In March, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) raised eyebrows when he urged opponents of health care reform to continue lying about the consequences of comparative effectiveness research and electronic medical records. Since then, the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee has adopted the rhetoric of the far right, routinely referring to health care reform as a government takeover of health care, disingenuously misrepresenting reform legislation, and even going so far as to endorse and sign a copy of Glenn Beck’s book.

The Wonk Room has compiled a list of Grassley’s most egregious misrepresentations and will continue monitoring and fact checking Grassley’s statements throughout the reform process. Read the full document HERE.

This afternoon, during an appearance on Fox News’ America’s Newsroom, Grassley remained unapologetic for suggesting that the federal government would “pull the plug on grandma.” Instead, Grassley blamed Democrats for his statements, suggesting that they were “diverting attention” from the health bill:

I’m not going to do anything with a health care bill that puts a government bureaucrat, or any government policy making a determination about whether or not we are going to value life and the end of life any more than at age 30 or 20…all of their proposal with end of life are connected in the bill with ways of saving money and takeover of national health care…the Lewin think tank in Washington says that 120 million people are going to crowd out into that plan.

Watch it:

But Grassley’s rant is entirely false. In trying to defend himself from accusations that he was misrepresenting the end-of-life provisions, Grassley doubled down on his false claim that “government policy” would determine the value of life. He echoed Betsy McCaughey’s assertion that “end of life are connected in the bill with ways of saving money” and completely misrepresented the findings of the Lewin report. (Lewin did not study the House bill, as Grassley implied.)

Given Grassley’s long history of obstructing health care reform, “President Obama and Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) should stop courting Grassley’s vote.” As Steve Benen has pointed out, “negotiating with Grassley in good faith is a mistake. Grassley isn’t serious about reform…It’s time to stop trying. Grassley will only let down reform advocates in the end.”

Including sound Republican ideas is far different from succumbing to disingenuous attacks designed to defeat honest negotiations. If Democrats resort to the latter and work to satisfy stone-throwing Republican lawmakers from small states, they will abandon their principles and wholly disappoint the overwhelming majority of Americans. After all, the country would have “never gotten Medicare 40 years ago if everyone had waited for the conservative Republicans to join on board.”

Read some of Grassley’s greatest hits HERE.

Since the administration suggested that it’s not committed to a “robust” public health insurance option, supporters of Sen. Kent Conrad’s (D-ND) co-op compromise have argued that a member-driven cooperative could achieve the goals of the public option and appease conservatives weary of increasing the government’s involvement in the health care system. But this morning, Conrad conceded that the co-ops would not lower health care costs:

ROBERTS: What would they do to reduce costs? Because that is one of the central issues of health care reform.

CONRAD: Well, the important thing is they’d provide more competition. … Beyond that, I think it’s very important not to over-promise here. [...]

ROBERTS: So nothing really in driving down the costs of service then?

CONRAD: Uhhh, no. If you believe competition helps drive down costs, then they would certainly contribute to holding down costs.

Watch it:

Indeed, small member-driven cooperatives would lack all of the advantages of a Medicare-like public health insurance option. Without relying on Medicare’s reach and infrastructure, a network of co-ops could not: 1) achieve the market clout necessary to to negotiate better rates with providers, 2) change the way care is delivered and 3) lower the costs of medical services. “It’s very difficult to start up a new insurance company and break into markets where insurers are very established,” said Paul B. Ginsburg, president of the Center for Studying Health System Change. “I don’t see how they’re going to obtain a large enough market share … to make a difference.” In a post titled “Co-Ops Are the Single Dumbest Idea I Have Heard in the Health Care Debate in Twenty Years,” long-time health care analyst Bob Laszewski identifies the heart of the problem:

OK, let’s start with the notion that a co-op can do a better job of negotiating prices and protocols. But wait, on day one how many members does the co-op have? Well it has no members on day one. So, the co-op’s provider relations guy goes to the doctor and hospital administrator and demands better prices and protocols. My guess is the provider’s response would go something like this, “So you are here because your stated objective is to screw my reimbursement down more than it is, you have no members now, and if I give you the rates to take members away from the existing health plans you are going to make life even more difficult for me than those existing health plans have?”

The co-op is not a compromise between supporters and opponents of a public option; it will effectively undermine the option, alienate progressives and fail to appease conservative opponents of reform. Read more