Thursday, October 29, 2009

McCaskill: Opt-Out Public Option Lets States Decide

"Just the vegetable on the side . . ."

Sen. Claire McCaskill declined to signal what type of public option program she prefers in healthcare legislation, but said she sees merit in letting states decide.
That's the approach Majority Leader Harry Reid said he'd pursue this week: A public option would be included in the bill taken to the Senate floor, but individual states would have the choice of opting out of the program. That would mean the state legislature and the Governor would have to agree to opting out.
In an interview with Ky3 News Thursday, McCaskill said she's open to all three options being tossed around -- Opting in, Opting Out or a trigger -- but touted the merit of allowing states to make the call. "The closer we get this process to people at home and away from Washington, the better," she said.
She also said the impact of the public option is being exaggerated because it's controversial.
"It really is just one little vegetable on the side. The huge meal is all the other reforms contained in this bill," McCaskill said.
She cited: Requiring more competitive bidding in the Medicare system and coordinating the care around primary doctors to eliminate duplicate work among specialists.
More Q & A with Sen. McCaskill on healthcare LATER . . .


Paul Seale said...

The bottom line? She is for the public option - even though it is clear from the town hall events that people dont want it.

This is how a deputy whip splits hairs.

So hows that "independent thinking" "working for the interest of Missourians" working out for ya?

Kinda like her rubber stamping a lobbyst in the defense department even after claiming she was gonna run them out of Washington in 2006.

Richard said...

We DO NOT need the US Gov. involved with another insurance company type program. In fact the real problems with the insurance troubles is THE US Gov. I am a medicare receptant and it has been great for me, but look at the cost. This cost is primarily caused by the fact that the GOVERNMENT is not a business nor can it operate like a business. As I see it the Gov should recognise that older people like me are an added risk for any insurance company therefore, to protect me from the company and to protect the company from me the job of the gov should be to allow a supplimental amount to be payed to me when I demonstrate that I have an acceptable healthcare insurance policy. The monthly amount paid to me by the Gov should be equal to the amount competive insurance companies would charge me to insure me. (the Gov does need to require all health insurance companies to insure all US Citizens) Then using a base insurance cost scale from 0 years of age to 65 years of age. As any insured becomes a higher risk such aging above 65 years or certain illnesses. The supplimental rate the government should pay would increase based on patient risk. GET OUT of the insurance business McCaskill. Surely congress is smart enough and able to keep accurate and fair records in order to copay along with me or other higher risk person so that I get good coverage and the insurance companies is able to see me and my insurance cost as always equal to the average 0 to 65 year old male.
Get OUT of the insurance business McCaskill