Claire McCaskill: I'll Vote No On Health Care If It Increases Deficit

WASHINGTON — Senators are awaiting new cost estimates on the latest overhaul proposal from Majority Leader Harry Reid.

The Congressional Budget Office is expected to release its analysis this week on the revised bill's cost, and one senator says she "absolutely" would vote "no" if the overhaul increased out-of-pocket costs for people and drove up the nation's red ink.

But Democrat Claire McCaskill of Missouri also says she doesn't think that would happen because President Barack Obama would reject such a bill. too.

The results of the cost projects are expected to determine how many Democrats would support it – with 60 votes needed for passage – and whether party leaders would have to revise the legislation.

McCaskill appeared Sunday on "Fox News Sunday."

Comments

[Strywever]

11:51 AM on 12/15/2009

I believe it was Ezra Klein on Rachel Maddow's show last night who pointed out that the CBO has previously analyzed proposals to expand Medicare and found that they would actually reduce the deficit and extend Medicare solvency for a longer period. He suggested that's why Lieberman contradicted himself and came out against it now rather than waiting for the CBO analysis as he said he'd do just last week -- because he is determined not to support meaningful healthcare reform and realized that he was about to lose his stated reason for doing so, so decided he'd do it without a reason.

[figa101]

11:22 AM on 12/15/2009

Way to be responsible Claire. If saving your live cost us money, well then stick your head between your legs and kiss you a$$ goodbye. Gee you know who see sounds like.......... THE INSURANCE COMPANY.

[thepheonix]

08:23 AM on 12/15/2009

No you won't. You will use Reid's CBO score to justify it. Why? Because you know CBO only scores what it is sent. It can be modified to come under before CBO scores it.

[mcmutter]

06:18 AM on 12/15/2009

Military in Asia increases our deficit in a huge way Claire.... Don't forget to vote against that too....

[keepacoolhead]

04:51 AM on 12/15/2009

I vote against illegal wars if it increases deficit.

[ersf]

01:24 AM on 12/15/2009

Does everyone want to be Joe Lieberman, or are they all on the payroll of insurance?

[TheBaffler]

09:33 PM on 12/14/2009

So, why don't these so-called fiscal conservatives support single payer, which is by far the most economically effective way of financing health care?

[Strywever]

11:53 AM on 12/15/2009

Because their situational values are only as deep as their pockets, which are well-lined by the insurance industry.

[RockyMissouri]

06:01 PM on 12/14/2009

Claire! Claire! I declare!!

[constitutional 1]

04:50 PM on 12/14/2009

guess you are voting no

[GeorgeKaplan]

04:12 PM on 12/14/2009

Healthcare reform should decreases the deficit its one of the reasons we need healthcare reform. This is not news. Its a moral issue, but healthcare cost is also a big issue. Single payer would have been the best solution but somehow that got tabled before the debate began. Thats the real outrage.

[Sam1234567]

04:29 PM on 12/14/2009

"Healthcare reform should decreases the deficit its one of the reasons we need healthcare reform."

Please tell me how you insure 37 million people and not increase the deficit?

[GeorgeKaplan]

04:39 PM on 12/14/2009

By reforming healthcare and treating people in the early stages and not let them die in emergency rooms. By not allowing insurance companies to rape people for profit. We spend more money than any other country on earth and have dismal results. The amount of money we spend is more than enough... we have the money. Its the insane "system" that is costly as we (those with coverage) pay through private insurance for the emergency room care. At that point we pay a lot of money, but by than its to late to help people. You are paying for the people without healthcare now.

By passing a single payer healthcare plan - simple.

[salkoc]

11:38 PM on 12/14/2009

you tax the heck out of multi-million dollar bonuses which were gained by corporations on the backs and sweat of american citizens.

some will call this a populist stance ....i call it justice for all.

the fact is goldman , chase , bac , cit, wells fago .....would not be around if not for the tax payer.......so we should play the role of the loan shark . 100 % of all trading profits garnered should be confiscated for the people who paid for the risk.

i find it laughable how the money always runs out when it comes to americans.

afghanistan ..no problem
iraq ...trillions
georgia ...send them millions.
politicians ...free healthcare.

ITS OUR TURN !

[alvdh1]

03:27 PM on 12/14/2009

Senator McCaskill,

I worked tirelessly to help you get elected and I will do the same in order to defeat you if you vote against health care reform. I will do the same when it comes to climate change legislation. You can do the business of the people or you can be a one term senator. Koch Companies will be fine without your support of their dirty energy.

[BambooHarvester]

03:20 PM on 12/14/2009

Claire McCaskill,
Halloween has been over for a more than a month, you can take off that mask now.

[Clearing-Brush]

01:44 PM on 12/14/2009

Go drink your prune juice Claire. You look uncomfortable.

[GeorgeKaplan]

01:41 PM on 12/15/2009

It that what you've been drinking? The choice of all insurance company tools.

[meko]

12:41 PM on 12/14/2009

The bill should be killed. The Democrats have "negotiated" away every consumer protection without gaining a vote. They are all complicit.

Insurers are getting a great deal. In exchange for letting the oldest, sickest, unisured non-customers buy into Medicare, they get mandates for all young and healthy people to purchase insurance from private monopolies that are allowed to raise premiums and deductibles as high as they want and cap benefits as low as they want.

This setup ensurers Medicare will not be expanded. Insurers will not let captive, profitable customers go. Politicians who were unable to enact real reform with the momentum reform had will not do so when an even richer, more powerful lobby stands before them. Consumers who will be destroyed by paying skyrocketing premiums or facing the collection arm of the insurance industry, the IRS, will not trust anyone who claimed to be a "reformer" this time around.

Leadership could have taken away chairs. The party could have taken away election funds. The President could have used the oratory he used on behalf of Lieberman, Wall Street bonus contracts, Rick Warren and keeping Guantanamo open on behalf of real reform. "Progressive" senators could have filibustered. The Progressive Caucus could have kept it's against any bill without a strong public option.

If you don't vote in 2010, they will use the results to justify moving further to the right. If progressive primary challenges and third-party votes in the general elections hurt them, they MAY wake up.

[ErnestineBass]

01:30 PM on 12/14/2009

Spot on, meko!

If Congress believes the American people will sit still for MORE corporate "wealthcare", then they've lost their everlovin' minds.

I'm for tossing this mess out and starting from scratch.

[Strywever]

12:03 PM on 12/15/2009

While I too am disappointed by the apparent outcome, more consumer protections than we currently have remain intact. Estimates are that 150K lives will be saved over 10 years, because insurers won't be allowed to drop people who turn out to need expensive care or reject people for "pre-existing conditions." And several million more people will have coverage than have it today.

We cannot allow best to be the enemy of better -- even somewhat better. Medicare was not as strong as it is now when it was first enacted. So it is incumbent on us to continue pushing for incremental improvement in healthcare programs, just as happened with that program.

That said, I'm not happy either. But I am practical.

[banja]

12:37 PM on 12/14/2009

deficits, deficits, become an issue when you are spending money on the healthcare of middle class Americans, please, save me the outrage. unwanted wars get priority, huh