So what is wrong with co-ops?

That is a real question, not flame bait. Seriously, I bank with a co-op (credit union) and like it a lot more than a for-profit bank that charges fees out the wazoo. I used to buy all my groceries at a co-op, before circumstances found me back in redneckistan. I mean isn't the problem the profit motive in our current insurance system - not a lack of federal agencies.

And even if the co-ops aren't as good as a public option and a public option isn't as good as single-payer, aren't they all three better than the current system?

I am tired of being sold out and then being asked to be happy about it.

:dem:

-Laelth

By all means, carry on.

:dem:

-Laelth

They are ways to delay giving us Medicare for All. And keeping a govt system privatized.

And I believe the guy who paid the largest Medicare fraud penalty in history is in favor of those coops-- Rick Scott.

They are a palliative measure and delaying tactic as currently presented.

has never been under consideration. Obama opposed it during the campaign. saying it is a way to avoid single payer makes as much since as saying it is a way to avoid a rocket ship to the sun.

of support for Medicare for all.

Of course, it's not being supported by those who are looking out for the interests of the criminal insurance racket. That's certainly true.

should not BE under consideration.

How can we fairly judge and decide on co-ops, public options or single-payer if the conversation doesn't include ALL the options and their various strengths?

That's like asking what flavor of vanilla you want.

Single-payer has a long, proven track record in Medicare, not to mention in nationalized health programs in other countries. By eliminating the profit motive, assuring universal coverage, and by socializing the costs in the largest possible pool of taxpayers, single-payer could be the cheapest, simplest delivery means for health care.

To answer your question more directly, though, coops could share all those advantages to lesser extents. A not-for-profit coop run statewide, with few provisions allowing for coverage to be terminated, could still kick the collective ass of the private insurers of today. The devil is in the details, of course, but in principle I would say that the only thing wrong with coops is that they are a way to avoid implementing the most efficient and humane coverage.

Could be a good compromise, and seems much more likely to pass Congress. Best of all, we could see single-payer more clearly from there, so coops might gain us momentum in the larger cause.

Don't change the question just because it isnt your friend

That was the OP.

would be regional, not national, and thus have a built in inability to deal with persons who lose their insurance when they move from one region to another. Also, there is some question about whether the co-ops would offer sufficiently lower costs. In all honesty, I have no problem with the co-op issue myself, as a general principal, but I'm still trying to learn the details.

:dem:

-Laelth

nt

... that the lame, weak, tired, compromised, watered down, corporate-friendly, profits over people bill is so much more than what it is, all the while tsk-tsking everyone else for being "immature," and "impatient." Count on it ;)

but let's say there is a bill that does nothing but prohibit companies from denying care to those with pre-existing conditions. wouldn't anyone who votes against it because it isn't enough be screwing those of us with pre-existing conditions?

There are plenty of examples of mismanaged and corrupt programs for each of these system types.

None of the systems proposed is free from these possible pitfalls.

In any case what is needed is strict oversight and transparency, a high level of regulation.

:patriot:

the similarities are incredible.
Regional co-ops will not have the necessary pool sizes and diversity to lower cost of insurance.
Plus and the biggest thing is that insurance companies will be in charge. See HMOs to see how it will play out. I'll guarantee it will be the same. And 15 years from now health care will be even much, much worse if you can imagine how much worse it could get.

So basically the problem is that the co-op really wouldn't have the bargaining power to get lower rates?

In the beginning, some would surely "join" for a while, and then remove themselves, diluting the pool and before long it would collapse.

If the govt loves the idea of competition so much, why not just divvie the country up between the big insurers...perhaps by timezone, and set a 5 year plan.. Whoever does the best job of providing the best care for the least expense to subscribers, gets the national "contract"..no one wants to think outside the box.

They would only act as an insurance *broker*. It would be a way for you to join a pool where private insurers could offer their policies. The private insurers would still be in charge of the system.

The public option WILL kill off insurance companies , as we know them. That is the point. Anything short of that is a sell-out to the corporatists.

Medicare co-exists with a thriving for-profit industry in supplemental, gap, boutique plans designed to dovetail with the government plan.

As I said 'as we know them"

It is also costly and doesn't give much back in return.

Hindering the ability to control costs with maximum leverage.

very beneficial; our electricity coop is a good example. But being exempt from some regulation can lead to problems as well as helping to keep rates low if it's not administrated properly.

A non-profit "middle-man" , if you will.

that they are a smaller, less-powerful version of fully nationalized health insurance.

Or, look at it the other way: what's good about them would be much better if you extend it to a "co-op" comprised of 300 million people, backed by the negotiating power of the federal govt.

thank you to those who are answering this question sensibly. and to whomever unreced a simple question, grow up.

for MANDATORY, for-profit healthcare.

We can form healthcare co-ops without any mandate to do so, and we have not. Wonder why? :hi:

Can a co-op not be created now?

Second: Put everyone Into Private Insurance. Medicare will die
on the vine. Let us be honest the GOP will regain power in this
country at some point. The CO-OPs provide the means for their
moment of achievement End Medicare and start cutting subsiies
and we once again have large groups of uninsured. Roger Norquists'
greatest fantasy.

But first of all they have not worked and will not work.

As Progressives, we must insist on a government involvement in
order to protect Medicare.

The insurance industry will be running these non-profit co-ops they will happily sign up everyone they can get their hands on and as time goes by you will see a decline in service and some very convenient upgrade paths into the for profit plans. This is the insurance industry equivalent to no money down mortgages and we saw were that went.

and they don't work very well.

health co-op

The co-ops can't compete with the big insurance companies beause the biggies will drive them out of businees with all the money they extorted from sick people!

They were called Blue Cross/Blue Shield. Most have sold out to for-profits and even those that have remained non-profit co-ops are not much better than for-profit insurance as far as cost to policyholders, dumping people, and overhead. They also will never be large enough to sufficiently spread the risk to make them affordable for average people.

And, as Ed Schultz reminded his listeners, that's how BC/BS got started!

A public option would have a salary limit; federal employees can't be paid more than the president.

At a co-op, the premiums could go to pay the CEO millions-of-dollars/year.

It's about what the people want. The majority want a public option instead? the Joe the Plummer crowd are getting what they want. Dick Armey is now attacking Medicare and social security. What are we going to do when Armey and his people take that away from us?

At some point you have to ask yourself why you keep listening to the people who've fucked you over in the past. You say you need X. they say we will do Y, you agree to that but then Y isn't good enough for them. They now want Z...and you listen to them... WTF? Are you just the Eternal Sucker?

Get it through your head: nothing they want is in YOUR interest. They've fucked you over in the past, and all their present negotiating strategy boils down to is a ploy to CONTINUE fucking you over.

co ops have gone under. Leaving doctors and hospitals holding the bag.

They also avoid doing anything. By the time each regional co-op gets its rules and meets with its board and works out how to pay the board and ...... it will be several years before we see that they don't work at all. It will behoove a regional coop to do poorly so that they don't attract more poor people to the area. If New Jersey does a better job than New York, the poor and ill will move to New Jersey and their costs and headaches will go up.

It is also easier for pharma and medco and insurance to buy off the local people or even get their guys on those boards.

Coops are a compromise of a compromise of a compromise of single payer. We should have at least been able to get something a few compromises back.

Basically, progressives and decent Democrats have lost this issue. We got beat. Hard.