McCaskill and Hawley's fight over pre-existing conditions gets personal

[pstokely]

Source: Kansas City Star

But McCaskill also found herself on the defensive Monday after Hawley took issue with her tweeting a blog post by the co-author of her memoir that said Hawley was using his son’s medical condition as a “prop.”

Hawley said he supports requiring health insurers to cover pre-existing conditions in a campaign ad last month about his son, who has a rare chronic bone condition.

Hawley was irate Monday over the tweet, which McCaskill posted Sunday evening.

“As a father, I’m not too pleased,” Hawley said to a crowd of at least 50 at a campaign stop in Riverside. “And I would just say to Sen. McCaskill, you owe my family an apology. You owe my son an apology. You owe the voters of Missouri an apology and they deserve better than you, Claire.”

Read more: https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/election/article220062520.html

[benld74]

1. Technically Golden Boy

Was the one who brought his own son, family into his political fight. With his own commercial about his son’s condition.
Saying they will find a way.
Knowing that he now has tax payer health insurance, and if elected better of the same.

[iluvtennis]

2. She owes him nothing. Don't fall into the trap McCaskill.

[demgrrrll]

5. You are right. His fake indignation wants to blow something up to cover the truth.

If he did not use the child as a prop he should prove it by taking his name off the law suit.

[Honeycombe8]

3. It's tricky to use a child in an attack on an opponent.

In this case, she needs proof that he was previously against making ins. cos. cover pre-existing conditions, so that his using his son now to say he is for it, is proof he's using his son't condition as a prop. Otherwise, this could backfire on her.

[demgrrrll]

4. He is literally a party to the lawsuit that wants to eliminate coverage for pre existing conditions.

[Honeycombe8]

11. The kid is? nt

[demgrrrll]

13. I get your point but he was using his child to make the point that his child had a pre existing

condition so you could count on him not to ever do anything to do away with the current pre existing condition policies. While at the same time he is one of the AG's who signed on to the suit to do away with pre existing conditions coverage.

The Post Dispatch endorsed Claire and noted that Hawley was not truthful.

So yes, tricky, but he is the person who used his child in the commercial while he lied about his true position regarding pre existing conditions.

I do get your point though.

[Honeycombe8]

14. Oh, well... I was really just asking. lol. Not trying to make a point.

It is tricky, though, leaving the person open to being accused of involving a child.

But I agree that it was his USE of his own child in an ad, and that he was lying, that makes it different.

[Hulk]

6. Never fails....they support something "socialist"...when it affects THEM!

Never a bit of support if they aren’t affected. This is what really pisses me off. It’s like these homophobes...unless they have someone gay or lesbian in their own family. Cheney comes to mind. Fuck them...everyone of those selfish sonsofbitches.

[beachbum bob]

7. lol, he supports coverge while suing to eliminate such coverage

the devil is in the details, his idea of "requiring" most likely means "offering" which not the same as "mandating"

[maxrandb]

9. And he's never going to have to spend a fucking penny of his own money for health insurance

as long as he's getting taxpayer subsidized Cadillac health insurance

It's the Retrumplican way....I GOT MINE...SO FUCK YOU!!!!!!!

[DeminPennswoods]

12. Just so you know, FEHB is not "cadillac" insurance

You can certainly select plans that give plenty of coverage, but there is about a 25% premium co-pay on all plans offered under the federal employees health benefits plan. Dental and vision are seperate, add-ons as is long term care.

[maxrandb]

8. I know she doesn't need my advice, but

Claire, please tell him to "go fuck himself".

He's suing to eliminate the requirement to cover pre-existing conditions.

Now, you'd think that something like that. A guy using his disabled child as a prop to say "see, I'm for pre-existing conditions", while simultaneously suing to end coverage for pre-existing conditions WOULD BE NEWS WORHTY

But, in today's media, it's not the "rape" that gets the coverage...it's the screaming indignation.

It's not the hypocrisy that gets the coverage, it's the fake outrage

I'd have a hundred folks with pre-existing conditions show up at this pricks house and demand to know WITH RIGHTEOUS ANGER "why he wants to kills them".

[SWBTATTReg]

10. Really. Hawley is fake, w/ fake outrage and a hypocrite too. Claire is right to go after Hawley ..

after his double take on (1) as the Missouri Attorney General, he's joined other repug AGs in the pre-existing conditions lawsuit that they (only them too) have filed against the ACA, and yet he claims the benefits of the ACA pre-existing conditions for his son (and he brought this up on his own).

Fake outrage, fake everything. As a Missouri voter, I can guarantee that I'll vote against Hawley and his actions against the ACA pre-existing conditions provisions via his filing w/ the other repug AGs.

He is simply a mouthpiece, nothing more. He has shown nothing original (heaven forbid) since they (repugs) don't want to rock the boat in their eagerness to gain another senate seat. Coward.

I'd love to see these folks demonstrate against Hawley in front of his home, become the 'mob' that he's complained about. He's nothing but a rump mouthpiece, has shown no Missouri compassion, and is a liar by the fact that he claimed that he wouldn't run for another office off the back of another elected office in one of his ads on TV, and here he is. Running again, w/ approximately 1.5 years into his first elected office.

Hypocrite and liar. Sounds like, acts like, is a rump stooge.