Why not CO-OPS AND PUBLIC OPTION?

Why does one exclude the other? Isn't it all about competition? Co-ops might serve the purposes for some, but some folks really need help with insurance and that help can only come when the government subsidizes and incentivises insurance coverage for these people. Why are the wealthy and middle-class against helping fellow citizens who are not as fortunate as they? What is it with the people who have enough money to spend on cosmetic surgeries and doctor shopping for drugs that they absolutely freak out about the government helping those who cannot help themselves with healthcare? Perhaps if they would give up their Medicare, and that of their parents, there would be enogh money for the government to spend on coverage for others without raising the deficit. One way to pay for the system is to rescind the Bush tax cuts.

say that co-ops will make no difference in the price of health care, and they can exclude people with preexisting conditions.

More here.

the debate is to give us what is widely known as an ineffective replacement.

Its not apples to apples but I've dealt with a lot of telephone co-ops across the country and is typical that they are both more expensive and offer less than the big companies. People that live under these co-ops are literally praying for AT&T and whoever to come in and give them some options. Co-ops are a big factor in why rural people don't have internet access or when they do why it is so expensive.

The co-ops effective time has passed. Its just not the 60's anymore. You are now competing with national at smallest bodies, most global in scope. As soon as you start talking states or regions, you have a sure fire fail coming your way. It is POSSIBLE (though unlikely) that a NATIONAL co-op would have a positive effect but anything smaller is doomed as doomed can be.

Why not put both plans on the table and make it possible for people to CHOOSE what they want in terms of health care? Conrad likes Co-ops and Obama likes Public Option. Stands to reason that other people might want one or the other too or mysteriously *like* the private health insurance plans they already have. It makes sense to me and blows the whole "choice" argument the Republicans are trying to push out of the water. Of course, the Public Option theoretically already provides that "choice" but, hey, why not put more plans on the table for people to choose from. The more plans out there the more competition there would (theoretically) be, right? :shrug:

Private Option/Heath cooperative options/Public Option

Adding a public option does nothing to prohibit cooperatives


Here is why cooperatives fail as a substitute for the public option:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8593723&mesg_id=8593723

All it will mean is there will be no Co-ops because if co-ops worked, we'd already have them.

... then it might work.

Plus it takes an awful lot of money to start a health care insurance business, so small co-ops won't have that economy of scale. The UK's NHS is the worlds' fifth largest employer, and has such scale that costs are kept down. Corporations are saying that they have to merge and get bigger to provide cost savings... so why not true for health care? I say yes.

Alternatively, let's just go ahead and do a forced merger of all the big major insurance companies into one and charge it with having to insure everyone with means testing (i.e. you can't pay for insurance so you pay less).

Mark.