Co-ops a good compromise?

[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.

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.

Co op is not the best option.

So its a compromise that's designed to deal with problems in the Senate. But it doesn’t deal with problems in America. And I think it’s time for the Senate to stop playing politics, do what has to be done. If the Republicans don’t want to get on board, and they certainly have never done - look how the Republicans all were against Medicare when we put that in - if the Republicans don't want to get on board, then we can do this without the Republicans.

We have the votes to do a public health insurance option without a single Republican vote and without the one or two Democrats that have said no, and if that's what we have to do - we've got to do the right thing for the American people, not the political thing for the Senate.

 

[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.

Co op is not the best option.

So its a compromise that's designed to deal with problems in the Senate. But it doesn’t deal with problems in America. And I think it’s time for the Senate to stop playing politics, do what has to be done. If the Republicans don’t want to get on board, and they certainly have never done - look how the Republicans all were against Medicare when we put that in - if the Republicans don't want to get on board, then we can do this without the Republicans.

We have the votes to do a public health insurance option without a single Republican vote and without the one or two Democrats that have said no, and if that's what we have to do - we've got to do the right thing for the American people, not the political thing for the Senate.

What makes you think a public plan, run by bureaucrats and politicians, would be a better option than co-ops, run by the very people it is supposed to serve?

 

[Oddball]

What makes you think a public plan, run by bureaucrats and politicians, would be a better option than co-ops, run by the very people it is supposed to serve?

Because he's a cargo cultist who worships politicians and bureaucrats who carry a (D) by their names.

 

[sealybobo]

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.

Co op is not the best option.

So its a compromise that's designed to deal with problems in the Senate. But it doesn’t deal with problems in America. And I think it’s time for the Senate to stop playing politics, do what has to be done. If the Republicans don’t want to get on board, and they certainly have never done - look how the Republicans all were against Medicare when we put that in - if the Republicans don't want to get on board, then we can do this without the Republicans.

We have the votes to do a public health insurance option without a single Republican vote and without the one or two Democrats that have said no, and if that's what we have to do - we've got to do the right thing for the American people, not the political thing for the Senate.

What makes you think a public plan, run by bureaucrats and politicians, would be a better option than co-ops, run by the very people it is supposed to serve?

Not enough people in their pool to make the costs go down.

All the government is going to do is be the middle man between the doctors and patients. They get a bill, they pay the bill. They don't deny coverage. They don't advertise, they don't pay ceo bonus' and dividends to shareholders.

What makes you think For Profits are doing a good job?

 

[sealybobo]

What makes you think a public plan, run by bureaucrats and politicians, would be a better option than co-ops, run by the very people it is supposed to serve?

Because he's a cargo cultist who worships politicians and bureaucrats who carry a (D) by their names.

Well the one thing that scares me about a public plan is that one day the GOP might be back in charge and yes, they will fuck it up.

 

[toomuchtime_]

What makes you think a public plan, run by bureaucrats and politicians, would be a better option than co-ops, run by the very people it is supposed to serve?

Because he's a cargo cultist who worships politicians and bureaucrats who carry a (D) by their names.

Well the one thing that scares me about a public plan is that one day the GOP might be back in charge and yes, they will fuck it up.

That's a real good reason why you should prefer co-ops to a public plan. In fact, most people who oppose a public plan do so for the exact same reason: they don't trust the government.

 

[sealybobo]

Because he's a cargo cultist who worships politicians and bureaucrats who carry a (D) by their names.

Well the one thing that scares me about a public plan is that one day the GOP might be back in charge and yes, they will fuck it up.

That's a real good reason why you should prefer co-ops to a public plan. In fact, most people who oppose a public plan do so for the exact same reason: they don't trust the government.

I'll have to hear more positive about co ops. Right now it just seems like some bullshit that they will give us to shut us up.

And I want to hear the GOP really push co ops. Know why? Because they'll have to talk against the current system and explain how co ops will be better.

And if they admit that, then at least they are finally admitting that the current system needs changing.

So tomorrow I will look forward to hearing more about co ops. Maybe they'll talk about them on Air America or MSNBC or CNN or Fox when i go to the gym tonight.

Good night.

 

[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.

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.

That's the whole point; they already are. If you work for a big company and are provided health insurance through a group plan, then you won't be denied coverage if you move from one state to another and one company to another. However, if you are self-employed, you can't become part of a group plan, and so then you are denied. There are two differenct sets of rules at work, where one discriminates and the other does not.

What you support is discrimination against those who are self-employed. It amazes me that so very few of you are capable of seeing this. From most of the talking points here, most of you seem to think once anyone becomes sick, they should be forced to pay higher premiums because they raise the cost of healthcare. But the simple fact is that insurance is supposed to spread the risk so no one ends up losing their life savings due to illness. The problem is that everyone doesn't get to play by the same rules.

 

[Care4all]

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.

so, as long as you are NOT sick, $10,000 a year paid to the insurance company for your health care policy is fine?

The insurance companies got our government to create Medicare for the Elderly because they did not want to take the HIT on the cost of taking care of the elderly, once they took these seniors money for 20-40 years of them being healthy....they dumped them.

You honor the Insurance companies a tad too much Navy, naively so imho.

The insurance companies should cover EVERYONE at a reasonable price, and not dump the elderly or the sick on to the tax payers while they make their BILLIONS in profit off of the healthy.

Health insurance for ones health care, is not car insurance, and never will be Navy?

care

 

[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.

so, as long as you are NOT sick, $10,000 a year paid to the insurance company for your health care policy is fine?

The insurance companies got our government to create Medicare for the Elderly because they did not want to take the HIT on the cost of taking care of the elderly, once they took these seniors money for 20-40 years of them being healthy....they dumped them.

You honor the Insurance companies a tad too much Navy, naively so imho.

The insurance companies should cover EVERYONE at a reasonable price, and not dump the elderly or the sick on to the tax payers while they make their BILLIONS in profit off of the healthy.

Health insurance for ones health care, is not car insurance, and never will be Navy?

care

Care while I understand your passion on this issue, my feelings on this issue are that an inusrance company has a right to exist as a business as much as any other. My point was that when you inject more choice into the market place there will be many providers willing to serve those that are underserved at the moment based on "risk". My comparison was basically to show just that in the insurance business as it relates to companies comming to provide insurance for those that at are at higher risk that others when you have more competetion. As I have pointed out, indivduals, small business, and others do not have the same purchasing power as companies when it comes to purchasing health insurance. So by forming these co-ops they are allowed to create that purchasing power and even the at risk groups or those with pre existing conditions can negotiate for the best rates in the market given a climate where competetion thrives. I do not see when you have a sole management source for insurance and that same source providing insurance as promoting competetion, rather it limits competetion. Imagine if for example AARP was allowed become a health insurance co-op, do you think that given the amount of members they have they have purchasing power in the market? Do you think that companies would like to be able to bid on that business? In fact AARP is a clearing house for insurance for it's members that are on Medicare at the moment, but imagine those that are say 50 to 60 who are not currently on Medicare? See what I mean Care, there are solutions to these problems as long as people are willing to do the hard work necessary to solve them.

 

[toomuchtime_]

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.

That's the whole point; they already are. If you work for a big company and are provided health insurance through a group plan, then you won't be denied coverage if you move from one state to another and one company to another. However, if you are self-employed, you can't become part of a group plan, and so then you are denied. There are two differenct sets of rules at work, where one discriminates and the other does not.

What you support is discrimination against those who are self-employed. It amazes me that so very few of you are capable of seeing this. From most of the talking points here, most of you seem to think once anyone becomes sick, they should be forced to pay higher premiums because they raise the cost of healthcare. But the simple fact is that insurance is supposed to spread the risk so no one ends up losing their life savings due to illness. The problem is that everyone doesn't get to play by the same rules.

No one is denying there are problems with out health insurance system, but fixing them does not require the massive expenditures Obama is demanding and a public plan is not a solution to any of them. For example, the Bush administration, and most of the Republican candidates for president last year, promoted the idea of having groups of individuals form organizations that could buy health insurance at group rates.

Insurance companies do not raise your rates because you get sick and they do not cancel your coverage because you get sick. The insurance policy you or your employer bought is a binding legal contract and the company must live up to the terms of it. If you want different or more benefits or terms of service, groups can negotiate such things with the insurer, but the more you put into the contract, the higher the premium will be. The thing to keep in mind is that this is true for a public plan, too, and there is no reason to think the unsubsidized cost of a public plan will be any less than the cost of a private plan.

 

[auditor0007]

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.

That's the whole point; they already are. If you work for a big company and are provided health insurance through a group plan, then you won't be denied coverage if you move from one state to another and one company to another. However, if you are self-employed, you can't become part of a group plan, and so then you are denied. There are two differenct sets of rules at work, where one discriminates and the other does not.

What you support is discrimination against those who are self-employed. It amazes me that so very few of you are capable of seeing this. From most of the talking points here, most of you seem to think once anyone becomes sick, they should be forced to pay higher premiums because they raise the cost of healthcare. But the simple fact is that insurance is supposed to spread the risk so no one ends up losing their life savings due to illness. The problem is that everyone doesn't get to play by the same rules.

No one is denying there are problems with out health insurance system, but fixing them does not require the massive expenditures Obama is demanding and a public plan is not a solution to any of them. For example, the Bush administration, and most of the Republican candidates for president last year, promoted the idea of having groups of individuals form organizations that could buy health insurance at group rates.

Insurance companies do not raise your rates because you get sick and they do not cancel your coverage because you get sick. The insurance policy you or your employer bought is a binding legal contract and the company must live up to the terms of it. If you want different or more benefits or terms of service, groups can negotiate such things with the insurer, but the more you put into the contract, the higher the premium will be. The thing to keep in mind is that this is true for a public plan, too, and there is no reason to think the unsubsidized cost of a public plan will be any less than the cost of a private plan.

If you move from one area to another, the only way to get health insurance is to apply for a new policy. If you became ill under your old policy, then you will either be denied coverage or end up paying three to five times as much to get a new policy. Either scenario is pretty bad. Of course, if you move from one employer to another, you will be okay because the new employer will be able to offer you coverage under their group plan, and Hipaa rules now make it so that the insurer cannot deny you coverage due to pre-existing conditions. However, and I will say this again, if you are an individual who is self-employed, and you make that same move, you are screwed.

Furthermore, any future changes that are made will not help someone who has lost coverage due to such circumstances. The bottom line is that most everyone would be screaming bloody murder if they had to spend over $15,000 per year for their own medical coverage. The truth is, very few could afford it.

 

[Oddball]

See what I mean Care, there are solutions to these problems as long as people are willing to do the hard work necessary to solve them.

And therein lies the rub.

Far, far too many people look upon Big Daddy Big Gubmint as the default "easy button" to solve all the various and sundry vicissitudes of life, in lieu of putting in any effort to solve their own life's challenges.

 

[Care4all]

See what I mean Care, there are solutions to these problems as long as people are willing to do the hard work necessary to solve them.

And therein lies the rub.

Far, far too many people look upon Big Daddy Big Gubmint as the default "easy button" to solve all the various and sundry vicissitudes of life, in lieu of putting in any effort to solve their own life's challenges.

What made insurance companies the big daddies that they are now? Who lobbied congress for the present system? Why didn't the republicans in power from 1994-2006 do something to reform healthcare in the manner you and Navy and others describe that would make it more reasonable if it really is the answer to all ills? competition certainly should make health care costs more reasonable but who and why was the competition taken away in the first place? Who lobbied for it? Who got their wish or their wheel greased?

Maybe i don't understand clearly your position on this?

Care

 

[toomuchtime_]

That's the whole point; they already are. If you work for a big company and are provided health insurance through a group plan, then you won't be denied coverage if you move from one state to another and one company to another. However, if you are self-employed, you can't become part of a group plan, and so then you are denied. There are two differenct sets of rules at work, where one discriminates and the other does not.

What you support is discrimination against those who are self-employed. It amazes me that so very few of you are capable of seeing this. From most of the talking points here, most of you seem to think once anyone becomes sick, they should be forced to pay higher premiums because they raise the cost of healthcare. But the simple fact is that insurance is supposed to spread the risk so no one ends up losing their life savings due to illness. The problem is that everyone doesn't get to play by the same rules.

No one is denying there are problems with out health insurance system, but fixing them does not require the massive expenditures Obama is demanding and a public plan is not a solution to any of them. For example, the Bush administration, and most of the Republican candidates for president last year, promoted the idea of having groups of individuals form organizations that could buy health insurance at group rates.

Insurance companies do not raise your rates because you get sick and they do not cancel your coverage because you get sick. The insurance policy you or your employer bought is a binding legal contract and the company must live up to the terms of it. If you want different or more benefits or terms of service, groups can negotiate such things with the insurer, but the more you put into the contract, the higher the premium will be. The thing to keep in mind is that this is true for a public plan, too, and there is no reason to think the unsubsidized cost of a public plan will be any less than the cost of a private plan.

If you move from one area to another, the only way to get health insurance is to apply for a new policy. If you became ill under your old policy, then you will either be denied coverage or end up paying three to five times as much to get a new policy. Either scenario is pretty bad. Of course, if you move from one employer to another, you will be okay because the new employer will be able to offer you coverage under their group plan, and Hipaa rules now make it so that the insurer cannot deny you coverage due to pre-existing conditions. However, and I will say this again, if you are an individual who is self-employed, and you make that same move, you are screwed.

Furthermore, any future changes that are made will not help someone who has lost coverage due to such circumstances. The bottom line is that most everyone would be screaming bloody murder if they had to spend over $15,000 per year for their own medical coverage. The truth is, very few could afford it.

Again, these are problems that can be easily addressed under our present system and should be. You are identifying two problems: the inability of an individual to buy health insurance at group rates and the problem of buying health insurance with preexisting conditions. The first can be addressed by encouraging the development of co-ops and organizations of individuals to buy insurance for their members at group rates, and the second can be addressed in a variety of ways. For example, allow health insurance companies to go national but require them to allow some one who was insured by them in one state to buy a policy from them in another state without being rated because of preexisting health conditions. Since the insurer had been funding against the risk of illness while the individual was healthy, it seems only fair they pay the costs of the illness they had been funding against even if he moves across state lines. Many of the perceived benefits of a public plan derive not from the fact it is public but from the fact that it is a national plan.

But what about the case where an individual becomes sick while being insured by a company that has not gone national and then he has to move to another state? Such insurers could be urged or forced to pay into a national fund that would compensate the new insurer for taking on this person.

These are very nice solutions, imo, because they do not require the government to incur the trillions of dollars of new debt Obama is demanding and the increases in premiums they cause should be very small and evenly distributed nationally.

 

[Navy1960]

See what I mean Care, there are solutions to these problems as long as people are willing to do the hard work necessary to solve them.

And therein lies the rub.

Far, far too many people look upon Big Daddy Big Gubmint as the default "easy button" to solve all the various and sundry vicissitudes of life, in lieu of putting in any effort to solve their own life's challenges.

What made insurance companies the big daddies that they are now? Who lobbied congress for the present system? Why didn't the republicans in power from 1994-2006 do something to reform healthcare in the manner you and Navy and others describe that would make it more reasonable if it really is the answer to all ills? competition certainly should make health care costs more reasonable but who and why was the competition taken away in the first place? Who lobbied for it? Who got their wish or their wheel greased?

Maybe i don't understand clearly your position on this?

Care

Care I thought, I've made my position very clear on this, that of course costs need to come down and of course, healhcare can be made more reasonable and affordable for those that need it and want it. However, this can be done through the proper application of legislation that promotes competetion, allows greater choice, and regulates where needed. It doesn't work when the Govt. is the sole entity and boss of the health insurance, because that will stifle competetion and also limit choice. Further according to the GAO it wont even cover everyone and will cost over a Trillion dollars in taxpayer money we don't have, I ask you, how fair is that to our Seniors and the disabled and even young people if we bankrupt the Govt. on a healthcare plan that is failed from the start.? Democrats and Republican are to blame for not doing the work that is needed and dare I say the voters that vote for the same people year after year and think that is change? The facts are Care is when people are allowed to choose and have the ability to do so. the costs and affordability will come down. Another thing that is hardly ever mentioned in this is the over 80 billion dollars a year this country spends on healthcare for Illegal Immigrants. Even if you have a public option it still will do nothing to cover those costs. and add that up over the 10 year cycle of the healthcare plan? thats 800 Billion dollars. So unless a solution to that problem is actually worked on as well NOTHING will change. See what I mean Care? To me it's spending money to appease a campaign promise with a shortsighted vision. When the solution is actually one that requires BOTH sides to get off their collective asses.

Dodd's wife serves on health care company boards June 12, 2009 2:26 PM EDT
WASHINGTON - The wife of a senator playing a lead role on a national health care overhaul sits on the boards of four health care companies, one of several examples of lawmakers with ties to the medical industry. Jackie Clegg Dodd, wife of Sen. Chris Dodd, serves on the boards of Javelin Pharmaceuticals Inc., Cardiome Pharma Corp., Brookdale Senior Living, and Pear Tree Pharmaceuticals, a financial disclosure report the senator released Friday shows.
Dodd's wife serves on health care company boards :: WRAL.com

The facts are Care, no matter what the label D or R they all have connections. So don't be so quick to condemn one party when they both are not doing the hard work needed to bring these costs in line. By the way I think the goal here for everyone is the same, I just think that how to get to that goal is the issue here. I think we can all agree that bu bringing costs down we make healthcare more affordable for everyone, however I am not one who believes that Govt. is the be all and end all to that solution Care and don't think that the insurance companies are all the evil entities that they are painted as. After all real people work there that are not all rich people with evil intent.

 

[Care4all]

No one is denying there are problems with out health insurance system, but fixing them does not require the massive expenditures Obama is demanding and a public plan is not a solution to any of them. For example, the Bush administration, and most of the Republican candidates for president last year, promoted the idea of having groups of individuals form organizations that could buy health insurance at group rates.

Insurance companies do not raise your rates because you get sick and they do not cancel your coverage because you get sick. The insurance policy you or your employer bought is a binding legal contract and the company must live up to the terms of it. If you want different or more benefits or terms of service, groups can negotiate such things with the insurer, but the more you put into the contract, the higher the premium will be. The thing to keep in mind is that this is true for a public plan, too, and there is no reason to think the unsubsidized cost of a public plan will be any less than the cost of a private plan.

If you move from one area to another, the only way to get health insurance is to apply for a new policy. If you became ill under your old policy, then you will either be denied coverage or end up paying three to five times as much to get a new policy. Either scenario is pretty bad. Of course, if you move from one employer to another, you will be okay because the new employer will be able to offer you coverage under their group plan, and Hipaa rules now make it so that the insurer cannot deny you coverage due to pre-existing conditions. However, and I will say this again, if you are an individual who is self-employed, and you make that same move, you are screwed.

Furthermore, any future changes that are made will not help someone who has lost coverage due to such circumstances. The bottom line is that most everyone would be screaming bloody murder if they had to spend over $15,000 per year for their own medical coverage. The truth is, very few could afford it.

Again, these are problems that can be easily addressed under our present system and should be. You are identifying two problems: the inability of an individual to buy health insurance at group rates and the problem of buying health insurance with preexisting conditions. The first can be addressed by encouraging the development of co-ops and organizations of individuals to buy insurance for their members at group rates, and the second can be addressed in a variety of ways. For example, allow health insurance companies to go national but require them to allow some one who was insured by them in one state to buy a policy from them in another state without being rated because of preexisting health conditions. Since the insurer had been funding against the risk of illness while the individual was healthy, it seems only fair they pay the costs of the illness they had been funding against even if he moves across state lines. Many of the perceived benefits of a public plan derive not from the fact it is public but from the fact that it is a national plan.

But what about the case where an individual becomes sick while being insured by a company that has not gone national and then he has to move to another state? Such insurers could be urged or forced to pay into a fund that would compensate the new insurer for taking on this person.

These are very nice solutions, imo, because they do not require the government to incur the trillions of dollars of new debt Obama is demanding and the increases in premiums they cause should be very small and evenly distributed nationally.

What is the trillions of ADDITIONAL dollars that obama plans to spend on health care for?

SCHIP?

The govt option?

MEDICARE?

MEDICAID?

Covering the 45 million uninsured?

These private coops????

i am at a disadvantaged I suppose, because i really don't know what all of obama's plan entails verses congress's plan, the dem plan or the minority republican plan? i have heard quips about all, but not enough details....

care

 

[Navy1960]

CNSNews.com) - The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reports that a government overhaul of America’s health care system would cost at least $1 trillion and would mean the loss of private coverage for an estimated 23 million Americans, according to a preliminary analysis issued Tuesday.

The Kennedy plan does not include the government-run health insurance entity sought by President Obama, nor does it contain the Democrat-favored plan to expand Medicaid coverage to everyone earning less than 150 percent of the federal poverty level. Both of those proposals – the details of which are still under negotiation – would add significantly to the cost of the bill, CBO says
CNSNews.com - Democrats’ $1-Trillion Health Care Plan to Cost 23 Million Americans Their Private Insurance, CBO Says

So Care imagine if you will, the 1 Trillion does not include the costs of the public option or the cost of Medicare expansion and then you have a program that is so massive in scope that this country simply cannot afford it. That is why private co-ops are a viable alternative that are privately run, and privately held along with Immigration reform and then you really have something going there.

 

[Oddball]

See what I mean Care, there are solutions to these problems as long as people are willing to do the hard work necessary to solve them.

And therein lies the rub.

Far, far too many people look upon Big Daddy Big Gubmint as the default "easy button" to solve all the various and sundry vicissitudes of life, in lieu of putting in any effort to solve their own life's challenges.

What made insurance companies the big daddies that they are now? Who lobbied congress for the present system? Why didn't the republicans in power from 1994-2006 do something to reform healthcare in the manner you and Navy and others describe that would make it more reasonable if it really is the answer to all ills? competition certainly should make health care costs more reasonable but who and why was the competition taken away in the first place? Who lobbied for it? Who got their wish or their wheel greased?

Maybe i don't understand clearly your position on this?

Care

Insurance companies became what they are by way of FDR's wage and price controls, which exempted medical insurance from those regulations. Since then, insurance as part of an employee compensation package has been treated as a right, rather than just a benefit extended at the pleasure of the given company.

Also, as I've previously pointed out, the myriad of state statutes that impose requirements on coverage and prohibit out of state shopping for cafeteria-style coverage contribute greatly to the problem.

 

[sealybobo]

Government wouldn't run healthcare. They would just act as the middle man between doctors and patients. Healthcare would still be for profit. Doctors should still get paid well.

How much do these co op's cost to join? Do they deny for pre existing care?

What are the negatives?