Comments on: Conrad Proposes Co-ops To Replace Public Plan

By: Laurie Corzett

Laurie Corzett — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 20:45:00 +0000

This sounds quite a bit like the healthcare idea I have been promoting for years.

By: Kathy

Kathy — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 23:05:40 +0000

The idea of a co-op should be further investigated, however, I fear it may turn out like the assigned risk pools within the automobile insurance industry. If an applicant is turned down by insurance companies, generally due to poor driving record, he/she may get the state-required coverage from the assigned risk pool operated in most states. This means the individuals getting their coverage from the pools are the worst drivers on our roads, and therefore, their premiums are exceedingly high. If someone can’t get coverage due to the cost or pre-existing conditions, how can a co-op provide coverage at a reasonable cost? I fear it would be filled within those least able to pay for the coverage and/or have exorbitantly expensive health care requirements.

I think there are many other steps we, as a nation, must consider in order to bring these costs within more affordable levels.

By: TM

TM — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 05:23:24 +0000

The criticisms provided are not correct.

- The large public option would require large start up costs, capital reserves, and government subsidies.

- A large competing public option would also have to spend money to inform the public and enroll members. If you really want to minimize these costs, have the public purchase all health care through a single regional purchasing organization (Health Exchange) that would list the providers of a standard
health care package; providers would be ranked by price, and the default provider would be the lowest priced provider.

- Establish a single large co-op within each large geographic region of the United States and the economy of scale would be large.

The advantage of the co-op system is that the co-op system, unlike the U.S. Congress, could be designed to serve the public alone, and be immune from the influence of the hospital, physician, pharmaceutical, and medical device industries.

By: Gary Gibbons

Gary Gibbons — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 21:20:05 +0000

It’s time to vote these so-called Democrats out and replace them with true progressives. This is just a divide and conquer scheme. Single payer is the only real answer.

By: Dian

Dian — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 20:47:17 +0000

“All exchange rules and state laws that apply to other plans also would apply to co-ops.” That would not be good news for a medically uninsurable living in a state like Virginia that still refuses to offer a risk pool.

By: Lora Chamberlain

Lora Chamberlain — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 18:26:31 +0000

Beware these health care coops, one of the reasons GM went down is the weight of the cost of their health care benefits. I am sure that they tried to negotiate down their health care premiums. If they could not be successful with their 100s of thousands of employees, why does anyone think that brand new coops shopping in the private market for insurance could do any better! Then the other option is that these coops would self insure but unless they have huge pools of enrollees then they will just go down like 100s of health insurance corporations have done already! With more competition from more coops, the administrative costs will go up for all providers so no savings there either! Beware!!!

By: Jon

Jon — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 23:10:21 +0000

A privately run cooperative is in no way, shape, or form a public option. By definition a “privately” run entity is not “public”. It is not a public plan compromise it is a complete and total sellout to the Republicans. It is not a watered down form a public option. It bares no resembles to a public plan. It would lack all the benefits of a public plan and would do nothing to reduce cost.

The “co-ops” would be too small to benefit from economies of scale. The different “co-ops” would create hundreds of redundant positions, offices, and systems. They would lack the negotiation power of size to lower prices. Since they would not be the large, default public plan, they would be forced to waste millions on advertising. There would also be no guarantee that the “co-ops” would adopt the best practice recommendations from the government. Unlike a national public option, the co-ops would do almost nothing to lower cost for millions of Americans struggling with the high cost of health care premiums.

By: serial catowner

serial catowner — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 22:37:49 +0000

This is just a bait-and-switch. There’s a wide variety of co-ops, but they all run on the same principle- saving a little money on the costs of doing business that is commercially viable. Food co-ops, child care co-ops, the big grain and feed and fuel co-ops of the midwest- they all depend on the fact that they break even. That doesn’t happen in health care. In health care you almost never have the wonderful customer you collect premiums from but never have to provide with service.

Conrad is just blowing smoke. I’m caring less and less if there is a nominal Democratic majority, if it depends on people like Conrad.

By: vitality

vitality — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 20:43:42 +0000

not for profit, huh. That’s rich. kind of like a Bernie Madoff charity, I presume.

By: stateofthedivision

stateofthedivision — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 20:38:44 +0000

Co-ops would be disadvantaged by start up costs, which includes capital reserves. If they’re hiring a TPA, that’s usually one of the for-profit insurers. What’s the likelihood of them getting good bids from their competition?

This isn’t close to equal footing. Kent Conrad is dirty….

By: stateofthedivision

stateofthedivision — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 20:34:28 +0000

It helps Kent Conrad deliver for his for-profit health care supporters.

http://stateofthedivision.blogspot.com/2009/04/key-senators-to-imprint-health-care.html

The government exists to provide important services the private sector can’t or won’t. For-profit insurers left 50 million people out of the loop.

Baucus and Conrad are tainted. They show their allegiance.