(National Sentinel) Healthcare reform: Okay, so Republicans whiffed on repealing and replacing Obamacare the first time around, but what one Democrat is proposing would be far worse.

During a recent town hall-style meeting in her home state of Missouri, Sen. Claire McCaskill, who is running for reelection next year in a state President Donald J. Trump carried with 57 percent of the vote, said she’d be perfectly fine supporting a ‘Medicare-for-all’ single-payer, complete government-run health care system for Americans.

One problem: A recent Urban Institute study estimated a full-on government-run health care system in the U.S. would be completely unaffordable, costing $32 trillion over the next ten years.

No problem, McCaskill insists, claiming that a Democrat “comparison shopping” scheme would reduce those costs.

“And if we can get those health care costs down through this comparison shopping. And if we can figure out a way to make sure that comparison-shopping doesn’t go away with a single-payer system, that we don’t lose the value of competition, then I think we could consider it,” she said. “In the meantime, what I think that we should do is put what is a quasi-public option on the exchanges. People between the ages of 55 and 65 are the people that need health insurance the most, and in the Republican bills are going to pay the most.”

So, competition along with choice (both of which are conservative proposals)? Got it.

Earlier, McCaskill said she was not in favor of a single-payer system…because costs would be too high:

I’m going to disappoint a lot of you, this is kind of how I roll a lot of you want me to say yes, and I would say if a single-payer came up to a vote right now I would not vote for it and here’s why. We have a huge debt. And we are looking down the barrel of a demographic bubble in Medicare as it is. My generation, there’s a bunch of us, I’m 63, I’ll be on Medicare in a couple of years. It’s already going to be a struggle for our country to keep up with the health care costs of the baby boom generation and so going to a single-payer system right now I don’t think is realistic and I don’t think it would be good for our debt. I think there are some steps that we would have to take for that to ever be a possibility. One is we are going to have to figure out the debt because with every rise of interest rate points it’s, you have no idea how hard it’s going to be for our government to function for the things you take for granted to actually come to pass if the interest rates go up four or five points. Because the interest on the debt will swallow things that you care about very much.

[Now you know why the Fed hasn’t been keen to raise interest rates, by the way.]

McCaskill said in April that a single-payer health care system was not “realistic.” But then she subsequently stated that she could consider a nationalized healthcare system in America — which is essentially the same thing.

So which is it, Claire? Oh, right — it’s the most expensive option, which is typical for Democrats.

Recently even the Washington Post admitted that single-payer health care would be “astonishingly” expensive, Breitbart News reported. Like, $32 trillion worth of expensive.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x