Health care reform in Giffords', Grijalva's words

by David Safier
I've spend a fair number of words criticizing Giffords, both for her vague stand on health care reform and for some of the roadblocks she and other Blue Dogs have erected in its path.

So in fairness, I'm going to give Giffords a chance to speak for herself, though a column that just appeared in The Explorer. She spends the first half of the column saying health care reform is long overdue. Then she gives her list of what we need.

We need reform that puts patients first. It is not right and not fair that insurance companies can deny coverage because of pre-existing conditions, or impose lifetime limits on service.

I support reform that allows Americans to keep their current health care program, keep their doctors and keep their hospitals.

I support reform that creates competition through a strong public option that lowers everyone's costs and competes with private insurers.

I support reform that allows Arizonans who lose their jobs to afford insurance so they can get back on their feet without fear of getting sick without medical care.

I support reform that will slow the growth of health care costs and does not impose new taxes or burdens on our nation's most valuable economic contributors, small businesses.

Once again, I'm somewhat encouraged by her words, particularly her stand on the public option. I want to believe the best, because I want a strong health care bill, and every vote counts. But once again, Giffords' words lack specifics, so I fear anyone who likes the idea of a public option can read into her words what they want to hear.

Waxman's Committee on Energy and Commerce has passed a bill which some think is an adequate compromise. Grijalva and the Progressive Caucus sent a letter to Pelosi saying, no, it isn't good enough because it "weakened the public plan and reduced subsidies." The letter goes on to say,

"Our continued support is contingent on a robust public plan, similar to what was reported out of the Committees of Ways and Means and Education and Labor. Those two committees outline a plan that brings down costs and improves quality, access and competition. Furthermore, the subsidies included in these bills must be restored, because without these subsidies, health insurance access for many low and middle income families will be effectively cut off. The final bill brought to the House Floor must include these provisions or we will oppose the bill."

By citing specific plans and explaining their weaknesses and strengths, Grijalva and the rest of the Progressive Caucus have laid out their positions pretty clearly. I would like to read Giffords' opinions of the plans, either from her or from a letter by the Blue Dogs, so I have some specifics to hang my hat on. Until we have actual votes, all we have are the Rep's words to judge them by. The more specific the language, the better we can understand their positions.