That one observation cuts to the chase.Nevermind that Kent Conrad
admits that co-ops WON'T drive down costs of health care.
From
dday at digby's blog:
ROBERTS: What would (co-ops) do to reduce costs? Because that is one of the central issues of health care reform.
CONRAD: Well, the important thing is they’d provide more competition. … Beyond that, I think it’s very important not to over-promise here. <...>
ROBERTS: So nothing really in driving down the costs of service then?
CONRAD: Uhhh, no. If you believe competition helps drive down costs, then they would certainly contribute to holding down costs.
So, should we take from that exchange that *fiscal conservatism* is a nothing more than a ConservaDem/Blue Dog straw man for papering-over this public ripoff called "co-ops"?
A note on how these would affect "competition" - in Conrad's home state of North Dakota, Blue Cross Blue Shield encompasses almost 90% of the health insurance market. And they're a non-profit that thinks they can qualify as a co-op, under Conrad's rules, making them eligible for some of the $6 billion in seed money, I presume. Amazing that Conrad's plan and the dominant insurer in his state match up almost perfectly, ain't it?The co-op model should be seen for what it is, protection of the insurance industry. Which makes sense, considering how many Senators are in bed with those interests, in some cases quite literally. And given that the industry and their Republican representatives in Congress will STILL oppose co-ops, learning from the lesson that making a ruckus will cause Democrats like Kent Conrad to give up whatever benefit to the people can be managed in exchange for nothing, you can pretty easily see an outcome where even the weak co-ops are given no ability to come into existence, the way it happened in Iowa:
In the 1990s, Iowa adopted a law to encourage the development of health care co-ops. One was created, and it died within two years. Although the law is still on the books, the state does not have a co-op now, said Susan E. Voss, the Iowa insurance commissioner.
Wellmark Blue Cross and Blue Shield collects about 70 percent of the premiums paid in the private insurance market in Iowa and South Dakota.
Conrad keeps saying that there aren't the votes for anything but his favored idea, but no Senator has come out and said they would join a Republican filibuster of health care reform under any circumstances. Until we reach that point, 60 votes - and maybe some combination of the Maine two - remain in play. Sounds like a better scenario to me than one where 60 House progressives have already said they won't vote for anything without a public option. Mr. Emanuel, are you paying attention? Are you doing the math? Or are you reading the LA Times?
Funny how Conrad insists that "there aren't the votes". He's not the Senate whip, so he has no idea how many votes there are for anything. So, it would be folly to take his assertion seriously. Now, if the real Senate whip, Dick Durbin, makes the same statement, then we'll listen.