Don't have the details, but I just heard that Pres Obama has become convinced that a Public Option (Government health) is not going to pass so he is definitely leaning toward non profit insurance company co ops. Yes! Thank You God!
It is a company that all the members are "owners, shareholder"s depending on how it is set up.
Since it is "non profit", costs are lowered. That means your premiums are lowered.
At the end of the year, there "might" even be some shared dividends to each who paid a premium. Though not likely with rising health cost.
Now they need to focus on controlling the price of medical related, such as $10 for one tylenol seems a bit extortionist! Or, does a surgeon really earn $12,000 for a 3 hours surgery? Let's see if that's in the Health Reform!
:) Thanks, Berf. Nora, I know there have been some Christian co-ops for years. You have to be a non-smoker and non-drinker to be a part of them. I used to know some home school families who were part of them.
I do think it will help if the state line thing isn't an option. Here in Cincinnati, they call it the tri-state area because OH, KY and IN are all so close together. It makes sense to do business with someone in another state if they have a better deal.
The key is to have people "buy health insurance from a non-profit, member-owned private insurer"
Co ops elect their own boards, send in voting proxies, they have a say in the management. The By-laws could have limits for "top dog salaries", that members would have to vote to change.
Actually, from little tidbits, I think Obama's Health Czar has plans for "unhealthy practices" probably another tax but....
I would feel even better about these co ops if they were regional, like Mid Atlantic or New England etc. We have had experiences with dairy farm co ops that couldn't compete because they were too local and not big enough.
I guess that's what we're all leary about. I grew up in a small town, we have the various farm co ops, the bank was originally a co op.
If each "payor" was a member decisions about what all was covered and various sub details would be more acceptable to keep the premium low. I don't know. But you're right, they could screw it up!
It would be "portable", change or lose jobs, perhaps the government would kick in for helping those with pre existing' they subsidize farmers, and banks and just about everything else, so some help for those with pre existing would help a lot.
It could be open to the illegal aliens, as long as they paid their premium!
Interesting compromise. I can see where this option could develop a degree of complexity making it even harder for people to understand than the medicare presription drug plans.
Well, you may have a point, but it doesn't have to be complicated.
I have been in co ops before with auto insurance and food buying groups. Yes, there will be some stumbling blocks. But in my heart I just feel like it's a better alternative than the whole country ending up with socialized medicine. : )
I'm still uncomfortable with it ... if dems/libs accept it easily or with little opposition .... or if they accept it at all even after some opposition. Just checked the web and the most clear site I found was at Heritage. Here is a bit of a quote from them:
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/07/30/health-care-co-ops-whats-inside-the-box/ "However, as with the various other “compromise” ideas now floating around Congress, what really matters is the contents of the package– not the words on the label.
If by health care “co-op,” Congress means allowing private associations to collectively buy health insurance for their members or operate a health insurance exchange, or allowing people to buy health insurance from a non-profit, member-owned private insurer, then those would be positive, pro-consumer developments. . . ."
[[Lee says: which would mean starting allllll over and should take months not hours ...]]
". . . However, simply slapping the word “cooperative” onto a new “insurer,” but then specifying that the government — not the policyholders — picks the board of directors (as Sen. Schumer wants), or that taxpayers will subsidize it, or that it has to pay doctors and hospitals at Medicare rates, would just be an exercise in trying to disguise a “public plan.”
A supremely valid point Lee, and I thank you for sharing!
I guess my naivete is showing as my awareness was limited to the:
" people to buy health insurance from a non-profit, member-owned private insurer"
Yes, we are definitely not out of the woods, but at least there is hope. At least for now, they have (Maybe) tabled socialized medicine as we are aware of. Who knows what's going to go down for certain. : )
All I had to go on was a bad feeling. I had to look it up to find something that would either assuage or confirm that bad feeling, Nora. It's not a matter of bein naive or anything like that. :)
This kind of thing is why a place like Gather is a good thing in times like this. Something I might overlook, you will notice and bring up; something that might not come to your mind or mine, maybe someone else will ask about or take a second look at.
In any case, I hope that socialized stuff is tabled ... who knows? I can't see why actual reform can't be done state by state instead of slapping a whole new federal program onto the backs of the whole country --- when the Feds can't even seem to run a small fairly uncomplicated program without making it complicated through incompetency (all around), inefficiency, and a totally, I-didn't-know-that-would-happen result.
Lee, Sen Conrad is the one who first floated this idea. He is my senator and I had hoped all along this is where they would wind up. It is a good thing. Conrad was on Fox Sunday and said the gov would supply the seed money and get out, the only thing he couldn't answer was if the co-ops would have to pay the money back or not since they weren't done with that part of their work.
CDo you suppose we could put on some pressure that for this plan to be able to take in all of those with pre-existing that eliminates them from normal programs that a "free grant" for start up is necessary to meet that criteria?
Hello Mike, You said:Lee, Sen Conrad is the one who first floated this idea. He is my senator and I had hoped all along this is where they would wind up. It is a good thing.
I have to say when I first heard all of these 'backtracks' in turn, I thought this is a good thing. This is good too. This is excellent .. but then I remembered who we were dealing with.
A man who had nothing but praise for ACORN and his relationship with them BEFORE it became a liability to be so associated - now, many of the recordings and videos of him at ACORN meetings and supporting ACORN even when he was a candidate .. um ... ya can't find em and he isn't so vocal if at all of his support for that organization.
A man who just weeks ago insisted the public option was essential, but who yesterday or the day before now inists it's only one minor part, a sliver, of the healthcare bills and not even necessary.
A man who in old recordings says it's his goal to get National Healthcare with the private option ... and then through Linda Douglass (on the nowdefunct fishy email site) calls those very recordings a mish mash of cobbled together sound bytes which are not true. Poof! He never said it. +shrug+
And also ... government running healthcare? I'm not the bottom line on anything, but this is one of my most recent articles and it might lay out my thoughts better irt that issue. :) Paraphrased, no matter what they take out or put in or say they've taken out or changed ... , changing the wording or content can't change the fact that government is no good at this kind of thing. +shrug+
Mike said:the only thing he couldn't answer was if the co-ops would have to pay the money back or not since they weren't done with that part of their work.
Yeah ... the part about paying the money back .. so many variables .. it's possible the gov would "have to" stay in much longer than originally contracted for; or at least until the money was paid back. And until then, what role would gov play? The same one they play in any organization or program in which they are the primary or associated financier/owner/funder? The role of setting payouts, qualifying standards and amounts of care? Other? +sigh+
Or maybe the gov might even find it necessary for some reason to play the very same role they will play if any one of the possible bills on the table currently gets passed through? Foot in door?
Just wondering cause like I said, I'm not a bottom line and definitely not a font of all knowledge ... but I'm beginning to have (have had for some time) a fairly deep reservoir of skepticism irt what the gov says, and how what it says actually compares to what it ends up doing (er ... what it ends up "having to do" for "our own good"). +chuckling+
Not saying Sen. Conrad has ulterior motives .. he may be extremely sincere and honest in his musings irt co ops. But some of the Sens and Reps may be too close to the problem to be able to see it ... or stand up against it even if they see it. Don't know.
And here ... something more timely: On Sunday, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin signaled on CNN's “State of the Union” that he could live with a bill without a government-sponsored insurance plan: "I support a public option but yes, I am open," he said, adding, "It doesn’t' have to be a perfect bill."
As the president's statements indicate, he still will call the new provision a "public option." But now it will mean something else – and the big question is: what?
[Mmmm....Lee ponders . . . any bill passed this year or by libs will simply be a footinthedoor to an eventual single payer system. Obama has already said it. He doesn't think they can get to single payer immediately ... he can envision a decade out ...blah blah So, again I wonder if any plan which comes out of this congress is simply one foot in the door with the other coming right behind no matter how it's labeled . . . Look, abortion is no where named in the possible bills we've discussed so far. Even so, who thinks liberals will ever pass a bill in which abortion is actually left out of the coverage?]
". . .The new territory Obama staked out on Tuesday involves establishing a plan that would operate without continued public financing. Some sort of start-up financing probably would be necessary, and presumably a federal bureaucracy would be necessary to design, organize, market, and manage the plan. And as with all federal programs, the question remains whether future budget shortfalls would be covered by taxpayer dollars
" . . .Nina Owcharenko, the deputy director of the Center for Health Policy Studies for the Heritage Foundation, tells Newsmax: "The test will be whether the administration will truly abandon the public plan, or just try to repackage it with a different name, i.e., the co-op. If the government runs it, funds it, or controls it, it is still a public plan."
Leading Democrats use the "co-op" term loosely and in a way that still appears to provide for federal underwriting. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., has stated that any co-op must be national in scope, run by federal bureaucrats appointed by the president, and would require substantial start-up funding. "
Yeah ... they want what they want and no matter what they say, they've waited 90 years (or 20, or 70 .. whatever) to get this and they won't let it go easily . . . :(
As you can see, it could end up a mess. OR if they really put their thinking hats on, it could be an answer toward lowering premiums to affordable rates.
IF they will keep it private, provide a start up grant to include all pre existing, and be financially viable, give tax breaks to small businesses that sign up their employees, other money for start up etc. but kept separate from a government control, it could work.
Guess we'll see how much "thinking" they come up with.
Lee and Marilyn, right on! I'm not ready to break out the champaign yet.
Depending on how vaguely the final bill is worded (H.R. 3200 was a masterpiece) the coops could be effectively controlled by government regulations, and could morph into a "public option" after the bill is passed.
Neither this Congress nor the White House have earned our trust by the way they have handled this legislation. President Obama's continued references to the contents of his imaginary plan and the outright lies of Congressional proponents about the contents of the bills have given all of us good reason to watch them closely.
I think that everyone is in agreement that something needs to be done. It's just how do we get there? It is all such a tangled mess of the various octopus legs of money.
Guess I'd still worry about the coops picking and choosing members too, so some people still get squeezed out. But I'll go for anything that changes the attitude that those whose lives go wrong don't have health worth caring for. First say we care (assuming we do - I hope we do). Fix the details later.
IF it remains privately owne by premium payors, AND the original funding is a "grant", with the only rule from the government is to include preexisting....
wouldn't that be different from a totally socialized program?
I don't think its a positive step forward. But I have no faith in our government. I think it's just a small step toward their goals of regulating all health care. I'll need to see the fine print I guess.
Please provide details below to help Gather review this content. If it is found to be inappropriate and in violation of the Gather Terms of Service, action will be taken.
Please select the part of the post you are reporting.
Please select why you are reporting this content.
Please enter a description.
You have successfully submitted a report for this post.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 62
Since it is "non profit", costs are lowered. That means your premiums are lowered.
At the end of the year, there "might" even be some shared dividends to each who paid a premium. Though not likely with rising health cost.
Now they need to focus on controlling the price of medical related, such as $10 for one tylenol seems a bit extortionist! Or, does a surgeon really earn $12,000 for a 3 hours surgery? Let's see if that's in the Health Reform!
I'm not aware of any here in Texas.
I do think it will help if the state line thing isn't an option. Here in Cincinnati, they call it the tri-state area because OH, KY and IN are all so close together. It makes sense to do business with someone in another state if they have a better deal.
Co ops elect their own boards, send in voting proxies, they have a say in the management. The By-laws could have limits for "top dog salaries", that members would have to vote to change.
Actually, from little tidbits, I think Obama's Health Czar has plans for "unhealthy practices" probably another tax but....
If each "payor" was a member decisions about what all was covered and various sub details would be more acceptable to keep the premium low. I don't know. But you're right, they could screw it up!
It could be open to the illegal aliens, as long as they paid their premium!
Say, this is sounding better and better!
I have been in co ops before with auto insurance and food buying groups. Yes, there will be some stumbling blocks. But in my heart I just feel like it's a better alternative than the whole country ending up with socialized medicine. : )
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/07/30/health-care-co-ops-whats-inside-the-box/
"However, as with the various other “compromise” ideas now floating around Congress, what really matters is the contents of the package– not the words on the label.
If by health care “co-op,” Congress means allowing private associations to collectively buy health insurance for their members or operate a health insurance exchange, or allowing people to buy health insurance from a non-profit, member-owned private insurer, then those would be positive, pro-consumer developments. . . ."
[[Lee says: which would mean starting allllll over and should take months not hours ...]]
". . . However, simply slapping the word “cooperative” onto a new “insurer,” but then specifying that the government — not the policyholders — picks the board of directors (as Sen. Schumer wants), or that taxpayers will subsidize it, or that it has to pay doctors and hospitals at Medicare rates, would just be an exercise in trying to disguise a “public plan.”
I guess my naivete is showing as my awareness was limited to the:
" people to buy health insurance from a non-profit, member-owned private insurer"
Yes, we are definitely not out of the woods, but at least there is hope. At least for now, they have (Maybe) tabled socialized medicine as we are aware of. Who knows what's going to go down for certain. : )
This kind of thing is why a place like Gather is a good thing in times like this. Something I might overlook, you will notice and bring up; something that might not come to your mind or mine, maybe someone else will ask about or take a second look at.
In any case, I hope that socialized stuff is tabled ... who knows? I can't see why actual reform can't be done state by state instead of slapping a whole new federal program onto the backs of the whole country --- when the Feds can't even seem to run a small fairly uncomplicated program without making it complicated through incompetency (all around), inefficiency, and a totally, I-didn't-know-that-would-happen result.
Just a thought.
I have to say when I first heard all of these 'backtracks' in turn, I thought this is a good thing. This is good too. This is excellent .. but then I remembered who we were dealing with.
A man who had nothing but praise for ACORN and his relationship with them BEFORE it became a liability to be so associated - now, many of the recordings and videos of him at ACORN meetings and supporting ACORN even when he was a candidate .. um ... ya can't find em and he isn't so vocal if at all of his support for that organization.
A man who just weeks ago insisted the public option was essential, but who yesterday or the day before now inists it's only one minor part, a sliver, of the healthcare bills and not even necessary.
A man who in old recordings says it's his goal to get National Healthcare with the private option ... and then through Linda Douglass (on the nowdefunct fishy email site) calls those very recordings a mish mash of cobbled together sound bytes which are not true. Poof! He never said it. +shrug+
And also ... government running healthcare? I'm not the bottom line on anything, but this is one of my most recent articles and it might lay out my thoughts better irt that issue. :) Paraphrased, no matter what they take out or put in or say they've taken out or changed ... , changing the wording or content can't change the fact that government is no good at this kind of thing. +shrug+
Yeah ... the part about paying the money back .. so many variables .. it's possible the gov would "have to" stay in much longer than originally contracted for; or at least until the money was paid back. And until then, what role would gov play? The same one they play in any organization or program in which they are the primary or associated financier/owner/funder? The role of setting payouts, qualifying standards and amounts of care? Other? +sigh+
Or maybe the gov might even find it necessary for some reason to play the very same role they will play if any one of the possible bills on the table currently gets passed through? Foot in door?
Just wondering cause like I said, I'm not a bottom line and definitely not a font of all knowledge ... but I'm beginning to have (have had for some time) a fairly deep reservoir of skepticism irt what the gov says, and how what it says actually compares to what it ends up doing (er ... what it ends up "having to do" for "our own good"). +chuckling+
Not saying Sen. Conrad has ulterior motives .. he may be extremely sincere and honest in his musings irt co ops. But some of the Sens and Reps may be too close to the problem to be able to see it ... or stand up against it even if they see it. Don't know.
On Sunday, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin signaled on CNN's “State of the Union” that he could live with a bill without a government-sponsored insurance plan: "I support a public option but yes, I am open," he said, adding, "It doesn’t' have to be a perfect bill."
As the president's statements indicate, he still will call the new provision a "public option." But now it will mean something else – and the big question is: what?
". . .The new territory Obama staked out on Tuesday involves establishing a plan that would operate without continued public financing. Some sort of start-up financing probably would be necessary, and presumably a federal bureaucracy would be necessary to design, organize, market, and manage the plan. And as with all federal programs, the question remains whether future budget shortfalls would be covered by taxpayer dollars
" . . .Nina Owcharenko, the deputy director of the Center for Health Policy Studies for the Heritage Foundation, tells Newsmax: "The test will be whether the administration will truly abandon the public plan, or just try to repackage it with a different name, i.e., the co-op. If the government runs it, funds it, or controls it, it is still a public plan."
Leading Democrats use the "co-op" term loosely and in a way that still appears to provide for federal underwriting. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., has stated that any co-op must be national in scope, run by federal bureaucrats appointed by the president, and would require substantial start-up funding. "
Mmm....
But neither will we stop the fight. We are the mob remember.
*Carol ~Bronx Southern Belle D. Aug 17, 2009, 2:35pm EDT
Lee,
But neither will we stop the fight. We are the mob remember
Thanks for posting!
IF they will keep it private, provide a start up grant to include all pre existing, and be financially viable, give tax breaks to small businesses that sign up their employees, other money for start up etc. but kept separate from a government control, it could work.
Guess we'll see how much "thinking" they come up with.
Depending on how vaguely the final bill is worded (H.R. 3200 was a masterpiece) the coops could be effectively controlled by government regulations, and could morph into a "public option" after the bill is passed.
Neither this Congress nor the White House have earned our trust by the way they have handled this legislation. President Obama's continued references to the contents of his imaginary plan and the outright lies of Congressional proponents about the contents of the bills have given all of us good reason to watch them closely.
I'm still leary, won't let out that big breath sigh until they vote and it fails.
We vote on the rules, etc. Nationally based, the more members the lower the premiums.
Do a big marketing to get as many as possible. Okay, I'm dreaming ......
wouldn't that be different from a totally socialized program?