The Least, First

Monte Asbury's blog

Sen. Grassley: “Bipartisan” means “no public option”

with 8 comments

WASHINGTON - OCTOBER 03:  Sen. Chuck Grassley ...
Image by Getty Images via Daylife

Aw, c’mon, Senator.

72% of Americans want health care reform to include a “public option.” Nearly three-fourths of the nation.  Including more than half of all Republicans.

Sen. Grassley, however, insists that the  “public option” must be killed if there is to be a “bipartisan” bill.

But wait.  Isn’t America already bipartisan on this?  Even Iowans, Mr. Grassley’s constituents, support a public option 56% to 37%.

Mr. Grassley wants the Senate to ignore what a bipartisan majority of American people want in order to get what a minority of U.S. Senators want.

Ah.  Then, he’d maintain, we’d have something bipartisan. In Washington. Hooray for that.

clipped from

Grassley: In Order For Health Care To Be ‘Bipartisan, ‘We Need To Make Sure There Is No Public Option’

On MSNBC this morning, Norah O’Donnell asked Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, “what needs to be in” a health care reform bill “for it to be bipartisan.” After saying it needs to be paid for, Grassley declared, “We need to make sure that there’s no public option.” When O’Donnell double-checked that Grassley was saying that a public option was a dealbreaker for Republicans, he replied, “Absolutely.” Watch it:

By claiming that a public option would destroy bipartisanship, Grassley is ignoring the preferences of a strong majority of Americans. Earlier this week, a New York Times/CBS News poll found that a public health insurance option (which would lower costs and improve quality) is supported by 72 percent of Americans, including 50 percent of Republicans.
56 percent of Iowans support creation of a public plan, 37 percent oppose
blog it

By the way,  Senator Grassley is the 6th-largest recipient of health care industry money in the U.S. Senate.

Looks like the industry’s getting what it wants from Mr. Grassley.

Looks like Americans—and Iowans—aren’t.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

8 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. […] Sen. Grassley: “Bipartisan” means “no public option” ( […]

    Telling the Expedient Lie

    September 1, 2009 at 9:43 am

  2. […] Sen. Grassley: “Bipartisan” means “no public option” ( […]

  3. […] Sen. Grassley: “Bipartisan” means “no public option” ( […]

  4. […] Sen. Grassley: “Bipartisan” means “no public option” ( […]

  5. Unless you follow the money, you won’t get his stand. Unless you EXPOSE the money, neither will your fans: According to, which follows Money And Politics, Sen. Grassley has received $1.5 million in campaign contributions from health-related industries that could be hurt by a public option.

    His bi-partisan colleague on this, Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT), received $2.5 million from the same corporate interests. The Billings Gazette reportedly found that Baucus raises $1,500 a DAY from the medical-industrial complex, more than any other Democratic senator.

    He’s collecting it even as he forges the legislation that could protect or hurt them. Does anyone think he is NOT on the phone asking those private health care institutions what they can live with until the heat is off, and how to placate the public while minimizing loss of profits to his fiscal benefactors?

    Conflict of interest doesn’t get more blatant than this. As you can see, these lawmakers have to choose between their voting constituencies and the private interests that finance every election – in effect, their very careers. It’s easy when voters aren’t paying attention, but on this front-page issue both Grassley and Baucus are walking a tightrope.

    Their constituents have to ask them publicly and often: How can they possibly work for what 72% of the public wants when they are indentured servants to their perennial sponsors?

    Dale Mead

    June 29, 2009 at 6:32 pm

    • A very good question – thanks! Senator Grassley has to decide whether to protect the insurance industry or the voters, and the industry pays his campaign bills. At the moment, it appears they’re getting plenty of bang for their buck.

      It could be the beginning of his demise.


      June 30, 2009 at 2:33 pm

  6. Good blog! I


    June 26, 2009 at 5:52 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: