HEALTH

'Public Option' Lives In The House, With 125 Co-Sponsors

Updated: February 7, 2011 | 1:11 p.m.
July 22, 2010

Even in a summer of healthcare fatigue, a coalition of House Democrats plans to introduce legislation Thursday to establish a government-run "public option" that would be available to consumers in the overhaul law's insurance exchanges.

Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., a longtime leader in efforts to include a public option in healthcare reform, said her bill currently has 125 co-sponsors and is similar to legislation that was passed by the House Education and Labor Committee during the healthcare debate.

"We've tweaked it so [the public option] fits in the exchanges," said Woolsey.

The legislation pegs public option reimbursement rates to 5 percent above Medicare rates. Woolsey said the CBO has scored her new bill and it "scores better" than the original public option included in the House's healthcare bill.

Woolsey emphasized the new public option legislation would help cut the deficit and save money.

"Do we expect to vote on it this Congress? No, but we're ready," said Woolsey. "And what will we use it for? Do you want to cut the deficit? Do you want to have pay-fors, and ooh, competition to the insurance companies? Fiscally, it gives us a place to save and cut."

Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., a co-sponsor and co-chairman of the Progressive Caucus, acknowledged that the bill did not have much of a chance of passing in this Congress.

"We know that the session is probably winding down, but we want to set the table for its discussion in the future," said Grijalva, who noted that removal of the public option from the bill was the "biggest loss" the House faced when voting on the Senate-passed healthcare overhaul bill.

"By reintroducing it, we make sure that people don't forget this is a viable option," he said. "I think as the health bill is implemented, more and more people are going to come to the realization that cost containment and competition aren't as robust as they should be, because of the absence of the public option."

This article appeared in the Saturday, July 24, 2010 edition of National Journal Daily.

Want to stay ahead of the curve? Sign up for National Journal’s AM & PM Must Reads. News and analysis to ensure you don’t miss a thing.

Join the Discussion
The National Journal Group has the right (but not the obligation) to monitor the comments and to remove any materials it deems inappropriate.
Comments powered by Disqus
Follow National Journal
  • NationalJournal on Twitter
  • NationalJournal on Facebook
  • NationalJournal on Tumblr
  • NationalJournal's RSS Feeds
  • NationalJournal's Email Newsletters
  • NationalJournal on iPhone and iPad
COLUMNS
Gwen Ifill: Gwen's Take

Election 2012 – Managing Alternatives

5:06 p.m.

In politics, the language of choice often comes loaded. School choice. Abortion rights. Public option. Proponents embrace these descriptions to put the best possible face on otherwise contentious issues. This was one of the weeks when the politics of alternatives defined the debate. 

Charlie Cook: Charlie Cook's The Cook Report

Right and Wrong

2:00 p.m.
A prolonged race could force Mitt Romney to tack even more to the right, which would hurt him in November.
Reid Wilson: On the Trail

The Case for Renewed Reform

9:30 p.m.
After some embarrassing flubs, caucus states could soon become a thing of the past.
More Columns »
EXPERT OPINIONS
Transportation Experts

Now We're Getting Political

50 minutes ago

Latest Response by Emil H. Frankel: Enactment Depends on Better Choices

National Security Experts

Should the U.S. End the Combat Mission in Afghanistan in 2013?

12:08 p.m.

Latest Response by James Jay Carafano: War by Calendar

Energy Experts

What's Driving Energy Production?

11:35 a.m.

Latest Response by Dan Yates: Level the Playing Field for Efficiency

More Expert Opinions »