National Co-op.

Started with Federal money, a la Fannie and Freddie, a GSE.

National Bargaining power levels, but disconnected enough from the government that it severs all the "gub'mint power" stupid arguments, along with the "socialist!" arguments.

It also kicks in the teeth of the guy who's complaining about health subsidies, but fights for farm subsidies.

Whaddya think?

ok

;-)

how does that fit witht the patcwork of state regulations?
how do you keep it from going the HMO route?
Kaiser Permanente and Mayo Clinic would be good examples of what to do.

And anyone who thinks she doesn't speak for Obama is an idiot.

.

than the American ones would ever tolerate.

Just like a public option a truly nationwide co-op would create too much bargaining power over the health care industry to bring down rates and drug costs.

Thats why Baucus has tried to focus co-ops into being regional or (better yet) state co-ops.

Wont happen.

a lot of Senate Dems are less than impressed with co op plans as written Baucus and Conrad are going have to give something up in order gain their support.

Who decides who is eligible.

It is not the frame that matters. It is how regulated they are. The more, the better.

I can imagine that the insurance industry would love to see a heavily regulated health coop, provided their proxies in Congress are the ones who write the regulations. They could write the regs in such a way that the coop would be hamstrung and unable to compete.

Hence, my sacrificial offering of a non "public option" framework.

A public option is a gateway structural change that can (and I think) will lead to single payer.


If you accept a 'national cooperative' that has real competitive teeth then when it comes to the final negotiation they will take the 'national' out of it.

There are many ways to sabotage it.

Future reform will be focused on 'fixing' the cooperative and not on public option and single payer.


Public option is the compromise. If they accept cooperatives its because they know that it is not a danger to them.


Even a poor public option will provide a basis for future reform, it puts into place an agency that can be improved and expanded.

I do see how a co-op that is "national" could become private, but I also see how it could become "too big to fail", and get nationalized.

Conversely, a "public option" that was poorly funded, poorly managed, and poorly run could lead to long-term rejection of single payer.

No meaningful, competitive coop program will be authorized.

This is polishing a turd.

Sadly, I think you might be right.