Tuesday, 08 September 2009 14:38 "I want to applaud the president for taking decisive action this week to end the stalemate to reform our broken health-care system," said Conyers. It is my hope that his speech tomorrow night will inspire members of the House and Senate to place the needs of the American people above petty bickering and partisan obstructionism.
It is clear that real reform means injecting real competition into the insurance market to improve affordability and drive down health-care costs. "The centerpiece of this reform is a robust Medicare-like public health insurance plan tied to the Medicare provider system. Like many of my colleagues in both the House and Senate, I will oppose any health-care reform bill that lacks such a plan. I will also oppose any legislation that seeks to replace a robust public health insurance option with health-care cooperatives or which ties the availability of the public option to a trigger mechanism. In this effort, I stand in solidarity with House progressives, the majority of my friends in organized labor, millions of health-care providers, and 72 percent of the American people.
"Boosting the profits of the health insurance industry without fundamentally changing the way they do business would be nothing but sham reform. I believe Congress can and will reject calls for such half measures and will include a robust public option in any legislation that reaches the president’s desk later this year."
http://www.enewspf.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9983:conyers-public-option-is-a-necessary-component-of-health-care-reform&catid=88888989:health-care-reform&Itemid=88890248 This is to set straight information set forth in a GDP thread
which posted an August 4th interview by Conyers on his take of the various Plans in congress, one which derided our President's agenda of reforming health care. Since much has happened in the more than one month interval (and we know that a month is forever in politics), including the President's address to the Joint Session of Congress a couple of days ago, it is unfortunate that an old 8/4/09 article was presented to us today with the omission of the date of the article.