Senator McCaskill (D-Missouri) qualifies her support for a health care public option

[Better Believe It]

McCaskill voices support for 'constrained' public healthcare option
by Dave Catanese, KY3 News
August 31,2009

WEST PLAINS, Mo. -- Sen. Claire McCaskill qualified her support of adding a public option to the country's healthcare system on Monday, by adding a caveat that any government plan must make sure private companies can compete.

"If it's constrained, I'd vote yes," McCaskill said, when asked directly about a public option at a jam-packed town hall meeting here on Monday morning.

http://www.ky3.com/news/political/blog/56355922.html

In other words, she favors a weak public option without teeth, public health insurance that the private insurance industry wouldn't have to worry about.
Wonderful.




Claire McCaskill

[Honeycombe8]

1. Okay, well, if I recall correctly, this is an advance from her prior position, which was no P.O. at

all. Or am I misremembering? Could've sworn I saw her on TV assuring everyone that she would not be in favor of a Public Option (or not vote for one, or something to that effect).

[Better Believe It]

3. I don't remember reading that and if it happened I think many DU'ers would have posted about it

[KansDem]

2. "...any government plan must make sure private companies can compete."

No problem. No more 8-digit salaries for CEOs and reduce administrative costs from 33% of each healthcare dollar spent to 3%.

They should be able to compete then...

[Better Believe It]

4. They really don't want public insurance to compete effectively with private insurance

That's what they really mean. They will only support a public plan that is guaranteed to fail. Opponents of viable and strong public insurance argue that such a plan will give them an "unfair" advantage over private insurance.

If public insurance lacks an advantage over private insurance why in the world would anyone want it?

A public insurance plan that can't provide better or at least equal coverage with lower premiums than private insurance is destined to fail.

[KansDem]

8. Funny, isn't it?

The federal government has to protect private enterprise from itself. For decades we heard the capitalist's hue and cry about government staying out of the private sector. About how private enterprise can do the job better and cheaper (remember: "The government is the problem, not the solution?"). But now when it's time to put their money where their mouths are, we hear that the government will provide better service for lesser costs. Free enterprise seems to enjoy "capitalism" when the government assure it a marketplace free from itself...

[blue_onyx]

9. I think....

A weak public option that provides no real savings compared to private companies (so companies can "compete"), in addition to an individual mandate, will led to Republicans winning in 2010 and 2012.

[SteppingRazor]

5. "In other words, she favors a weak public option" It could be that. It could also be...

that she's providing herself with political cover to vote yes on a public option, regardless of its relative strength or weakness.

[Moostache]

6. Looks like I will be voting for a new senator then...

McCaskill is proving to be very disappointing and very much a servant of corporate donor interests in the issue and in her conduct at town halls. When the fire gets warm, Claire starts looking for the easiest, closest exit and refuses to stand on principle. If she refuses to support the public option, then she is clearly labeling herself as a corporate servant and not any more fit to hold office than the other douchebag Missouri senator "Kit" Bond....

Highly disappointing, but I am getting used to the idea that the modern Democrats are no better than the Republicans of 30 years ago - the only difference remaining is that the Republicans have now been completely overrun by crazies. The slimiest thing going on in America today is NOT the slide of the Republicans into disarray and fanaticism, it is the slower but more perverse selling out of the progressive agenda by its so-called champions in the Democratic party.

[debbierlus]

7. This is what we really have to worr y about - the public option is so ill defined

...people will think that inclusion of a 'public option'...no matter how impotent, weak, diluted, and ineffective, they will believe in a victory...

The public option has been the biggest diversion away from true health care reform.

HR676

Or the Weiner Amendment to HR3200

Nothing else is acceptable.

[Hippo_Tron]

10. This is a pretty non-specific statement and you imply more from it than she has stated

To use the post office analogy, FedEx and UPS can certainly compete even though the government subsidizes the post office. She is extremely vague about what "allowing insurance to compete" actually means and while that is not what you want to hear, it doesn't mean that she is against a strong public option. It means that her position is intentionally ambiguous for the time being. If you want to do something about it, write her a letter telling her that you support a strong public option.

[Better Believe It]

11. You're right! That's what the doctor ordered! Non-specific vague statements on health care ....

rather than a clear unambiguous commitment to a strong public option. Ya! We need more of that in the Senate!

I suppose if you like weak, vacillating, compromising politicians who don't stand for anything Senator McCaskill must be your cup of tea for health care .... or maybe just bad medicine.

One doesn't have to be a rocket scientist or a degree in "political speak" to figure out what her words mean.

Shall we check which way the political winds are blowing my dear Senator? Gotta go with the wind!

[Hippo_Tron]

13. Well then, lets point the wind in the right direction

Politicians are, for the most part, cowards. Rather than complaining about the fact that Senator McCaskill is amongst this group of cowards, lets rejoice in the fact that she could be a potential yes vote for a public option and make it happen.

[Better Believe It]

16. And the obvious question is "what kind of public option"

If you say "Medicare for all" the public is for that. And the Senator knows the great majority of people and employers don't like the profit gouging private insurance industry, they would like an alternative.

I think it was Maher who said something like "when you say public option people think you're talking about a public restroom!"

[burning rain]

12. She could support a robust public option & win her next election just fine.

In the first place, she doesn't have to stand for re-election until 2012. Secondly, in the unlikely case public option were still an issue then, she could just sell it as "a down-home Mizzurah plan" and it would go over just fine.

[Hippo_Tron]

14. Which is why I think she will ultimately be for it

This is a good sign, IMO, especially compared to her previous hesitancy about the public option. I think that the President has persuaded her in the right direction and I think the deciding factor for her will probably be whether or not the bill is going to pass. Of course if the bill is going to fail anyway it doesn't really matter which way she votes.

[Better Believe It]

15. You're probably right, but, the insurance industry and drug cartel have a lot of power in Congress

And politicians cave very easily to Wall Street and other corporate special interests.

Just follow the money.

[Cass]

17. Insurance companies have chosen a path of unsustainability for themselves.

Why should we go nuts trying to save their asses? We owe them the same allegiance to their well-being that they showed consumers. That would be ZERO.