Health care compromise emerges: Non-profit health care co-ops

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The compromise offered by Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., would create health care cooperatives owned by groups of residents and small businesses, similar to how electric or other cooperatives operate. They'd be nonprofit, and without the government involvement that troubles Republicans and business groups about the public plan options.

The chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, said Wednesday the idea could be key to a bipartisan health bill. Baucus raised it in a meeting with President Barack Obama, saying later that Obama showed interest. Baucus' Republican counterpart, Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, also said the concept had potential.

...

Profit-making insurance companies wouldn't run the show, but there also wouldn't be the federal government backing that Republicans fear would eliminate fair competition with private companies. The co-ops could get federal seed money, Conrad said, but that would be the end of federal involvement. The co-ops would negotiate directly with medical providers.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090610/ap_on_...health_overhaul

[~PalmTreeGurl~ 154]

AJ please tell me you do not seriously believe Government provided health care is a better way to go???

[Heracles 417]

We have a co-op here with our power. Not only are they a monopoly but they are expensive.

AJ please tell me you do not seriously believe Government provided health care is a better way to go???

Well to be honest and depending on the treatment, yes.

Edited June 11, 2009 by Constellation

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

AJ please tell me you do not seriously believe Government provided health care is a better way to go???

Better than what?

[~PalmTreeGurl~ 154]

AJ please tell me you do not seriously believe Government provided health care is a better way to go???

Better than what?

Im sorry but I dont buy into the crappy thinking that the Government is going to make things better.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

AJ please tell me you do not seriously believe Government provided health care is a better way to go???

Better than what?

Im sorry but I dont buy into the crappy thinking that the Government is going to make things better.

Better than what, Tamara?

[scandal 951]

They'd be nonprofit, and without the government involvement that troubles Republicans and business groups about the public plan options.

Tamara, did you read this part of AJ's post?

The legislation being proposed has mandates, but retains private insurance.

[Heracles 417]

Im sorry but I dont buy into the crappy thinking that the Government is going to make things better.

So why not have both systems run (side by side) and then compare them? Surely more competition cannot hurt. In reality a number of NHS systems have both systems anyway.

[~PalmTreeGurl~ 154]

They'd be nonprofit, and without the government involvement that troubles Republicans and business groups about the public plan options.

Tamara, did you read this part of AJ's post?

The legislation being proposed has mandates, but retains private insurance.

ok, i stand corrected...

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

So why not have both systems run (side by side) and then compare them? Surely more competition cannot hurt.

[~PalmTreeGurl~ 154]

Im sorry but I dont buy into the crappy thinking that the Government is going to make things better.

So why not have both systems run (side by side) and then compare them? Surely more competition cannot hurt. In reality a number of NHS systems have both systems anyway.

I dont trust the goverment enough to let them get involved in healthcare.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Im sorry but I dont buy into the crappy thinking that the Government is going to make things better.

So why not have both systems run (side by side) and then compare them? Surely more competition cannot hurt. In reality a number of NHS systems have both systems anyway.

I dont trust the goverment enough to let them get involved in healthcare.

In who's healthcare?

Yours? If you don't trust the government, you can keep your current insurance.

But for those who don't have insurance and no hopes for coverage (due to pre-existing conditions, for example), all we're talking about is giving them a shot. Why should you have health care and not them?

In fact, I'm even willing to pay more in taxes if the result is good health coverage for every uninsured man, woman and child in America.

[~PalmTreeGurl~ 154]

Im sorry but I dont buy into the crappy thinking that the Government is going to make things better.

So why not have both systems run (side by side) and then compare them? Surely more competition cannot hurt. In reality a number of NHS systems have both systems anyway.

I dont trust the goverment enough to let them get involved in healthcare.

In who's healthcare?

Yours? If you don't trust the government, you can keep your current insurance.

But for those who don't have insurance and no hopes for coverage (due to pre-existing conditions, for example), all we're talking about is giving them a shot. Why should you have health care and not them?

In fact, I'm even willing to pay more in taxes if the result is good health coverage for every uninsured man, woman and child in America.

seems like a good deed on your part AJ, but honestly hospitals and doctors should be more willing to take care of people with pre-existing conditions/ ect... Its just another thing for the government to dictate over.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

... hospitals and doctors should be more willing to take care of people with pre-existing conditions/ ect...

Insurance companies routinely deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. Saying they 'should' do this or that achieves nothing because they don't.

[scandal 951]

In fact, I'm even willing to pay more in taxes if the result is good health coverage for every uninsured man, woman and child in America.

Speak for yourself there, pardner!

Oh. he heh. You did.

Tamara, here's a thought for you to munch on. Let's suppose that by having 40+ million uninsured Americans, it costs us throughout our society X million dollars. Because they go to emergency rooms at publicly funded hospitals when they get sick. And due to lost productivity on the job. And through many other direct and indirect costs.

Let's say it costs Y million dollars to create a mandate based insurance system, like they have in Massachusetts, to provide coverage for these people.

If X > Y, would you agree that we can actually SAVE Y-X million dollars by having universal health coverage? And by extending it to the uninsured, while leaving alone the insurance for those who already have plans, we leave the majority of the system intact.

Now I don't know what X, Y are. But I'm told they're both very big numbers. And rumor has it X >>> Y.