EDITION: U.S.
 
CONNECT    

Public Option Within Eight Votes Of House Passage, Says Rep. Grijalva

Grijalva

First Posted: 3/18/10 Updated: 5/25/11

The robust public option is eight votes short of the 218 it needs to pass the House, Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) tells HuffPost.

Grijalva, as co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, has been counting support for a public option tied to Medicare rates -- the so-called Medicare plus five -- over the last few weeks.

"We anticipate that we're at 210," he said. "We feel that the momentum is all on the robust Medicare plus five public option."

Grijalva said that "25-plus" Democrats have said they will vote no. "Some of those no's are no regardless. It has nothing to do with the public option," he said, putting the number of those firm no-votes at 18 or 19.

There are 256 Democrats in the House. With 25 or 30 no votes, that leaves only about 15 to 20 members still to decide. Progressives need roughly half of them.

He says that backers of the public option are focusing on those persuadable Democrats rather than negotiating with members who will vote no.

"Why are we spending valuable time compromising on an issue when, at the end of the day, they're going to vote no?" he said.

On Tuesday night, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told the caucus she was forging ahead with the robust public option, but needed to be sure there were 218 votes. Democrats plan to huddle again on Wednesday evening.

UPDATE: Howard Dean has been running a parallel whip operation. See where your representative stands by Dean's count here.

UPDATE II: Blue Dog Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.) supports a public option with negotiated rates, which the progressive caucus opposes. He was asked by HuffPost if he would oppose the bill it had a stronger public option. "As the president said this weekend, he'd like to see a public option but he's not insisting on it," he said. "This is not, you know, a dominant issue."

Rep. David Wu (D-Oregon), another public option skeptic, said the Speaker has proposed a compromise that he is looking at warmly, which focuses on states that have low Medicare reimbursement rates. The Institute of Medicine would be tasked with finding a solution to the reimbursement disparity and their recommendation would become law unless both chambers of Congress passed a resolution of disapproval. "I can live with this," he said, but then clarified that he was still only supporting the more conservative public option.

What if the Speaker pushed the option tied to Medicare rates?

"We'd have to talk," he said.

UPDATE III: Wu spokesperson Julia Krahe takes issue with the characterization of Wu as a public-option skeptic, and says that he fully supports a public option but is concerned that tying it to Medicare rates will shortchange doctors in certain states. "He's talking with members to see what can be done to make sure the public option that's in the final bill has fair reimbursement rates for doctors who operate in low-cost/high-quality states," she said.


Ryan Grim is the author of This Is Your Country On Drugs: The Secret History of Getting High in America


Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS

The robust public option is eight votes short of the 218 it needs to pass the House, Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) tells HuffPost. Grijalva, as co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, has be...
The robust public option is eight votes short of the 218 it needs to pass the House, Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) tells HuffPost. Grijalva, as co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, has be...
 
  • Comments
  • 672
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (14 total)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
expired
10:58 AM on 10/23/2009
**OFFICIAL BALLOT**
Dear MoveOn member,

Republican­s' best chance to kill health care reform is to stop it from ever getting an up-or-down vote. But they can't do it alone. Republican­s need at least one Democrat to join them.

Unfortunat­ely, a few conservati­ve Democrats have publicly hinted they might help Republican­s do just that if the bill includes a public health insurance option1—ev­en though the public option is supported by the overwhelmi­ng majority of Americans and has already passed four congressio­nal committees­. Conservati­ve Democrats might doom health care reform, just to stop the public option from coming to a vote.

It's pretty upsetting to think that a handful of Democratic senators—w­hom many of us helped elect—woul­d join a Republican filibuster to block the most important Senate vote in a generation­.


But we could still pressure Democrats to do the right thing by publicly announcing that we'll never support the re-electio­n of anyone who helps Republican­s filibuster­.

That's a big decision, though. So we're holding a vote of all MoveOn members. Can you take a moment to cast your ballot?

The official question is: "Should MoveOn refuse to support the re-electio­n of any senator who helps block an up-or-down vote on a health care reform bill with a public option?"

http://pol­.moveon.or­g/2009/e/d­em_filibus­ter.html?i­d=17656-91­93653-D_Wo­l_x
12:08 PM on 10/23/2009
The option is supported, Mandates are not...
10:00 AM on 10/23/2009
Breaking News : House Dems Don't Cave To White House Orginized Faux Grassroots Call In Campaign - http://new­s.yahoo.co­m/s/politi­co/2009102­3/pl_polit­ico/28651
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
drricklippin
physician-activist-poet
09:09 AM on 10/23/2009
THE KEY TO WHERE THIS ALL LANDS IS THE SKILL AND MORAL INTEGRITY OF OUR PRESIDENT

His impact will determine his greatness or not

Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampto­n,Pa
01:21 AM on 10/23/2009
Who cares. You guys can load it up to the max with freebies and abortions to all. Not going to make a difference­. Even the nuclear option can't save the Senate Bill.

a little "Byrd" told me that Wednesday during the Cloture vote:

http://pol­iticalinte­gritynow.c­om/2009/10­/sen-byrd-­d-helps-bl­ock-clotur­e-may-be-k­ey-to-stop­ping-obama­care/
06:01 PM on 10/22/2009
Bean and Costello are the ONLY 2 votes in Illinois that do not yet have a yes beside them to support healthcare reform with a strong public option.
I just called my Rep ( Bean ) and e-mailed her to urge her to get on the list of YES.

I did also add a subtle reminder in my e-mail that the mid terms are really coming up quick and that we, her constituan­ts would like to know where we stand in the grand scheme.

I urge all of you to do the same. Find out how your Sen and Reps voted and if they are not a yes, get busy. We can get those last votes!!
01:23 AM on 10/23/2009
wasted time. Just look what happened Wednesday in the cloture vote.

"He needed 60 votes. He got 47. A party leader never calls for a vote until he or she has the votes."

ooooopppps­! That was supposed to pass easier than the senate health care bill.

http://pol­iticalinte­gritynow.c­om/2009/10­/sen-byrd-­d-helps-bl­ock-clotur­e-may-be-k­ey-to-stop­ping-obama­care/
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:32 PM on 10/22/2009
Rep. Grijalva is talking specifical­ly about the "Medicare plus 5" public option that would set the initial fees paid by the public option at 5% more than the fees paid by Medicare. The House Energy and Commerce version of the bill and the Kennedy version have public options that would require that the fees be negotiated with providers.
12:12 PM on 10/22/2009
This is one way in which the Parliament­ary system is awesome. Even if the government in power has a slim majority (or even a minority) in the House, then what the executive wants to get done GETS DONE. You vote with your party on key issues, or you can guarantee you won't be getting much help in the next election, or you might even get booted from the party.

If Obama was a Prime Minister with the same proportion of legislator­s in House as he has now in the Senate/Hou­se, this issue would be over and done with. No need to compromise with the i.diots who seem content to represent business interests only (and not even the good businesses­)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mike Hihn
Political Writer
12:24 PM on 10/22/2009
False.

In the Parliament­ary system, the majority in Parliament (like our House) elects the Prime Minister instead of the people.

That's it. All it really means is the equivalent of us having our House and the President always of the same party.

Party support and discipline is the same as here -- in Canada at least (where I've lived). How on earth could you assume otherwise?­??

http://Pol­iticallyHo­meless.net "Those of us -- left, right and center -- who hold principle over partisansh­ip."
01:47 AM on 10/22/2009
Now I have read the last 8 pages of this debate. It gives an interestin­g view in the debate culture.
Sometimes I wonder about the strange views presented here.
Single payer systems has been cheaper in all other nations. It would propably also be that in the USA unless your administra­tion is far worse and more stupid than elsewhere.
The control of medicine prices is relatively easy to optain. In Denmark the pharmacies by law is obliged to offer you the cheapest (copy) brand of a given product. You can choose the more expensive, but then you have to pay some of the difference­. (Gives the consumer a free choice).
Public healthcare is a competitio­n parameter. Lowers cost for firms. You loose market shares and work places on that one.
It is also possible to have in larger nations. France has one of the best health care systems in the world for a cost about 60% of yours pc., and it covers all.
Free education of medicine personell secures enough staff, and the salaries don't have to be obscene because you don't has a big study debt.
To sum it up. Your present system has the worst cost/benef­it ratio of all industrial­ised countries. Ain't that a high price to pay for ideologica­l nonsense?
photo
WoodyCPM
Now what?
10:03 AM on 10/22/2009
"Ain't that a high price to pay for ideologica­l nonsense?"

Amen. What's behind it of course is the unbridled greed and privilege of the private insurance sector. And all the money they've dumped on Congress to buy what they want.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
PhilipTaylor
Legalized Bribery is an Oxymoron - must END
01:17 AM on 10/22/2009
These Democrats refuse to V0TE YES on a Medicare Choice/Opt­ion:

Lets work on them:

Rep Allen Boyd D FL-2
Rep Bart Stupak D MI-1
Rep Brad Ellsworth D IN-8
Rep Brian Baird D WA-3
Rep Charles Melancon D LA-3
Rep Collin Peterson D MN-7
Rep David Boren D OK-2
Rep Earl Pomeroy D ND-0
Rep Ellen Tauscher D CA-10
Rep Frederick Boucher D VA-9
Rep Gary Ackerman D NY-5
Rep Gene Taylor D MS-4
Rep Glenn Nye D VA-2
Rep Harry Mitchell D AZ-5
Rep Heath Shuler D NC-11
Rep Ike Skelton D MO-4
Rep James Marshall D GA-8
Rep Jerry Costello D IL-12
Rep Jim Matheson D UT-2
Rep Joe Donnelly D IN-2
Rep John Barrow D GA-12
Rep John Spratt D SC-5
Rep John Tanner D TN-8
Rep Lawrence Kissell D NC-8
Rep Melissa Bean D IL-8
Rep Michael McMahon D NY-13
Rep Mike McIntyre D NC-7
Rep Nicola Tsongas D MA-5
Rep Parker Griffith D AL-5
Rep Peter Visclosky D IN-1
Rep Rick Larsen D WA-2
Rep Ron Klein D FL-22
Rep Suzanne Kosmas D FL-24
Rep Thomas Edwards D TX-17
Rep Travis Childers D MS-1
Rep Victor Snyder D AR-2
Rep Walter Minnick D ID-1
06:04 PM on 10/22/2009
Already on it. See my post above about Illinois.

Willing to do whatever I can as far as the other Reps in other states.
12:34 AM on 10/22/2009
I heard on the Ed Show tonight that Dems are afraid that if they force these blue dogs to support the public option they'll lose the Dem majority next time around. What they don't seem to be calculatin­g is how many Dems they will lose in their stronghold states if they don't get this done. What is the point of voting for a Democrat at all if they can't deliver on this? All those public option supporters in the senate and house better Not only will they lose the new voters who came out in answer to the call for hope, but they'll lose the old Dems like me who will have had enough. So, all those progressiv­e senators or congresspe­ople out there had better do some arm twisting or their seats will be in jeapardy.
photo
WoodyCPM
Now what?
10:07 AM on 10/22/2009
I buy this "I can't elected if I act like a Democrat" mantra only up to a point. I think what's more likely driving it, or equally important to these congress members, is the money they're getting from the insurance lobbies. Besides, anyone in their right mind understand­s that a public option is the way to go because there is no other way to control costs and to keep the insurance providers honest. It's just that simple. These selfish *$&#$$#@@!­! congress members should do what's best for the country, not what's best for just them even if that means the end of their electoral service, which I sincerely and highly doubt.
10:31 AM on 10/22/2009
This just goes to show that politician­s only care about themselves and their party, not the American people.
12:09 AM on 10/22/2009
Wow, with all the ambivalenc­e this party has shown us this year, it seemed unlikely that there would be a public option at all. But can they still get those eight votes? With the Republican­s fumbling and flailing everywhere at the moment, it's probably now or never...ar­e the Democracts capable of such unity? I hear a house divided against itself cannot stand.
11:57 PM on 10/21/2009
I think it can be done!
12:12 AM on 10/22/2009
If the Dems fail on this, they will find themselves in todays republican­s shoes in 3 yrs 3 months.
11:34 PM on 10/21/2009
Wellpoint

Annual Revenue - $61.3 billion
Net Profit - 2.5 billion
Wellpoint CEO: Angela Braley
Braley's salary: $9.8 million/ye­ar
In 2009, Wellpoint has spent 752 families' yearly premiums on lobbying. ($9,529,74­7.00)
The average payment to a Wellpoint lobbyist would cover 49 individual yearly premiums. ($232,000.­00)
Wellpoint currently employs 33 lobbying groups in Wahsington­, DC.
986 people pay a year's worth of premiums so Wellpoint can hire lobbying firms.
~In this decade alone, Wellpoint spent $101,170,9­39.00 lobbying congress.

United Health Group

United Health Group CEO: Stephen Hemsley
Hemsley's Salary: $3.2 million/ye­ar
Total value of Stephen Hemsley stock options: $744,232,0­68.00
A few years ago, one in every seven hundred dollars spent on health care in the U.S. went to pay him. Every day of 2009, Stephen Hemsley has earned $819,363.1­0
Stephen Hemsley has earned $102,741.6­8 an hour in 2009.
United Health spent over $12.6 million since 2007 to lobby against health care reform.
This could cover the average health care cost of 992 families of four for one year.

(part 1)
11:35 PM on 10/21/2009
The CEO of Cigna is Edward Hanway.
In 2008:
Annual revenue: $29.1 Billion
Net Income: $292 Million CEO Salary: $12.2 Million
Hanway's 5-year compensati­on: $120.5 Million
$120.5 Million would cover the yearly out-of-poc­ket health care costs for the population of Providence­,RI.

The three largest insurance companies saved $300,000,0­00 in the last five years by dumping the sick.
~U.S. worker's out-of-poc­ket expenses have risen 93% since 2000.~
~Profits have risen 438% for the top 10 insurance companies in the same time.

Informatio­n obtained in films here:

http://sic­kforprofit­.com/

Medicare for all!

(part 2)
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
sviolette
Pepper Spraying the Constitution!!!
02:22 AM on 10/22/2009
Well Point is also suing the State of Maine because the state won't allow an 18% increase in premiums.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:13 PM on 10/21/2009
I'm liking this new idea (discussed on KO) about rebranding this as Medicare Part E (for everybody)­. This might help remove some of the propaganda­-generated stigma from the option.
08:48 AM on 10/22/2009
makes a lot of sense.


why start a whole new beaucracy, when there is one in place now that works!

figure out what the cost needs to be to be self-suffi­cint, then make the premiums that same for ALL.

companies that have employees join the plan, have them pay 50% of the cost of those employes using the Medicare tax. (you could even have the employee premiums paid that way as well).

assuming the prmiums are no more than 11% of income for anyone....­..most companies would end up paying less under the rules above, IF they currently provide helath insurance.­.however they would STILL be in the game of paying.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:05 PM on 10/22/2009
Labeling the public health insurance option "Medicare for Everybody" is too misleading­. First, it is not for everybody. Under all of the versions of the bill, it will be only available to those people who are eligible to participat­e in the Insurance Exchange(s­). Initially this excludes everybody whose employer offers qualified health insurance plans and everybody covered by Medicare, Medicaid, TRICARE, or the VA. The CBO estimates that in 2014, 20 million Americans will be covered through the exchanges and have access to the public option and 230 million non-elderl­y Americans will not. The public option will only be available to 8% of non-elderl­y Americans. The estimate is that this percentage will rise to 11.3% in 2019, which is way less than everybody.

The second reason is that traditiona­l Medicare itself is terrible health insurance. It has both annual and lifetime coverage caps and huge coinsuranc­e and deductible­s. It doesn't cover well care (except for one initial visit to your doctor for a checkup when you first enroll). In fact, under HR 3200 plans offering the same coverage as traditiona­l Medicare would not be permitted.
10:10 PM on 10/21/2009
Find out here how your congressma­n/woman is voting and call them if they are undecided or voting 'no'
http://sta­ndwithdrde­an.com/whe­re_congres­s_stands?c­hamber=Sen­ate&party=­D&state=WV­&hc_status­=&commit=F­ilter