Co-ops a good compromise?

[Navy1960]

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.

 

[Oddball]

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??

 

[Navy1960]

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.

 

[auditor0007]

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.

 

[Oddball]

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.

IOW, there's no free lunch in it for you.

 

[auditor0007]

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.

IOW, there's no free lunch in it for you.

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.

 

[Oddball]

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.

 

[Navy1960]

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.

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.

 

[auditor0007]

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.

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.

 

[Oddball]

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.

 

[auditor0007]

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.

That is like saying no one has a right to dictate how home loans can be made to borrowers. We see how well that worked, lol.

 

[Navy1960]

You do realize auditor a few things here, one is that without allowing for competetion in the private marketplace and allowing for a premium payment difference between those with pre-existing condition and those without. The ones with the pre-existing conditions are going to use a much larger percentage of the healthcare dollars than they are paying for and drive the costs up. The other thing that is never taken into consideration here with those that advocate Govt. sponsored healthcare is the costs of Illegal Immigrant Healthcare and its impact. Here in Arizona alone it costs the taxpayers a Billion dollars a year. So in a Govt. sponsored and mandated system, that burden doesnt change. In fact what happens is its still there, with an additional burden of funding the "public option" again leading to higher costs. Thats the reason why I have been advocating, letting Americans form their own co-ops and it is up to them to set the conditions of their own co-ops. This will lead to a large number of service companies wanting to provide coverage. The more choice there is the lower the cost. It's only when you have a limited choice is when the costs go up. Want an example, look at auto insurance. there are literally hundreds of them that will cover anyone because of the large number of people that that want and desire it thats the consumer driving the providers to offer services.

 

[Valerie]

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.

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.

The government can get involved by not allowing the insurance companies to reject you for a preexisting condition, by mandating the portability, etc. All of the issues you are concerned with have other solutions that do not require the government to actually be the insurance administrator.

 

[auditor0007]

You do realize auditor a few things here, one is that without allowing for competetion in the private marketplace and allowing for a premium payment difference between those with pre-existing condition and those without. The ones with the pre-existing conditions are going to use a much larger percentage of the healthcare dollars than they are paying for and drive the costs up. The other thing that is never taken into consideration here with those that advocate Govt. sponsored healthcare is the costs of Illegal Immigrant Healthcare and its impact. Here in Arizona alone it costs the taxpayers a Billion dollars a year. So in a Govt. sponsored and mandated system, that burden doesnt change. In fact what happens is its still there, with an additional burden of funding the "public option" again leading to higher costs. Thats the reason why I have been advocating, letting Americans form their own co-ops and it is up to them to set the conditions of their own co-ops. This will lead to a large number of service companies wanting to provide coverage. The more choice there is the lower the cost. It's only when you have a limited choice is when the costs go up. Want an example, look at auto insurance. there are literally hundreds of them that will cover anyone because of the large number of people that that want and desire it thats the consumer driving the providers to offer services.

My argument is against insurance companies driving people out once they become sick. If someone purchases health insurance, then becomes sick, the insurance company should not be permitted to raise their rates because they purchased their coverage as part of a risk pool to begin with.

Now here is the dumb thing with the way things work these days. If I go to work for a company or wait until my business gets up and running here, then I can hire a few employees, provide them with insurance and also get insurance for myself. The rates will be slightly higher, but not five times as much.

When you purchase life insurance, it doesn't matter what state you live in. You purchase a policy for a certain amount of time, usually long enough to cover you until your kids are through college. I purchased my life insurance for twenty years, and so long as I make the payments, they cannot raise my rates because my rates were determined based on my risk when I purchased. Of course, today, I couldn't even purchase life insurance as I would be denied, and I don't have a problem with that.

However, with health insurance, they try to find ways to force you out or make you pay so much that it becomes unaffordable once you become sick. According to Dude, once anyone becomes sick, the insurance companies should deny them further coverage because it drives up costs.

 

[auditor0007]

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.

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.

The government can get involved by not allowing the insurance companies to reject you for a preexisting condition, by mandating the portability, etc. All of the issues you are concerned with have other solutions that do not require the government to actually be the insurance administrator.

In fairness to the insurance companies, if you force them to take on people despite pre-existing conditions, then insurance must be mandatory, so that everyone is paying into the system. This is actually what I feel is the best solution, but again, a lot of people are against forcing people to purchase insurance. Making insurance portable would also make sense, but it wouldn't help me any, but I'm just in this for myself, lol.

 

[toomuchtime_]

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.

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.

Portability and coverage for preexisting conditions could be written into private group plans now, but it would raise premiums, and if it is included in a government plan it will raise those premiums, too. In fact, if Obama's government plan is not subsidized by tax dollars, it will probably cost too much to be competitive with private insurance plans.

 

[sealybobo]

Co Ops turn out to be bullshit. Just smoke and mirrors to destract us from real healthcare reforms.

The problem isn't the malpractice $, or the doctors, or the patients.

It's the for profit insurers in the middle. Consider them bankers/wallstreet/aig types. They are the problem.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Co Ops turn out to be bullshit. Just smoke and mirrors to destract us from real healthcare reforms.

The problem isn't the malpractice $, or the doctors, or the patients.

It's the for profit insurers in the middle. Consider them bankers/wallstreet/aig types. They are the problem.

If you think for profit insurers are the problem, then you should love co-ops, which are essentially non profit insurance companies owned and run by members.

 

[Navy1960]

A public plan would be offered along with private ones through a new kind of insurance purchasing pool called an 'exchange.' The exchanges would be open to individuals and small businesses, and maybe even some large companies. Sebelius said a public plan would provide a standard for affordable coverage against which private insurance can be measured, especially in underserved areas of the country.

Sebelius' comments came after disappointing cost estimates for health care legislation by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy. The Congressional Budget Office released estimates that his bill would cost about $1 trillion over 10 years and only cover about one-third of the nearly 50 million uninsured. Budget officials cautioned that these were early estimates of a bill that's only partly written.

However, Sebelius stressed that Obama is open to compromise on the shape of the public plan, which doesn't have to be run by the government. She spoke positively of a compromise idea that envisions consumer-owned nonprofit cooperatives, like rural electricity or agriculture co-ops. They would get started with seed money from taxpayers but then compete without government control. The plan by Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., may end up in a health overhaul bill to be unveiled by the Senate Finance Committee this week.
AP INTERVIEW: Sebelius says insurers won't succeed - Yahoo! News

Sen. Max Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said Thursday that he supports "a version" of a public, or government-run, insurance plan, but that it won't cover illegal immigrants.

"I do support a version" of a public option, he said, adding that's it's a "hot-button" issue.

"There's going to be a lot of trade-offs," said Mr. Baucus, Montana Democrat and chairman of the committee that is expected to write the Senate's health care reform plan. "This is just so large."

Public insurance plan to reject illegals - Washington Times

The point here is that even if the public option is adopted it will not do anything to help bring down the costs of the over 80 billion dollar spent yearly on covering the costs of Illegal Immigrant healthcare. What it will do is add an additional burden to the taxpayers on top of the one we already have and lead to even higher costs.

 

[Oddball]

Co Ops turn out to be bullshit. Just smoke and mirrors to destract us from real healthcare reforms.

The problem isn't the malpractice $, or the doctors, or the patients.

It's the for profit insurers in the middle. Consider them bankers/wallstreet/aig types. They are the problem.

If you think for profit insurers are the problem, then you should love co-ops, which are essentially non profit insurance companies owned and run by members.

booboo has NFI what he's talking about....He just goes on and on about how eeeeviiiilll rich people and George BOOOOOOSH have made him a permanent victim.