PDA

View Full Version : Local So let's do the co-op dance.


Direckshun
08-24-2009, 11:45 AM
Since it seems like that's where we're headed anyway, I'd like anybody who's famliar with the subject to answer some FAQs.

What is a non-profit healthcare cooperative (co-op)?

How is it different from the government option?

Why would it be superior to the current system?

Would it be desirable or less desirable to the government option?

Rep to anybody who doesn't preach and makes sense.

Direckshun
08-24-2009, 11:45 AM
The last question is the one I need the most help with -- comparing it to the government option in terms of preferability.

Donger
08-24-2009, 11:47 AM
Wait. I thought the fight over health care was over?

petegz28
08-24-2009, 11:48 AM
The problem is "public-option" is nothing more than a gateway to single-payer. We know that is where Obama and the Dems want to go. They are on record at some point saying such. So that is the real question, do you want single-payer?

Direckshun
08-24-2009, 11:49 AM
So that is the real question, do you want single-payer?

Do you feel that the co-op avoids that particular slippery slope?

blaise
08-24-2009, 11:50 AM
Wait. I thought the fight over health care was over?

It is, just like that.

Politically at least.

wild1
08-24-2009, 12:10 PM
We aren't headed for those. Any fight there may have been about health care reform has ended!

blaise
08-24-2009, 12:11 PM
Have some young cons to ease the pain.

Donger
08-24-2009, 12:16 PM
Do you feel that the co-op avoids that particular slippery slope?

No.

petegz28
08-24-2009, 12:16 PM
Do you feel that the co-op avoids that particular slippery slope?

The less the Fed Gov is involved, the better. Regulations and laws are one thing....managing health care itself is another.

dirk digler
08-24-2009, 12:43 PM
What is a non-profit healthcare cooperative (co-op)?

Everybody is put in a huge pool so they have better negotiating power with insurance companies. It still would take a trillion dollar infuse of money to get it going. After that it depends on premiums.

How is it different from the government option?

The government wouldn't run it?

Why would it be superior to the current system?

Don't know if it would

Would it be desirable or less desirable to the government option?

slightly better

Taco John
08-24-2009, 12:45 PM
What is a non-profit healthcare cooperative (co-op)?



If I were to guess, it's a government backed insurance company that everybody has to pay for whether they want to or not.

dirk digler
08-24-2009, 12:50 PM
Also just to add you can do co-ops on the state, regional, or national level. It all depends on how they want to set it up. But in theory the more people that are in the co-op the better leverage they have.

petegz28
08-24-2009, 01:10 PM
Also just to add you can do co-ops on the state, regional, or national level. It all depends on how they want to set it up. But in theory the more people that are in the co-op the better leverage they have.

The need to be national. The State line issue wall with regards to insurance needs to be brought down.

RINGLEADER
08-24-2009, 01:21 PM
Since it seems like that's where we're headed anyway, I'd like anybody who's famliar with the subject to answer some FAQs.

What is a non-profit healthcare cooperative (co-op)?

How is it different from the government option?

Why would it be superior to the current system?

Would it be desirable or less desirable to the government option?

Rep to anybody who doesn't preach and makes sense.


Won't know until we see the legislation (if ever).

It could be a good option if it is just that -- an option.

But if they dictate the kind of coverage it offers, force people into them, and plan to use trillions of tax-dollars to operate them then I'd guess that there really isn't much of a difference.

But, as I said, you have to wait to see what is specifically proposed.

RINGLEADER
08-24-2009, 01:22 PM
Everybody is put in a huge pool so they have better negotiating power with insurance companies. It still would take a trillion dollar infuse of money to get it going. After that it depends on premiums.


Why do you believe that it wouldn't continue to need funding from tax-payers after the initial ten year plan expires?

dirk digler
08-24-2009, 01:35 PM
Why do you believe that it wouldn't continue to need funding from tax-payers after the initial ten year plan expires?

I am just going off what I read a while back.

RINGLEADER
08-24-2009, 02:57 PM
I am just going off what I read a while back.

It will be an unfunded mandate. Just like medicare (that now has a $34 trillion unfunded liability).

It's not sustainable and no one can explain how it can be...

chiefzilla1501
08-24-2009, 03:55 PM
It will be an unfunded mandate. Just like medicare (that now has a $34 trillion unfunded liability).

It's not sustainable and no one can explain how it can be...

That's my concern too.

When all's said and done, if you're going to be a low-price player, you better be more efficient than the competition. If you're not, then you lose money by the truckload and the taxpayer will ultimately pay for it to keep the plan solvent.

I don't know how it would work, but I'd have to imagine that the best pass at a solution is to incentivize strong private players to become more efficient. I don't trust the gov't to increase efficiencies in an industry that they are not experts at. I'd rather put the price-cutting in the hands of an entrepreneur who comes up with a sustainably low-price model. I don't know why that hasn't happened yet, and I'm convinced that a huge reason for that is because of the power of employers to dictate health care, the complete inability to understand how to price health services, and the lack of transparency in terms of patients understanding the price of what they're paying for.

Direckshun
08-24-2009, 05:25 PM
The less the Fed Gov is involved, the better. Regulations and laws are one thing....managing health care itself is another.

Do you feel co-ops avoid the slippery slope that might lead to single-payer?

KC Dan
08-24-2009, 05:36 PM
Do you feel co-ops avoid the slippery slope that might lead to single-payer?If it is COMPLETELY run by individuals in the private sector and ZERO gov't involvement in the creation and day-to-day running of the co-op - then yes. If the gov't helps setup, inititiate, run, change, anything - NO. What I fear is that the co-op is setup, later fails and the gov't takes it over and whammo - gov't run health care...

Saul Good
08-24-2009, 06:28 PM
Since it seems like that's where we're headed anyway, I'd like anybody who's famliar with the subject to answer some FAQs.

What is a non-profit healthcare cooperative (co-op)?

How is it different from the government option?

Why would it be superior to the current system?

Would it be desirable or less desirable to the government option?

Rep to anybody who doesn't preach and makes sense.
On its face, it isn't a lot different than our current system. Most of us are insured through a co-op of sorts. It just happens that our co-ops are made up of other employees at our places of business. In that regard, it wouldn't be much different than our current method.

Our employers don't make profits off of the insurance plans, either, so they are, in a sense, non-profit health care co-ops. The main difference between a formal co-op would be that the co-ops are generally formed for the sole purpose of obtaining group benefits. Depending on the relative size of the co-op versus the size of the pool of employees at a given employer, the co-op will have varying degrees of leverage when compared to what you would have under your current plan.

It isn't inherently better nor worse than the current system. In fact, co-ops already exist. The potential advantage is that, as they become larger, they have more leverage. The risk also spreads out more evenly. That can be good or bad, though. If you currently work somewhere with a healthier than average workforce, you would be negatively impacted by moving into a co-op that was more representative of the population at large. The opposite is also true.

It would be better than the government option because it would have to account for its actions a lot more than the government would. Accountability begets efficiency. Lack of accountability begets waste. The problem is that, "co-op" is little more than a code word for a public option. Without subsidies, there is no reason that some newly-formed co-op would become any bigger or better than what already exists. The early adopters are going to be the people with poor health. When the government starts to steer additional members into the co-op via subsidies, the slope towards single-payer is officially greased.

Rep me.