in 2006 and 2008. It's a cruel compromise, and I'm glad that at least one legislator realizes it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

CJ

user-pic

October 30, 2009 6:32 PM   

Correction: I meant to write "...despite the contributions of red state progressives..."

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 31, 2009 11:23 AM   

This health care bill will be Obama's Waterloo. The process has been a prolonged, way-too-long PR nightmare, the result will probably be a complicated, do-nothing bill that just adds another 3/4 hour of paperwork to the beleaguered physician's day, and increases the flow of cash to privare health insurers rather than driving them out of business, which is where they belong.

Obama, and probably all of us, would have ben better off if he'd gone to bat for something simple--expanding Medicare to all adults, paid for by a surtax on income over 300,000--then forcing people to line up for or against. If it lost, he'd have political ammo, if he won, we'd have a change we could believe in. As it is, we're going to get a reform more complex and less effective than his so-called mortgage relief, which has been an ineffective loser from day one. Obama is on a fast track to being Jimmy Carter II--a one-term nice guy who didn't have the balls to do what it takes to help the average citizen.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 1, 2009 10:03 AM    in reply to L0ngT0m

my somewhat different take is when faced with a landmark issue, he used those "balls" in hopes of executing some grand re election/incumbency scheme rather than provide relief for millions and millions of struggling american families

which makes him something less than a nice guy

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 2, 2009 9:21 AM    in reply to izzatxeaux

I second that, too. He's not the community organizer he was. Lost his idealism on the way up, as they so often to. Gone soft. Or just ambitious. Pity.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 1, 2009 12:07 PM    in reply to L0ngT0m

Second that. Thank you.

Start by changing the age of those eligible to 50 tomorrow, then lower it by 10 years every 5. Insurance companies still do business in the UK and Canada.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 1, 2009 10:06 AM   

for the Grijalva fans

a well written and prophetic piece from Howie Klein:

http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2009/09/wholl-be-left-standing-in-battle-for.html

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 1, 2009 11:57 AM   

This is a good start but the bill still sucks big time and is not good for the American people. The progressives need to kill this thing now before it sinks Democratic chances for a long time. Forcing people to buy rotten insurance and making thepublic option so weak it is meaningless will be immensely unpopular if passed. A bad bill is worse than no bill.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Leave a comment

Your response:

Follow us!

Most Popular

TPM Stories Now Surging on