Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva, co-chairman of the 80-member House Progessive Caucus, reiterated his position that any health care legislation needs to include a government plan to be meaningful.
Asked to react to the passage of the Senate Finanance Committee bill earlier today, Grijalva’s office emailed me the following statement, attributed to the congressman:
“While I applaud the Finance Committee for completing its work on the bill, I remain concerned that it does not include a robust public option. I remain committed to getting the best bill in the House that we can get so that we have a strong negotiating position in conference. Today’s Senate action does not reflect the country’s high approval ratings for a public option, and I believe that any meaningful health care reform must include that vital element to increase access and bring down costs.”
This raises a few questions. Could liberals insist that a House bill includes a government plan, but ultimately compromise when the bill is being reconciled with the Senate version? And will Blue Dogs stay united to block liberals from even being able to get a government plan passed in the House?
