White House ready to accept health co-ops?

[VaYank5150]

[QUOTEWASHINGTON - Bowing to Republican pressure and an uneasy public, President Barack Obama's administration signaled Sunday it is ready to abandon the idea of giving Americans the option of government-run insurance as part of a new health care system.

Facing mounting opposition to the overhaul, administration officials left open the chance for a compromise with Republicans that would include health insurance cooperatives instead of a government-run plan. Such a concession would likely enrage his liberal supporters but could deliver Obama a much-needed win on a top domestic priority opposed by GOP lawmakers.

Officials from both political parties reached across the aisle in an effort to find compromises on proposals they left behind when they returned to their districts for an August recess. Obama had wanted the government to run a health insurance organization to help cover the nation's almost 50 million uninsured, but didn't include it as one of his three core principles of reform.

][/QUOTE]
White House ready to accept health co-ops? - White House- msnbc.com

It would appear that the Republicans have handed Obama the BIPARTISAN victory he has been looking for. Good show!

 

[skookerasbil]

VaYank5150
Registered User
Member #20296
It would appear that the Republicans have handed Obama the BIPARTISAN victory he has been looking for. Good show!


======================================

 

[VaYank5150]

STILL playing with crayons I see, kook...

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

That will ease a portion of my opposition to the bill.

Now lets see some actual reforms in the bill that will help the problem such as Tort reform and the govt may gain a supporter of their bill, probably not as its still has wayyyyy to many kickbacks and changes to care for my liking but we will see.

 

[Zoom-boing]

WASHINGTON - Bowing to Republican pressure and an uneasy public, President Barack Obama's administration signaled Sunday it is ready to abandon the idea of giving Americans the option of government-run insurance as part of a new health care system.

Facing mounting opposition to the overhaul, administration officials left open the chance for a compromise with Republicans that would include health insurance cooperatives instead of a government-run plan. Such a concession would likely enrage his liberal supporters but could deliver Obama a much-needed win on a top domestic priority opposed by GOP lawmakers.

Officials from both political parties reached across the aisle in an effort to find compromises on proposals they left behind when they returned to their districts for an August recess. Obama had wanted the government to run a health insurance organization to help cover the nation's almost 50 million uninsured, but didn't include it as one of his three core principles of reform.


White House ready to accept health co-ops? - White House- msnbc.com

It would appear that the Republicans have handed Obama the BIPARTISAN victory he has been looking for. Good show!

Dems have the majority, if they wanted it passed it would be passed. The fact is there are many Dems who were opposed to government-run health care, in addition to the Repubs. But I see you choose to swallow the 'it's all the Repubs fault' spin. Figures. (I'm reading your comment as sarcastic; if I'm wrong -- sorry).

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

LOL zoom. I just ignored the partisan drivel part of his post

 

[nodoginnafight]

Yank: Do you think the co-op model does anything to address the working poor uninsured?

 

[VaYank5150]

Yank: Do you think the co-op model does anything to address the working poor uninsured?

I honestly have not read enough about the co-op model to know. However, listening to the Sunday talk shows, the PREMISE is that these co-ops would initially be funded and started up by the Fed and then would take off and run "for profit" by non-government entities. These Co-ops would somehow be the private competition that Obama said he wanted the "public option" to be for the out of control insurance companies we deal with today. I need to do some more homework, but IF these private entities are going to be "just another" insurance company, I am having a hard time grasping how they will be any better than the greedy bastards we have now.
What are your thoughts?

 

[nodoginnafight]

Yank: Do you think the co-op model does anything to address the working poor uninsured?

I honestly have not read enough about the co-op model to know. However, listening to the Sunday talk shows, the PREMISE is that these co-ops would initially be funded and started up by the Fed and then would take off and run "for profit" by non-government entities. These Co-ops would somehow be the private competition that Obama said he wanted the "public option" to be for the out of control insurance companies we deal with today. I need to do some more homework, but IF these private entities are going to be "just another" insurance company, I am having a hard time grasping how they will be any better than the greedy bastards we have now.
What are your thoughts?

I agree with you in that I'm gonna need to look a lot closer at what emerges before making up my mind. I also agree that if the co-op model doesn't do anything to help the working poor, I don't see much point.

 

[Ringel05]

Yank: Do you think the co-op model does anything to address the working poor uninsured?

I honestly have not read enough about the co-op model to know. However, listening to the Sunday talk shows, the PREMISE is that these co-ops would initially be funded and started up by the Fed and then would take off and run "for profit" by non-government entities. These Co-ops would somehow be the private competition that Obama said he wanted the "public option" to be for the out of control insurance companies we deal with today. I need to do some more homework, but IF these private entities are going to be "just another" insurance company, I am having a hard time grasping how they will be any better than the greedy bastards we have now.
What are your thoughts?

Coops are "user owned", and as with all successful coops the costs are kept at a minimum, one of those situations where the more people involved the lower the costs per person. The key here would be to set up the coops as non-profit or not for profit. Grand Junction, Co has one of the largest and most successful ones as well as either Montana or Minnesota (I don't remember which). In (which ever state it's in) the cost increases per year have been negligible with taxpayer cost remaining flat or decreasing.
Part of the equation to look for in the bill would be tax rebates (or outright payments) given to those who's incomes fall below a certain level, essentially covering the cost for these individuals and and families participating in these plans.
If these coops are set up properly the private, for profit insurers will have to make some radical changes to compete.

 

[VaYank5150]

I just heard an interview on CNN radio. Apparently, co-ops are in existence in Seattle and Minneapolis. These co-ops are non-profit, however, they do NOT insure everyone. Creating co-ops will do nothing to address the 46 million uninsured Americans we currently have, as co-ops charge premiums. So, if this is the case, what good will co-ops do to address the 46 million uninsured Americans initially targeted by healthcare reform?

 

[nodoginnafight]

Yank: Do you think the co-op model does anything to address the working poor uninsured?

I honestly have not read enough about the co-op model to know. However, listening to the Sunday talk shows, the PREMISE is that these co-ops would initially be funded and started up by the Fed and then would take off and run "for profit" by non-government entities. These Co-ops would somehow be the private competition that Obama said he wanted the "public option" to be for the out of control insurance companies we deal with today. I need to do some more homework, but IF these private entities are going to be "just another" insurance company, I am having a hard time grasping how they will be any better than the greedy bastards we have now.
What are your thoughts?

Coops are "user owned", and as with all successful coops the costs are kept at a minimum, one of those situations where the more people involved the lower the costs per person. The key here would be to set up the coops as non-profit or not for profit. Grand Junction, Co has one of the largest and most successful ones as well as either Montana or Minnesota (I don't remember which). In (which ever state it's in) the cost increases per year have been negligible with taxpayer cost remaining flat or decreasing.
Part of the equation to look for in the bill would be tax rebates (or outright payments) given to those who's incomes fall below a certain level, essentially covering the cost for these individuals and and families participating in these plans.
If these coops are set up properly the private, for profit insurers will have to make some radical changes to compete.

I've seen the co-op alternative in the utility industry, but that's different because a lot of utility companies (co-ops included) enjoy monopolies within their service districts. And yes, they enjoy much lower utility rates than those served by for-profits.

I like the idea, and if applied like it is in the utility industries, then I think it could be a good idea. But I've also seen some working poor folks choose to spend their money on other things rather than healthcare and just use the ER as their primary caregiver. If they're just gonna mail checks to these folks - I imagine many will choose to spend that money on something else and keep going to the ER when their child gets the sniffles.

Getting the uninsured in is a big "detail" imho.

 

[VaYank5150]

I imagine many will choose to spend that money on something and keep going to the ER when their child gets the sniffles.

THIS is the part that needs to be addressed at an individual level. However, how do you go about enforcing it?

 

[HUGGY]

I'm getting ready to tell Obama to go fuck himself. I don't like liars.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I imagine many will choose to spend that money on something and keep going to the ER when their child gets the sniffles.

THIS is the part that needs to be addressed at an individual level. However, how do you go about enforcing it?

I don't know - direct premium assistance (to the co-op, not the insured) from gov't?????? Just spitballing.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Here guys....a little light wiki reading

Cooperative - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[VaYank5150]

I'm getting ready to tell Obama to go fuck himself. I don't like liars.

Let me know how that works out for you...

 

[VaYank5150]

I don't know - direct premium assistance (to the co-op, not the insured) from gov't?????? Just spitballing.

This MIGHT curb the problem you speak of in #12.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I'm getting ready to tell Obama to go fuck himself. I don't like liars.

Let me know how that works out for you...

SO you must hate all of congress too....and every president since, ummm, washington

 

[Ringel05]

I honestly have not read enough about the co-op model to know. However, listening to the Sunday talk shows, the PREMISE is that these co-ops would initially be funded and started up by the Fed and then would take off and run "for profit" by non-government entities. These Co-ops would somehow be the private competition that Obama said he wanted the "public option" to be for the out of control insurance companies we deal with today. I need to do some more homework, but IF these private entities are going to be "just another" insurance company, I am having a hard time grasping how they will be any better than the greedy bastards we have now.
What are your thoughts?

Coops are "user owned", and as with all successful coops the costs are kept at a minimum, one of those situations where the more people involved the lower the costs per person. The key here would be to set up the coops as non-profit or not for profit. Grand Junction, Co has one of the largest and most successful ones as well as either Montana or Minnesota (I don't remember which). In (which ever state it's in) the cost increases per year have been negligible with taxpayer cost remaining flat or decreasing.
Part of the equation to look for in the bill would be tax rebates (or outright payments) given to those who's incomes fall below a certain level, essentially covering the cost for these individuals and and families participating in these plans.
If these coops are set up properly the private, for profit insurers will have to make some radical changes to compete.

I've seen the co-op alternative in the utility industry, but that's different because a lot of utility companies (co-ops included) enjoy monopolies within their service districts. And yes, they enjoy much lower utility rates than those served by for-profits.

I like the idea, and if applied like it is in the utility industries, then I think it could be a good idea. But I've also seen some working poor folks choose to spend their money on other things rather than healthcare and just use the ER as their primary caregiver. If they're just gonna mail checks to these folks - I imagine many will choose to spend that money on something else and keep going to the ER when their child gets the sniffles.

Getting the uninsured in is a big "detail" imho.

Wow! You've met my sister in law, (fifteen years ago).
There's no accounting for stupidity and selfishness nor can correcting it be legislated.
Instead of sending them a check have them enroll in the program and pay the coop directly or send "vouchers" that can only be used to pay premiums.