home

GOP Says No To Conrad's Coops

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 05:26:52 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Hey guess what? Via Brian Beutler, the GOP won't support Conrad's Coops.

BTW. Ezra Klein is all over my TV telling me that really, the President can't do anything. Funny sh*t Ezra.

Speaking for me only

< Is Stare Decisis In the Constitution? | Carville: Political Advantage To Dems If GOP Kills HCR >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    GOP Says No To Conrad's Coops | 23 comments (23 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Makes the Obama and his spokepersons (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 05:46:19 PM EST
    little "maybe we will stand behind the public options - maybe we won't" performances look even more foolish.

    Maybe I will live long enough for the Dems to realize that there is no such thing as "give a little to get a little" when dealing with the Republicans. The Dems had already pretty much given away the store and still the Republicans are saying no.

    If I were Dem leadership, I'd say O.K. we tried to compromise with you, now we are going to write bills with a real Medicare type public option.

    Maybe the back door? (none / 0) (#5)
    by ChiTownMike on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 06:03:35 PM EST
    If you can't get in the front door there is always the back door.

    We are talking 6 billion for starters. Well the administration got very creative in getting more money to the financial sector than TARP provided (which I supported) and bypassing congress.

    So why can't they get creative to the tune of 6 billion? According to what you posted about Rockefeller last night there are already some co-ops in place. There has to be a way to fund more. Perhaps pull a trick from Bush and do it through Faith Based Initiatives or something along a different line.

    Once some co-ops are in place that provide quality policies at non-profit premiums people, including employers, will flock to them.

    It would only take a few to create a gold rush. And when demand is high the GOP will not be able to say no when their own voters are participating.

    Parent

    Don't Agree (3.00 / 2) (#7)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 06:08:14 PM EST
    I am not in favor of co-ops. My compromise position is a viable public option that everyone can access.

    Parent
    The only acceptable (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by cal1942 on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 11:48:48 PM EST
    compromise position less than single-payer is a
    public option that everyone can access.

    Everyone including businesses that currently offer health care insurance to their employees.

    Any public option not available to all is not 'the camel's nose under the tent.'


    Parent

    Well my choice is a public option too... (none / 0) (#10)
    by ChiTownMike on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 07:03:10 PM EST
    I think!

    But I can't call that a compromise. With single payer off the map little on, on the table, a GOOD public option is as good as it's going to get. Anything below that is a 'compromise'.

    And right now it doesn't seem that a public option is going to fly. We don't even have all the DEMS on board! So realistically we have to ask what is the next best thing so the Donkey can get it's nose under the tent and have something viable to build on.

    I keep thinking about this and the public option gives you the same old insurance companies that just are not going to participate in a more benefits/lower price program. They just are not going to do it. So we can build it - but they aren't going to come.

    Now co-ops are taxpayer/policy holder owned -like a credit union - - or any union! They would be non-profit. That means lower premiums and no profit ax to grind in denying coverage or canceling policies. Compared to Blue Cross that sounds like heaven to me.

    Over the years I've heard people wish they could take things in their own hands and the hell with government. Well co-ops give us that. And if we can get the government to fund them or at least seed them then we have something viable. And maybe it's the first step to single payer someday.

    I'm just trying to be realistic here. The GOP is never going to let a public option pass.

    Parent

    I have a different perspective (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 07:42:53 PM EST
    I wanted single payer. As far as I am concerned, a viable public option is the compromise that I am willing to make. I'm not a real big fan of moving the goal posts further and further down the field to accommodate the Democratic Party's inability to deliver good workable legislation.

     

    Parent

    Just for conversations sake (none / 0) (#12)
    by ChiTownMike on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 07:52:14 PM EST
    Can I ask what it is you like about a public option (actually and insurance company exchange in it's current form - Blue Cross, Aetna, etc) over a non-profit co-op owned by policy holders and very likely doctors and hospitals?

    I want to also mention that if the co-op is set up under a participating mutual insurance mandate, as is being suggested, then it's member owners get to vote management in or out.

    Parent

    Don't care a fig about the (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 08:57:04 PM EST
    insurance industry portion of the exchange. The government administered public option is a part of the exchange. The initial idea was that it could provide cheaper rates and the competition  would force the insurance industry to reduce premiums. Thereby, making health care more affordable. Also, if enough people liked the public option it could lead to a national single payer system. At the moment, Congressional restrictions to appease the insurance industry may prevent it from achieving its objectives. That is why I premised my remark as wanting a VIABLE public option.

    Co-ops are highly experimental. Most efforts in the past have failed. The U.S. General Accounting Office produced a report in March 2000.

    "The cooperatives' potential to reduce overall premiums is limited because (1) they lack sufficient leverage as a result of their limited market share; (2) the cooperatives have not been able to produce administrative cost savings for insurers; or (3) their state laws and regulations already restrict to differing degrees the amount insurers can vary the premiums charged different groups purchasing the same health plan."

    Part of the problem was availability. While cooperatives sought to provide more choice of insurance to participants, oftentimes they failed to get consumers a broader range of options. "Not all plans are available in all areas served by each cooperative, and individual employers using some cooperatives may limit the choice of plans their employees can select," the study concluded.

    And without a large number of participants, co-ops essentially were subject to the whims of the insurance market, unable to use market influence to get consumers better deals on coverage. "None of the purchasing cooperatives we reviewed had a large enough market share to create bargaining leverage and therefore had a limited ability to significantly increase the percentage of small employers offering coverage in their state," the study found. link



    Parent
    The government (none / 0) (#21)
    by ChiTownMike on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 09:09:59 AM EST
    administered part of the exchange is DOA and is very unlikely to be implemented. In case you haven't noticed it isn't even part of the conversation in congress or with Obama and his administration. So you can hope/with/dream about an option that really isn't an option if you want but by doing so you are not doing anything to shape the decisions that are going to be made. Of course that is your prerogative.

    As for the co-op one problem is your study is 9 years old and a lot has changed since then. Secondly you are not taking into account that should co-ops emerge from this legislation that their will likely be new federal regulations that will change th landscape for them. You also discount that it's possible that they are not sufficiently financed which Conrad and others want to solve by funding them.

    I could go on about co-ops but you don't seem to want to listen or look at alternatives to your pipe dream so I won't. If you don't feel that citizens with the government's help taking health care reform into their own hands in a non-profit way is a viable thing to think about...

    Parent

    Blue Cross is considered a non profit (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 07:57:59 PM EST
    From what I read, the co-ops would be run by so called non profit insurance companies many of whom have for profit affiliates. Might be beneficial for everyone (including me) to better understand what is on the table before making a decision to sign up for them. Think you might be making assumptions that do not apply to this issue.

    If we need the GOP to pass any legislation, then you will have to find another alternative compromise position since today the GOP said that they will not accept co-ops either.

    Parent

    Evidently Conrad's initial proposal (none / 0) (#14)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 08:28:09 PM EST
    for co-ops had a much broader scope than what I had read. His idea is to let anyone who wants to set up a co-op.

    Parent
    If you go to (none / 0) (#15)
    by ChiTownMike on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 08:31:47 PM EST
    the GOP link provided by BTD you will see quotes from Dems that say nothing about insurance companies running the co-ops. In fact they say quite the opposite. You and I could open a health care co-op if wanted. All we would need is startup capital and reserves.

    I'm not making assumptions. I know what mutual insurance companies are because I used to sell insurance including health insurance.

    As for Blue Cross they are all for profit except for four in IL, NM, OK and TX. The others are famous for raising premiums, changing coverage, moving sick people into certain policy groups and then canceling the entire group, etc.

    I know what the GOP said today which is why in my first post I suggested back dooring the opening of some co-ops. You may want to read that post again for more thoughts on the subject.

    Don't get me wrong. If you are happy with for profit insurance companies that constantly raise your rates and make it hard for you to make claims and will ultimately cancel you if it makes them more profitable then keep them. But don't think for a second that many will offer more coverage like insuring pre-existing conditions and cut their premiums like Obama wants them to. There is absolutely no incentive for them to do that. None. In fact to do so would be financial suicide for them as far as profits and stock prices go - which is all they care about.

    Parent

    That Blue Cross began as a co-op (none / 0) (#23)
    by Cream City on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 10:23:03 AM EST
    makes this point even more interesting.  I'm not encouraged by the example of Blue Cross, which became very pricey because it became very profitable for some people -- its incredibly paid execs.  But in the old days, it paid its workers reasonably, and they offered great health care for low rates.  I could afford it then.

    Parent
    What makes this whole conversation (none / 0) (#24)
    by NYShooter on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 01:53:02 PM EST
    so frustrating, no, redundant is more like it, is that "they" will vote against anything short of 100% capitulation.

    At what point will Axlerod or Rhambo whisper this into the spoiled brats ear?

    Maybe they could get Michelle to do it, you know, "c'mon big boy, gimme that LBJ imitation you do so well, right after you've had that third sip of that potent wacky juice, the one where you've got McConnell's "nads" in your fist, oooooh, honey"


    Parent

    The GOP doesn't get to decide this (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 09:34:05 PM EST
    "The GOP is never going to let a public option pass."

    The GOP at this point has nothing to do with this.  They can't stop it, even in the Senate, certainly not in the House.

    The problem is the Blue Dog Dems, NOT the GOP.

    Parent

    Actually they do (none / 0) (#22)
    by ChiTownMike on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 09:14:51 AM EST
    First off even if you had every available Dem vote in the Senate you are one short (Kennedy) of holding off a filibuster if it should come to that.

    Secondly who is shaping the important public opinion? The GOP is and that is who the administration is fighting here.

    So don't sell the GOP short here on their influence. You need at least one vote from them, maybe even more if we don't pull back some blue dogs and they are killing the all important support we need from the public.

    So I'd say they are affecting the decisions here in a very real way.

    Parent

    Cash for health care clunkers? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 06:12:33 PM EST
    As Congress acted fast when that money ran out.

    However, recent reports are that car dealers are pulling out of the cash-for-clunkers program, anyway, because the checks aren't even in the mail; they're tied up in yet more federal folderol.  

    The difference seems to be in whether the "needy" are big businesses.  So if the funding is to go to the huge insurance companies, this could work . . . but that is not where the funding ought to go.

    Parent

    So, Realistically, (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by The Maven on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 05:49:28 PM EST
    what would this do to the anti-public option Dems in the Senate or the House?  Does this possibly cause them to realize that there simply cannot be a decent "bipartisan" bill and make common cause with their mainstream Democratic colleagues to work towards a stronger public option?  Or do they attempt to figure out how to capitulate even further to the Party of No?

    Why is it that I have such a queasy feeling that it's more likely the latter?

    Klein maybe Obama's pet (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by The Last Whimzy on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 05:51:22 PM EST
    but Klein is totally doing Obama a huge disservice here.

    I have a friend who became involved with an entirely unsuitable woman. Whenever any of us pointed this out to him he invariably made the same feeble reply:  "lt's beyond my control," he would say.

    He was on the verge of becoming a laughing stock.  At which point, another friend of mine, a woman decided to speak to him seriously. She explained to him that his name was in danger of being ludicrously associated with this phrase for the rest of his life.
    Ezra has a gig at the WaPo. (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by caseyOR on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 06:30:36 PM EST
    Need we say anymore?

    He's primed (none / 0) (#19)
    by cal1942 on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 11:51:02 PM EST
    for the Village alright.

    Parent
    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by cal1942 on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 12:17:18 AM EST
    In a way this is just hilarious.  All those serious people constructing a half-a$$ed compromise to attract unnecessary GOP support and now the unnecessary GOP says no.

    The GOP, the party of ideas, says no to the compromiser-in-chief. The unnecessary, beaten minority party given a life-line by the anointed says no.

    Klein is Obama's lap dog b**Yotch! ;) (2.33 / 3) (#1)
    by JoeCHI on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 05:32:16 PM EST
    I mean, is it even humanly possible for Klein to get his nose any further up Obama's.........???

    GOP Says No To Conrad's Coops | 23 comments (23 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment