Co-ops a good compromise?

Discussion in 'Healthcare/Insurance/Govt Healthcare' started by Navy1960, Jun 16, 2009.

  1. Navy1960
    Offline

    Navy1960 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,821
    Thanks Received:
    1,188
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Arizona
    Ratings:
    +1,189
    WASHINGTON (AP) — With Republicans fighting the idea of a government-run health insurance plan, members of President Barack Obama's team said Sunday that they are open to a compromise: a cooperative program that would expand coverage with taxpayer money but without direct governmental control.
    Congress begins work this week on putting Obama's goal of universal health coverage into law. Some lawmakers are expected to introduce specific plans that run counter to Obama's political promises.

    The concessions could be the smoothest way to deliver the bipartisan health care legislation the administration seeks by its self-imposed August deadline, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said.
    The Associated Press: Co-op compromise gives White House a health option

    Founded in 1947, Group Health Cooperative is a consumer-governed, nonprofit health care system that coordinates care and coverage. Based in Seattle, Wash., Group Health and its subsidiary health carriers, Group Health Options, Inc. and KPS Health Plans, serve more than half a million residents of Washington state and Idaho
    About Group Health

    I have seen much debate on this board about healthcare and the back and forth between sides that want Govt. run health care which in my humble opinion would be a disaster when you take into consideration the size of the deficit, healthcare delivery, and many other factors. However I think we can all agree that the costs of healthcare are high and can be brought under control to make it more affordable for those who wish to have it without the mandates. This is one solution that I have seen being talked about that holds a lot of appeal and allows people the ability to form groups to purchase healthcare. If done in conjunction with proper regulation that helps promote competetion this would be a good first step in addressing some of the costs of healthcare . There are many other issues that need to be addressed such as Illegal Immigrant Healthcare costs as well and it takes a congress willing to do the hard work necessary to get the job done and not mandate converage for all not bankrupt our country while doing so.
     
  2. Oddball
    Offline

    Oddball BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    41,428
    Thanks Received:
    8,397
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
    Ratings:
    +8,409
    Let's say that they're a good idea, just for the sake of it.

    If that's the case, who needs gubmint to get them up and running??
     
  3. Navy1960
    Offline

    Navy1960 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,821
    Thanks Received:
    1,188
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Arizona
    Ratings:
    +1,189
    exactly Dude, thats why my second post of the existing one in Seattle! and the comment about promoting an atmosphere for competetion. Personally, I think that the Govt. is going about this in the wrong way when healthcare can basically fix itself if given the environment to do so and the incentives to do so.
     
  4. auditor0007
    Offline

    auditor0007 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2008
    Messages:
    12,566
    Thanks Received:
    2,255
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Toledo, OH
    Ratings:
    +3,218
    Co-ops will not be able to accept those with pre-existing conditions for the same reason insurance companies don't. There would be no mandate for coverage, therefore many would not purchase coverage until they became sick. The end result would be that these co-ops would try to force out anyone not healthy. Otherwise, they would have trouble keeping rates competetive.

    By creating Co-ops, they would just be creating more insurance companies.
     
  5. Oddball
    Offline

    Oddball BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    41,428
    Thanks Received:
    8,397
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
    Ratings:
    +8,409
    IOW, there's no free lunch in it for you.
     
  6. auditor0007
    Offline

    auditor0007 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2008
    Messages:
    12,566
    Thanks Received:
    2,255
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Toledo, OH
    Ratings:
    +3,218
    Yes, we know your stand on the issue. If you get sick, insurance companies should be permitted to double or triple your rates, raise your deductibles by 500%, or just deny you coverage completely. It's the American way.
     
  7. Oddball
    Offline

    Oddball BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    41,428
    Thanks Received:
    8,397
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
    Ratings:
    +8,409
    We also know where you stand on the issue.....You have way more to gain by shirking off the costs for your medical care onto everyone else than you have to lose.
     
  8. Navy1960
    Offline

    Navy1960 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,821
    Thanks Received:
    1,188
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Arizona
    Ratings:
    +1,189

    Thats the idea auditor, to create more insurance companies. the more insurance companies there are, the more choice you have , the more competetion there is and the lower the cost. As for you assertion on pre-existing conditions, the facts are that healthcare costs on some pre-existing conditions are very expensive and as long as these co-ops are allowed to thrive ,even those with pre-existing conditions will be able to find health insurance although they will have to pay higher premiums. I don't see this as a hurdle that cannot be jumped over, because the same is true for auto insurance, when you have "risk" factors. The higher the "risk" the higher the premium. The healther the person the lower the premium. This is not advocating that the insurance companies can outright reject anyone, but, I think if you have a larger pool of insurance providers you will have more willing to offer insurance to those with "pre-existing" conditions.
     
  9. auditor0007
    Offline

    auditor0007 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2008
    Messages:
    12,566
    Thanks Received:
    2,255
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Toledo, OH
    Ratings:
    +3,218
    If health insurance would have been portable, I would still have coverage at a reasonable rate. But it is not. The insurance companies don't want it to be portable because they know people move all the time. This is the easiest way to remove them from their rolls.

    You act like I never had insurance, and want everyone else to foot the bill for me. You are so far out in left field, and this is why there is so much support for more government involvement.
     
  10. Oddball
    Offline

    Oddball BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    41,428
    Thanks Received:
    8,397
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
    Ratings:
    +8,409
    And if worms had machine guns, birds wouldn't fuck with them.

    Nobody has any right to dictate to any business the terms of whom they will or won't sell their products or services. And certainly nobody has any right to have a third party pick up the tab for any of their expenses, let alone medical costs.

    Every "solution" you support involves doing more of what has already driven costs through the roof.
     

Share This Page