Facing Steep Odds, 128 House Democrats Revive the Public Option

Facing Steep Odds, 128 House Democrats Revive the Public Option
Democrats Aim to Galvanize Progressives and Cut Budget Deficit
By Sahil Kapur 7/29/10 6:15 AM


Four months after President Barack Obama enacted the Affordable Care And Patient Protection Act, House Democrats have revived a top liberal priority that was eliminated from the sweeping health care law in the latter stages of a grueling year-long debate: t
Armed with a new line of attack aimed at soothing deficit fears, Democratic Reps. Lynn Woolsey (Calif.), Jan Schakowsky (Ill.) and Pete Stark (Calif.) last Thursday unveiled a bill that would offer consumers the choice of a “robust” government-run insurance plan alongside the private plans in the law’s exchanges. The Congressional Budget Office projects that the bill, which has gained 128 co-sponsors, will reduce the federal deficit by $68 billion between 2014 and 2020.

“As the deficit continues to grow, so does the need for a program that can save billions of dollars and improve health care while doing it,” Woolsey, the co-chair of the progressive caucus, told The Washington Independent. “We are introducing the public option now so it will be available as a ready-made offset or deficit reducer in this or the next Congress.”

Schakowsky argues that the lower overhead costs of government plans such as Medicare would allow the public option to create a better deal for consumers. “We could offer that kind of plan at a lower cost, and it would compete with private insurance companies, who would have to be more efficient and lower their costs,” she told TWI. “It would follow the same rules as private insurers.”

The measure is unlikely to reach the floor this year, and could face even steeper odds next Congress. If nothing else, it appears part of a concerted effort by Democrats to galvanize disenchanted progressives and attack Republicans ahead of the tough November midterm elections.

“You’re the deficit hawks,” said Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), referring primarily to Republicans, “and we’re giving you a tool to be able to deal with the deficit.” Grijalva labeled deficit-minded lawmakers who refuse to consider the public option “hypocrites,” alleging that “the excuse that it was going to be too expensive is phony.”

more...

http://washingtonindependent.com/92983/facing-steep-odds-128-house-democrats-revive-the-public-option

:thumbsup:

Why did you respond to me? :shrug:

Don't post if you don't want people to respond.

That's why he responded to you. He wanted to. Deal with it.

Why is that?

You don't think this is sweet?

Or was that just an unsubtle personal attack?

Yes, the last is just a rhetorical question.

:shrug:

I think it's terrific they're continuing to push for this. You don't?

n/t

eom

Spell it out, what's your issue with my response or do you just ask vapid questions for no apparent reason?

rotates in place. The House has been movin' n shakin', if they want to reintro the best part of the bill that got booted, they should do so, even if it looks like folly.

I think its a preapproved stunt in the face of the upcoming elections, but I still celebrate it.

or stunt they desire to undertake since they've passed something like 300 bills that the Senate is stalling.

That filibuster needs to be modified or it needs to go.

And I'm sorry, but the Dem Senators are little better than the the repubics. The filibuster stays .... why?

Because it gives cover to BOTH parties. It isn't about stopping legislation. It is about a single right wing agenda. I'm in a serious Fukemall mood about the Senate these days.

Wow. You must have a very short list of politicians that meet your exacting standards of genuinitude.

I knew the guy from up north did, but my guy hadn't as of two days ago. I've been composing a nastygram.

Now I'll have to send that nastygram somewhere else. I'm sure I'll be able to recycle it at some point.

Seriously, they need to push for this but "settle" for starting to reduce the Medicare eligibility age. A separate public plan would take years to set up and a lot of us haven't got those years.

At a quick glance, it looks like the Progressive Caucus constitutes the co-signers.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-5808


Here's a copy and paste of the sponsors listed at that link:


Rep. Lynn Woolsey D-CA6
Cosponsors:
Donna Christensen D-VI
Eleanor Norton D-DC
Gregorio Sablan D-MP
Gary Ackerman D-NY5
Robert Andrews D-NJ1
Tammy Baldwin D-WI2

Xavier Becerra D-CA31
Howard Berman D-CA28
Earl Blumenauer D-OR3
Leonard Boswell D-IA3
Corrine Brown D-FL3
Lois Capps D-CA23

Michael Capuano D-MA8
André Carson D-IN7
Judy Chu D-CA32
Yvette Clarke D-NY11
William Clay D-MO1
Emanuel Cleaver D-MO5

James Clyburn D-SC6
Steve Cohen D-TN9
John Conyers D-MI14
Elijah Cummings D-MD7
Danny Davis D-IL7
Susan Davis D-CA53

Peter DeFazio D-OR4
Diana DeGette D-CO1
William Delahunt D-MA10
Rosa DeLauro D-CT3
Ted Deutch D-FL19
Lloyd Doggett D-TX25

Michael Doyle D-PA14
Donna Edwards D-MD4
Keith Ellison D-MN5
Eliot Engel D-NY17
Anna Eshoo D-CA14
Sam Farr D-CA17

Chaka Fattah D-PA2
Bob Filner D-CA51
Barney Frank D-MA4
Marcia Fudge D-OH11
John Garamendi D-CA10
Alan Grayson D-FL8

Al Green D-TX9
Raymond Green D-TX29
Raul Grijalva D-AZ7
Luis Gutiérrez D-IL4
John Hall D-NY19
Phil Hare D-IL17

Jane Harman D-CA36
Alcee Hastings D-FL23
Brian Higgins D-NY27
Maurice Hinchey D-NY22
Mazie Hirono D-HI2
Rush Holt D-NJ12

Michael Honda D-CA15
Steve Israel D-NY2
Jesse Jackson D-IL2
Sheila Jackson-Lee D-TX18
Eddie Johnson D-TX30
Henry Johnson D-GA4

Marcy Kaptur D-OH9
Patrick Kennedy D-RI1
Dale Kildee D-MI5
Carolyn Kilpatrick D-MI13
Dennis Kucinich D-OH10
James Langevin D-RI2

John Larson D-CT1
Barbara Lee D-CA9
Sander Levin D-MI12
John Lewis D-GA5
Zoe Lofgren D-CA16
Nita Lowey D-NY18

Ben Luján D-NM3
Carolyn Maloney D-NY14
Edward Markey D-MA7
Doris Matsui D-CA5
Betty McCollum D-MN4
James McDermott D-WA7

James McGovern D-MA3
Michael Michaud D-ME2
George Miller D-CA7
Gwen Moore D-WI4
James Moran D-VA8
Christopher Murphy D-CT5

Jerrold Nadler D-NY8
Grace Napolitano D-CA38
James Oberstar D-MN8
John Olver D-MA1
Frank Pallone D-NJ6
Edward Pastor D-AZ4

Donald Payne D-NJ10
Chellie Pingree D-ME1
Jared Polis D-CO2
David Price D-NC4
Charles Rangel D-NY15
Laura Richardson D-CA37

Steven Rothman D-NJ9
Lucille Roybal-Allard D-CA34
Bobby Rush D-IL1
Timothy Ryan D-OH17
Linda Sánchez D-CA39
John Sarbanes D-MD3

Janice Schakowsky D-IL9
Adam Schiff D-CA29
Robert Scott D-VA3
José Serrano D-NY16
Carol Shea-Porter D-NH1
Brad Sherman D-CA27

Albio Sires D-NJ13
Louise Slaughter D-NY28
Jackie Speier D-CA12
Fortney Stark D-CA13
Bennie Thompson D-MS2
Michael Thompson D-CA1

John Tierney D-MA6
Paul Tonko D-NY21
Edolphus Towns D-NY10
Niki Tsongas D-MA5
Nydia Velázquez D-NY12
Maxine Waters D-CA35

Diane Watson D-CA33
Melvin Watt D-NC12
Henry Waxman D-CA30
Anthony Weiner D-NY9
Peter Welch D-VT
David Wu D-OR1

John Yarmuth D-KY3
Pedro Pierluisi D-PR

Edit to add Progressive Caucus link:
http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?ContentID=166&ParentID=0&SectionID=4&SectionTree=4&lnk=b&ItemID=164

keeps pressing.

My congresswoman is on that list. I am so proud of her. I think I'll go email her and tell her so.

Think I'll do the same.

good to see that we have at least a few serious, thinking pols.

By that I mean offer a competitive public option at the state level to be part of the exchange to be offered to the residents of those states offering it. I know it could be done in California after we get rid of Arnold.

I don't hold out a ton of hope beyond the house, given the nature of the Senate, but it's nice that they're trying.

Although it's certain to be killed (and vetoed if they miraculously pull it off).
Good for them.

The fight was abandoned when it mattered. There's an election coming up.