Awhile back I reported something from Daily Kos which suggested that Congresswoman Nydia Velasquez, someone I know and respect, was either uncommitted on or leaning against the Public Option for healthcare reform. In this she was being listed among many Blue Dog Democrats who are, in general, far more conservative than she is. By contrast Jerrold Nadler and Anthony Weiner have been leading the charge for healthcare reform. I wondered about this and wrote an appeal to her on Daily Gotham (with arguements quoted below). I also contacted Nydia's office to ask for clarification. I have gotten a response from a Velázquez spokesperson that suggests Congresswoman Velasquez has decided to side with Nadler and Weiner and not the Blue Dogs on the public option:

“Congresswoman Velázquez supports a public plan option. As the Chairwoman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and a member of the Progressive Caucus, she has long advocated for reforms that will ensure all Americans have affordable health insurance coverage.”

Now we just need to get Congressional Rep. Mike McMahon on board. He is playing the Blue Dog tactic of saying we have to wait for reform, which makes no sense since we have been waiting for decades and the system remains broken. I opposed Mike McMahon in the Dem primary, but have been supportive of him since he won. He has taken some good positions and, given that he comes from a relatively conservative district, has been voting well. But healthcare reform is a critical issue that we can't delay on. So let's work on Mike McMahon and get him on board behind our President on healthcare reform.

Here are the key points I posted before arguing for the Public Option:

From the Congressional Progressive Caucus (via the Daily Kos article):

The Congressional Progressive Caucus calls for a robust public option that must:

* Enact concurrently with other significant expansions of coverage and must not be conditioned on private industry actions.
* Consist of one entity, operated by the federal government, which sets policies and bears the risk for paying medical claims to keep administrative costs low and provide a higher standard of care.
* Be available to all individuals and employers across the nation without limitation
* Allow patients to have access to their choice of doctors and other providers that meet defined participation standards, similar to the traditional Medicare model, promote the medical home model, and eliminate lifetime caps on benefits.
* Have the ability to structure the provider rates to promote quality care, primary care, prevention, chronic care management, and good public health.
* Utilize the existing infrastructure of successful public programs like Medicare in order to maintain transparency and consumer protections for administering processes including payment systems, claims and appeals.
* Establish or negotiate rates with pharmaceutical companies, durable medical equipment providers, and other providers to achieve the lowest prices for consumers.
* Receive a level of subsidy and support that is no less than that received by private plans.
* Ensure premiums must be priced at the lowest levels possible, not tied to the rates of private insurance plans.

In conclusion, the public plan, like all other qualified plans, must redress historical disparities in underrepresented communities. It must provide a standard package of comprehensive benefits including dental, vision, mental health and prescription drug coverage with no pre-existing condition exclusions. It must limit cost-sharing so that there are no barriers to care, and incorporate up-to-date best practice models to improve quality and lower costs. All plans, including the public plan, must include coverage for evidence-based preventive health services at minimal or no co-pay. All plans, including the public plan, should be at least as transparent as traditional Medicare.

Bouldin previously linked to Nadler's piece supporting the public option that also gives a good arguement. Also, 75% of Americans support a public option.