White House ready to accept health co-ops?

[VaYank5150]

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.

Sounds like a plan. Question: How is this option SO much different than the "public option" that Obama wants?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

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.

Sounds like a plan. Question: How is this option SO much different than the "public option" that Obama wants?

its run by people that are part of the plan and receive the care, not by some politicans and beurocrats in DC who have their own special health care plan that wont be affected by the decisions they make for others.

 

[nodoginnafight]

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.

Sounds like a plan. Question: How is this option SO much different than the "public option" that Obama wants?

Maybe the difference is largely cosmetic, but if it helps get a good plan in action, then so be it.

 

[Ringel05]

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.

Sounds like a plan. Question: How is this option SO much different than the "public option" that Obama wants?

It's not government run.

 

[VaYank5150]

its run by people that are part of the plan and receive the care, not by some politicans and beurocrats in DC who have their own special health care plan that wont be affected by the decisions they make for others.

Slow down. Initial cost estimates to get a "USA" co-op going are between $10-15 BILLION. Who would be running the show? Honestly, don't you think they would have ties not only to Washington, but also to the existing healthcare industry?

 

[nodoginnafight]

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.

Sounds like a plan. Question: How is this option SO much different than the "public option" that Obama wants?

It's not government run.

I can see how being able to say that gets a lot more people on board and that's a good thing. But effectively, if 75% of the members are subsidized by government (and subject to the rules and stipulations that government will probably tack on) I can see where the difference could wind up being negligible.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

its run by people that are part of the plan and receive the care, not by some politicans and beurocrats in DC who have their own special health care plan that wont be affected by the decisions they make for others.

Slow down. Initial cost estimates to get a "USA" co-op going are between $10-15 BILLION. Who would be running the show? Honestly, don't you think they would have ties not only to Washington, but also to the existing healthcare industry?

10-15 billion.....not too bad when the public options was what 1.6 trillion? Thats about 1% the cost of the public option plan.


Who would run it....the people in each individual co-op decide who runs their co-op. A cooperative is an autonomous association of persons united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social, and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly-owned and democratically-controlled enterprise. It is a business organization owned and operated by a group of individuals for their mutual benefit. A cooperative may also be defined as a business owned and controlled equally by the people who use its services or who work at it.

 

[VaYank5150]

A cooperative may also be defined as a business owned and controlled equally by the people who use its services or who work at it.

While I appreciate the definition of a "normal" co-op, do you think these same rules will apply to a co-cop for healthc insurance funded by our Federal Government?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

A cooperative may also be defined as a business owned and controlled equally by the people who use its services or who work at it.

While I appreciate the definition of a "normal" co-op, do you think these same rules will apply to a co-cop for healthc insurance funded by our Federal Government?

they haven't written any legislation yet, but if our congress' track record has anything to say about it, I doubt it will be a "normal" co-op.

If it is a normal one I'm all for that idea....if they write it up funny in the next version of the bill I may oppose it.

Good Question!!!!

 

[nodoginnafight]

A cooperative may also be defined as a business owned and controlled equally by the people who use its services or who work at it.

While I appreciate the definition of a "normal" co-op, do you think these same rules will apply to a co-cop for healthc insurance funded by our Federal Government?

they haven't written any legislation yet, but if our congress' track record has anything to say about it, I doubt it will be a "normal" co-op.

If it is a normal one I'm all for that idea....if they write it up funny in the next version of the bill I may oppose it.

Good Question!!!!

The devil is always in the details, but if it doesn't extend coverage to a whole lot of people who aren't covered now, they lose me.

 

[Ringel05]

A cooperative may also be defined as a business owned and controlled equally by the people who use its services or who work at it.

While I appreciate the definition of a "normal" co-op, do you think these same rules will apply to a co-cop for healthc insurance funded by our Federal Government?

The government provides the start up capital which after a period of time will be paid back, although I would anticipate some deferments would be given. The government doesn't control the entities, they just provide limited taxpayer support. Imagine a user friendly, not for profit union that exists specifically for the members, not the organizers. That's the closest analogy I can come up with.

 

[Zoom-boing]

I was half watching some round-table discussion yesterday and they were talking about the co-ops. They said that the gov't would put up the xx billions to get it started but the gov't would be out of it would be run privately. But, they (the people talking) said that they weren't sure if the money that the gov't put in would get paid back or not -- or something along those lines. Like I said, I was only half paying attention. Did anyone else see this or hear anything about this?

ETA: Ringel I just saw your post. Thanks.

 

[Ringel05]

Sounds like a plan. Question: How is this option SO much different than the "public option" that Obama wants?

It's not government run.

I can see how being able to say that gets a lot more people on board and that's a good thing. But effectively, if 75% of the members are subsidized by government (and subject to the rules and stipulations that government will probably tack on) I can see where the difference could wind up being negligible.

Initially the percentage of subsidized members would (probably be high). However if the cost to savings ratio is substantially lowered we will see many businesses dropping their traditional high cost plans and enrolling in the coop systems. If the cost of the coop plan is cheaper for me than what is offered through work I may simply join my local coop.
So over a period of time the number of non subsidized members will increase exponentially and if the system and services are applied properly you'll see the subsidies reduced to less than 5% over time.
Just the opposite of what a government public option would have created.
Of course all of this is moot until we see what the final bill look like.

 

[nodoginnafight]

It's not government run.

I can see how being able to say that gets a lot more people on board and that's a good thing. But effectively, if 75% of the members are subsidized by government (and subject to the rules and stipulations that government will probably tack on) I can see where the difference could wind up being negligible.

Initially the percentage of subsidized members would (probably be high). However if the cost to savings ratio is substantially lowered we will see many businesses dropping their traditional high cost plans and enrolling in the coop systems. If the cost of the coop plan is cheaper for me than what is offered through work I may simply join my local coop.
So over a period of time the number of non subsidized members will increase exponentially and if the system and services are applied properly you'll see the subsidies reduced to less than 5% over time.
Just the opposite of what a government public option would have created.
Of course all of this is moot until we see what the final bill look like.

But if the subsidies drop off to that level, then again, my problem would be are we just shifting who is covering the already insured?
Not a big benefit IMHO.

 

[VaYank5150]

Just the opposite of what a government public option would have created.
Of course all of this is moot until we see what the final bill look like.

I may have missed it in the conversation, but I am wondering about all of the folks who "can't" afford healthcare now, that Obama was initially targeting. Will the government pay for these people? Is that the plan? Does anyone know?

 

[nodoginnafight]

Just the opposite of what a government public option would have created.
Of course all of this is moot until we see what the final bill look like.

I may have missed it in the conversation, but I am wondering about all of the folks who "can't" afford healthcare now, that Obama was initially targeting. Will the government pay for these people? Is that the plan? Does anyone know?

That speaks directly to MY big question as well which was:
Are we just shifting who is covering the insured or are we extending coverage to many (the working poor are MY main objective) who are not covered now. If the uninsured keep using the ER for primary care, we all wind up paying for it anyway. We can continue to pay the ultra high cost of ER as primary care, or we can look for ways to achieve the same objective for less money.

I think it's clear that I advocate saving money on this.

 

[Ringel05]

I can see how being able to say that gets a lot more people on board and that's a good thing. But effectively, if 75% of the members are subsidized by government (and subject to the rules and stipulations that government will probably tack on) I can see where the difference could wind up being negligible.

Initially the percentage of subsidized members would (probably be high). However if the cost to savings ratio is substantially lowered we will see many businesses dropping their traditional high cost plans and enrolling in the coop systems. If the cost of the coop plan is cheaper for me than what is offered through work I may simply join my local coop.
So over a period of time the number of non subsidized members will increase exponentially and if the system and services are applied properly you'll see the subsidies reduced to less than 5% over time.
Just the opposite of what a government public option would have created.
Of course all of this is moot until we see what the final bill look like.

But if the subsidies drop off to that level, then again, my problem would be are we just shifting who is covering the already insured?
Not a big benefit IMHO.

No, you misunderstand. the subsidies remain, the numbers needing subsidies fluctuate mildly but as the membership grows with the influx of paying members help drive individual costs down, lowering the dollar amount needed to be subsidized. eventually the number of self payers far exceeds the number of subsidized members.

The primary issue for many of us has been the government run public option not the need for reform to help those who (truly) lack health care or are suffering due to the high cost destroying their life's savings.
The coop option is privately (member) run, addresses the issues pro-public option proponents (minus the publicly run aspect) have while keeping the cost to taxpayers relatively low. A pretty good compromise, wouldn't you say?
The only thing that would be the icing on the cake would be tort reform but since tort lawyers are one of the largest blocs of contributors to the DNC it don't see that happening.

 

[Ringel05]

Just the opposite of what a government public option would have created.
Of course all of this is moot until we see what the final bill look like.

I may have missed it in the conversation, but I am wondering about all of the folks who "can't" afford healthcare now, that Obama was initially targeting. Will the government pay for these people? Is that the plan? Does anyone know?

Yes

 

[VaYank5150]

Yes

So, there may still be a need to raise taxes to cover these people. But the GOP is OK with this as long as government isn't running the program. Is that about the jist of it?

 

[Ringel05]

Yes

So, there may still be a need to raise taxes to cover these people. But the GOP is OK with this as long as government isn't running the program. Is that about the jist of it?

The cost of implementing and maintaining the coop option is about 10 to 20% of the cost of the public option, making the need for tax increases to cover it a lot less likely. Much of the initial outlay from the government would be paid back over time again removing the need for tax increases.

I can't speak for the GOP or their supporters but yes, as long as the government is not running it, I like it.