I recently wrote to Congressman Grijalva thanking him for his leadership on the health care public option, with a copy to the office of each Arizona Democrat in Congress.
I am writing to you directly to request that you publicly support a robust public option as part of the health care package.
I was extremely disappointed to see your signature on the July 9 letter supporting Mike Ross' Blue Dog position. The letter made very little sense, except as an attempt to sabotage the public option. It is unreasonable to expect the public option to be "budget neutral," and at the same time pay asking rates to health care providers. I heard Mike Ross on NPR the other day attempting to explain this position. He sounded foolish and disingenuous.
I understand that the term "budget neutral" has been adopted as a code word for delaying implementation so that rosy economic assumptions will appear to pay for the program within the ten year budget window. Delaying implementation of a poorly constructed program is not responsible budgeting. In any event, this delay in implementation is no more acceptable than the so-called "trigger" proposals.
I hope that you have had an opportunity in the last week or so to further refine your position on this issue. I think we are in agreement that the primary purpose of a public option is to cut overall costs. In some cases that will mean not just adminsitrative costs, but also pushing hard for lower rates from providers. I fully expect that providers will be in a position to work with the government program on rates, in light of the fact that they will have far fewer non-paying patients.
As you know, critical decisions on the health care bill are being made over the next few days. Please join Representative Grijalva and make it clear to the caucus leadership and the committee leadership that a bill without a robust public option is unacceptable.