Congressional Reaction to Obama's Health Care Speech

Here's my congressperson, Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO), agreeing with President Obama that doing nothing is not an option, but:

I agree with the President that consumers do better when there is choice and competition. The best way to achieve this is by offering a strong public option that will not only bring down rising costs, but will also ensure competition and transparency among private companies within the insurance Exchange. No one will be forced into the public option, but they will have that choice as an affordable alternative.”

(Received by e-mail, no link yet.)How is your Congressperson responding?

< Post-Health Care Speech Thread | The President's Plan >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 08:53:41 PM EST
    I like what your rep says. Mine is a knee jerker who hates anything Obama does but when Bush did the same things he was okay with them. The only thing that might make him vote for the bill is the fact that he's one of the top recipients of insurance lobbyist money in congress.

    DeGette has been stronger on PO lately (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by magster on Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 09:11:41 PM EST
    I wonder if the progressives are emboldening each other and might actually hold firm...

    Probably not, but a guy can dream.

    My rep is Nancy Pelosi (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by s5 on Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 09:37:03 PM EST
    So I'm guessing her reaction was fairly positive.

    Throw'um Under the Bus (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by TexasYellowDog on Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 10:40:20 PM EST

    "...creating a new insurance exchange - a marketplace where individuals and small businesses will be able to shop for health insurance at competitive prices." *

    In other words we will take the citizens with the least money and the most problems, through them into a lifeboat together, and tell them to take care of themselves.

    *Competitive prices not defined.

    From Raul Grijalva, co-chair of the CPC (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by s5 on Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 11:17:50 PM EST
    Sorry for the long paste but I thought this should be noted.

    Raul Grijalva is co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

    Washington, D.C.--Congressman Raúl M. Grijalva released the following statement this evening, concerning the President's address to Congress on health care reform:

    "I am pleased that President Obama made the right choice to recognize the importance of a public option as part of the health care reform legislation.

    "A public option is the most effective way to achieve our goals of controlling costs, eliminating abuses of patients by insurance company abuses, and providing quality health care to all.

    "However, the President needs to be more direct on what the public option means and what it will do for the American people.

    "President Obama was elected to bring change and progress. I fear that if my party and the President do not appreciate the mandate the American people have given us, the people will lose confidence in the idea that they can vote for change and get what they voted for.

    "We in the majority must have the courage to do what is in our power to do, and pass a bill that guarantees access to affordable, quality health care.

    "Doing nothing is not an option. That is why I oppose efforts to delay and kill real reform with a so-called "trigger". We cannot wait and just hope that the insurance companies will develop a conscience.

    "The defenders of the way things are want to diminish and destroy the public option because they fear it will be effective. A national insurance plan would have the bargaining power to get lower drug prices and better deals with health providers.

    "We cannot rely solely on the insurance companies' good faith efforts to provide for our constituents. A robust public option is essential, if we are to ensure that all Americans can receive healthcare that is accessible, guaranteed and of high-quality.  Health insurance reform is an investment in our future that we cannot afford not to make."

    Story on Politico (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 12:32:16 AM EST
    this evening -- here -- about how Grijalva and co-chair Woolsey are pretty PO'd about Obama right now.  Gajalva says he thinks he "miscalculated" about how liberal Obama actually is.

    At least they are waking up (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by FreakyBeaky on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 01:12:15 AM EST
    Like Woolsey, I did not miscalculate.  

    By 'POed' you mean 'Public Optioned', right? :)  


    heh... (none / 0) (#14)
    by weltec2 on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 05:43:17 AM EST
    I have to disagree. (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by lentinel on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 04:49:51 AM EST
    Doing nothing might be an excellent option.

    I thought this was interesting... (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 10:15:41 AM EST
    From the blast e-mail last night, right above POTUS signature:  

    P.S. -- One of the folks in the audience tonight was your Senator, Michael Bennet. Since arriving in Congress, Senator Bennet has shown his commitment to real, sensible reform, working with me toward the same goals I outlined this evening -- and I want to thank him for his leadership on this issue. He's traveled all across the state of Colorado, holding town hall meetings in small towns and big cities, and he hasn't stopped standing up for real health reform that will get our economy moving again and help to bring the deficit under control.

    Somebody reaaaally doesn't want Romanoff to primary Bennet, IMO.

    Blue Dogs and repulicants (none / 0) (#3)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 09:21:46 PM EST
    here, who would fight Obama if he supported a 'the sun comes up in the east' resolution.

    I like that (none / 0) (#13)
    by weltec2 on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 05:42:14 AM EST

    The Blade Runner ref is helpful... I just always feel that there is another element that is just...


    trojan horse (none / 0) (#5)
    by diogenes on Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 10:08:48 PM EST
    "...but they will have that choice as an affordable alternative."

    The only way to ensure that the choice is AFFORDABLE is to give the public option federal subsidies or have the federal government regulate what private insurers can charge (thus driving them out of the market if the "affordable" charges are too lower to cover expenses).

    This would be a bad thing because ...? <n/t> (none / 0) (#10)
    by FreakyBeaky on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 01:06:42 AM EST
    McDermott's statement: (none / 0) (#9)
    by shoephone on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 12:59:30 AM EST
    "The President affirmed tonight that our government has a role and responsibility to serve as a check and balance in America's health care system. The insurance companies cannot be allowed any longer to go without competition, and the president presented a plan to provide the American people with fundamental health security guarantees. He insisted that there be prohibitions against current practices that deny or withdraw coverage when people need it most. He went on to affirm that there would be a competitive public plan to force the insurance companies to be accountable for their cost, thus insuring that costs would come down. The president drew a line in the sand that said no American should be forced to go broke in the richest nation on earth because they get sick."

    (Bolding is mine.)

    McDermott was the only WA politician, so far, to even mention the words "public plan". He is following the caucus strategy of pushing the public option to the forefront, and intimating that Obama is all for it so let's get it done.

    Governor Gregoire's and Senator Murray's statements were really anemic and generic. They mimicked Obama's themes of "security and stability" -- obviously, the WH sent out talking points to all the Dems.

    Senator Cantwell is still MIA, as she has been since the beginning of August. Pathetic.