Co-Chair of the House Progressive Caucus - No Public Option, No Deal

Source: ABC News

Amid the praise from Democrats for Sen. Olympia Snowe’s vote to help pass a health care bill from the Finance Committee, liberal members of both the House and the Senate remain concerned about the shape the health care bill is taking.

On ABCNews.com’s “Top Line” today, Rep. Raul Grijalva, the co-chair of the House Progressive Caucus, said he will join liberal colleagues in voting against any health care reform bill that doesn’t include a strong “public option” that would compete with private insurers.

“I venture to say that without a robust public option, a bill cannot get out of the House of Representatives,” said Grijalva, D-Ariz. “If that’s not in there, I can’t support it.”

Grijalva called it a “waste of time” to try to try to address the concerns of Snowe, R-Maine, when Democrats have the votes to pass a bill without any Republican support.

“Obviously it worries many of us a great deal that we’re going to basically write the legislation to cater to a vote or maybe two votes in the Senate on the Republican side,” Grijalva said. “The fact of the matter is I think at the end of the day there’s going to be unanimity among the Republicans, both in the House and in the Senate, to vote against any health care reform.”

“So I think it is a waste of time for the White House and to some extent for leadership to continue to cater to one vote, when in reality the best opportunity to pass it is a solid, unified caucus of the Democrats pushing for reform with a robust public option.”



Read more: http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/10/key-house-liberal-no-public-option-no-deal.html

Get the HR676 passed, and signed into law EXACTLY as is, and watch the chips....

Hawkeye-X

I mean, HR 676 has "only" about 100 co-sponsors.

None of them could get the bill through the CBO?

It's been kicking around since "only" 2003, so there's been PLENTY of time.

And why is Grijalva, who is both one of the many co-sponsors of HR 676 AND head of the Progressive Caucus talking about a "robust public option," not HR 676?

Have we been had? Again?

(Some people have inconvenient truths. I'm not that smart. I have inconvenient questions.)

I would not want to be on the wrong side of health care reform, all you Repugs and Blue Dogs.

on a binge of neck-biting and terrorizing of timid Democrats and obstructionist Republicans. It's about time, and a welcome change.

vote against the final bill anyway, is just stupid. The Dems focus should be on a bill that offers real reform and provides affordable insurance for everybody. Half measures that benefit no one except the insurance industry should be off the table.

When they were in charge.


knr to the op.

I recall Conyers holding hearings in some crappy closet down in the basement.

The Dems don't seem to understand that no matter what they do, the r's aren't going to go along. Reid needs to start displaying some leadership and work his ass off to get the D's solidly behind a bill that will benefit the American people.

Now we hear...oh we need 60-70-80 votes to pass HC.

Before it was steamroller it through ..51 is enough ..when the pubs ran things they simply said "you want to filibuster? We will just change the rules so you cannot."

Pubs in charge ..51 is enough.

Now its "we need 60".. or if you listened to pubs it would be 80-90


They forget the part about where the opposing party has to actually be able to pull off a filibuster. Among other things like the fact we can revoke it the same way they were going to do until we let them put Roberts in the SC.


On edit ..they suck.

What we need in Congress are hundreds more people like Grayson - people willing to call them out and not back down. Instead we get a bunch of sniveling cowering jackasses worshipping at the alter of Olympia Meaningless Snowe.

Not when we're talking politicians, or Congress.

105 votes at minimum :P

Create their own reality my ass ... they should not even have a voice anymore.

It is the cover story the corrupt "Centrists" are using to cover their Corporate Owned Sold Out Asses.
"Seeking Bi-Partisan Consensus"....what a load of pure shit.

He has NO liberals on his committee finalizing the Senate bill. Who's gonna knock on doors and phone bank for him in 2010? Who? Olympia Snowe?! Is the man out of his freaking mind?

I love the progressive caucus! We have to show them we have their back and show Harry Reid we won't have his if he drops the public option.

???? :wtf: no support for the frigging Senate chair, never, ever ... period ...:mad:

word "wuss" in the dictionary. He's a sorry excuse for a leader.

Go Raul! You da MAN!


:yourock: :headbang: :fistbump: :applause:

:loveya: :grouphug: :applause: Go! Go! Go! down with his head ... said the progressive dems...:dem: :dem: :dem:

and let us have some health care for a change.

are window-dressing for the Repukes. I agree, ignore them...

That anyone who votes against a public option will be considered an enemy of our families forever. We will vote them out of office no matter the cost. Even if it means voting for a ... you know what.

The only thing these jerks care about is their jobs. Threaten their jobs convincingly and they will vote against the monied insurance lobby.

We should also make clear that any friend of a strong public option is a friend for life short of a criminal act.

talking about would be available only to 5% of the population and would leave millions of Americans uncovered.

That's why I don't get excited when people talk about a public option.

BTW, IMO, we should push for HR 676 (single payer) first and a strong public option as the MINIMUM.

someone.

I'm thinking of writing in Teddy Roosevelt in Massachusett's special election in January. (Yes, he was a Republican when he was elected President, but he changed parties after that.) One Democrat or another will win that election (though it will be in January, so maybe hell will have frozen over). But the one who wins will know that someone voted for the guy who first proposed universal health care.

The progressive caucus can more credibly threaten to kill a bill with no public option than Obama can threaten to veto any bill without a public option. Max Baucus knows that Obama needs a health care bill or his chances of re-election diminish. Any game of chicken against Obama is one that he would likely win. The progressive caucus, on the other hand, has no such political predicament and may very well be willing to carry out their threat to vote against a bill with no public option.

This presents a problem for Max Baucus and the conservadems who have a vested interest in getting some bill passed just like the President but unlike the President they would prefer a public option. The questions now are whether the progressive caucus will hold their ground and whether or not the conservadems will swallow a bill with a public option over no bill at all. My guess is they will get 60 for cloture. The public option won't be 100% what the progressive caucus wants but it will be stronger than we thought it would be a few months ago.

As far as I know, any threat that you actually mean is credible.

Obama's foremost concern is re-election in 2012. Everybody knows it everybody expects it and if it turns out this wasn't his biggest concern, few would believe it. The Progressive Caucus, on the other hand, comes from mostly liberal districts and their seats are safe.

Have you ever noticed how Harry says NO about as much as the Republicans do these days. He said yes all the time when Bush cracked the whip.

Hold your ground, Progressive Caucus. You may be our only hope.

This will end up being the Olympia Snowe bill if we are not careful.

I hope they stop it before it can come to that.

Better nothing than the Baucus disaster.

:)

And both houses gutted a stimulus bill in order to get zero votes.

BTW, how much bi-partisanship did the Republicans give the Democrats when the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and the White House?

When is enough effort toward bi-partisanship enough?

The nation spoke in 2006 and spoke even more loudly in 2008. No one seems inclined to listen. Therefore the same crap that went on before 2006 still goes on, only, this time, the Democrats will be blamed for it--and rightly so.

So, what can we expect the nation to say when it speaks in 2010 and 2012?

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/bivens_outrage/699


This whole "change the tone" shtick was always hideously cynical, as Michael Tomasky has laid out in the American Prospect. So in a sense it's refreshing to hear it finally, gleefully turned on its head by Grover Norquist, a conservative who has the ear of the Bush Administration and is an old College Republican buddy of Karl Rove, the White House political strategist. Norquist contradicts the President, saying what we already know: Republicans are working to make political discourse uglier, not more civil. "We are trying to change the tones in the state capitals -- and turn them toward bitter nastiness and partisanship," he tells the Denver Post. "Bipartisanship is another name for date rape."

Question is, why do the Democrats seek it?

Instead of the Senators whom represent the Senators. And luckily there are actually more people's represent ives at this time in history than bloviating narcissistic selfish greedy worthless senators. We could do away with the Senate and I would call that a victory.