Tags

, , ,

Claire McCaskill twittering earlier today about the public option:

All sound and no fury. CBO estimate in: 2% of Americans would potentially use public option.

In case you don’t know what she’s talking about, she links to this article in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch which discusses the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that few would use the public plan, those who did would be sicker than the average and, as a result, premiums would be higher.  

Perhaps McCaskill should stop gloating and take into consideration the fact that the public option makes such an anemic showing in the CBO analysis because folks like her have worked so hard to handcuff it.  As Jon Walker of FDL notes:

This illustrates a serious, reform-crippling problem with the House’s bill. It has an insufficient “risk adjustment” procedure. The risk adjustment mechanism should be a re-insurance program that redistributes a large amount of money among the plans on the exchange based on the health of their different customer bases. Without a strong risk adjustment mechanism you are literally guaranteeing it will be impossible to get high-quality, low-hassle insurance on the new exchange.

Seems like McCaskill, who likes to strut her financial skills stuff, should be able to figure this out.  So why doesn’t she have the honesty to come out and confirm what many have suspected for some time now: our Democratic senator would sooner support a plague of locusts than an effective public option – and her smug twitter means that she thinks she may be off the hook at last.