Compromise Co-Op Proposal Won't Lower Costs, Government Study Showed »
Posted By deathray 3 months, 2 weeks ago in Political News
The health care reform compromise that centrist Democrats and several Republicans have indicated they'd support has shown an inability to effectively lower premiums for consumers, a newly resurfaced government study shows. In recent days, a slew of lawmakers, notably Sens. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) and Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), have begun a renewed push to establish health care insurance cooperatives as an alternative to a publicly run insurance plan.
Read Full Story at huffingtonpost.com »
695 Views Share Story 69 Comments Report
Submitted By:
deathray
Hm...summarizing a life...Investment banker, sailor, unintentional gourmet cook. Ex US Naval officer, also Foreign Service. Split my time between NYC and Miami Beach ...
Other Related Articles: All »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 69 (view all)
-
100%
deathray3 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
so, it turns out that an analysis by the gao in march 2000 was conducted in order to ascertain the associated price reductions in health insurance through insurance coops.
Reply
it turns out that the impact on price to consumers is limited for the following reasons:
"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."
http://www.gao.gov/archive/2000/he00049.pdf
it's 38 pages and you'll have to download it, but the findings at the top of the document will start the debate.
the usual conduct rules apply.:) -
33%
rbiii3 months, 2 weeks ago
-
94%
Goppy3 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
rbill ... you make it sound as if doing NOTHING will COST NOTHING.
Reply
Sometimes doing nothing costs MORE in the long run.
For instance ... my neighbor was too cheap to get regular maintenance on his car ... and the timing chain broke ... costing a couple thousand to fix the engine.
In just the same way ... doing nothing to remedy the situation in Health Care cost YOUR FAMILY .... ... I'm talking directly to YOU, rbill ... cost your family an extra $1,000 a year.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/05/28/health/m...
Plus ... if you have a plan through your employer ... you may feel pretty secure ... but the fact is ... businesses have endured a tremendous financial burden carrying the rapidly escalating costs for their Health Insurance plans.
If trends continue ... many businesses will simply 'opt out' of providing Health Insurance for their employees.
See?
Doing Nothing can cost much, much more ... and ignoring that a problem exists.
.
. -
100%
fsev413 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't think anyone has been saying that overall health care costs were going to drop. The proposal is to reduce insurance costs by controlled competition (public option) and by getting people away from emergency room health care which is so expensive and by cutting administrative costs (electronic records) and by insuring more folks so that they can get more preventative care (again rather than waiting for emergency room seriousness). The idea is to reduce the meteoric rise of health insurance costs and care which have been predicted to rise to a level twice what the house bill currently is projected to cost over the ten year period.
Reply
If we do nothing those of us who have health insurance will either be paying much more for it or find ourselves without, the latter being the more likely scenario. -
100%
deathray3 months, 2 weeks ago
-
100%
NoWayMan3 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
no one said costs will go down.
Reply
the idea is to bring costs in line with inflation.
the dem plans do this (actually the dem plan will cost slightly below average inflation over the last ten years).
currently the cost of healthcare is rising three times faster than inflation.
the dems plans will save us money.
why don't the cons just come clean about this?
-
-
-
100%
AnteUp3 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yeah but - if it's no fun going to the ER now, can you imagine how crowded it will
Reply
be if it becomes the only health care option for the un-insurable or for those that
simply cannot afford the coverage? Well, I guess it IS now - but how about adding
tons more people? You know being in pain - or worse, having a child seeking treatment
that is in pain - does NOT grease your way through in an expeditious manner.
The ER has seen it all before...................just wait your turn.
It will be a VERY bad feeling - and it WILL break your heart.
-
-
100%
AnteUp3 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Okay - I knew squat about this co-op proposal. I heard Kent Conrad yesterday mention that True Value and Land of Lakes had a co-op. I think my reaction was something like - what the heck is he talking about?
Reply
Well, today on CNN Eliz. Cohen did a tiny segment on the co-op.
She was asked by the anchor if it could take care of the 47 million uninsured. She said "No - and the co-ops will tell you
that". Seems they reserve the right to exclude people from coverage - they won't take everyone.
The premiums are considered mid-range, so that is not so bad, but she also said that there are SIGNIFICANT start-up costs.
Huh? Well, she said, they have to get their governing board
together (which is supposedly made up of members of the co-op)
and the expense of getting the doctors onboard.Doctors onboard?
What did THAT mean? Then I put my brain in gear and thought
about one of my favorite insurance strategies - IN NETWORK
and OUT OF NETWORK. You wouldn't get to use your own doctors?
Would you have to choose services from their group of doctors?
And what could be a significant expense in getting the governing board together? This co-op thing sounds terrible, IMO.
Anyone know more about how it really works. Cohen said
both Seattle and Minneapolis use a co-op system of insurance. -
100%
canadianrancher573 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Simple comment from a simple mind. The whole debate about changing to a different system is sort of irrelevant, sorry to say it but I think that it is true.
Reply
Healthcare to me is an important issue, and up here we have a system that I find acceptable but we are faced with the same problem as you are down there, and that problem is the ever increasing costs of healthcare. Our system uses about the same percentage of GDP as your system does and I imagine costs are somewhat the same per person, so the systems are not the problem but the increase in what we the people are going to have to pay is. Up here if you have a medical card which is issued by each province you get coverage regardless of income or ability to pay
but our system is under pressure because of increased demands by the public for all the new technology, drugs and treatments that are available, this will have to be paid for by the taxpayer. If we wish to advance our medicare system or even maintain it more money will be needed.
The insurance companies face the same problem, an ever increasing demand for more services that do cost more so that ends up in higher premiums to those who have insurance, and as I understand the rates have really skyrocketed of late.
Some of the reasons I support our system with very few complaints has to do with the idea that insurance companies and hospitals profit from people needing medical help. The idea of profits is to me acceptable, unless they become so excessive that they mean that people are dropped or are unable to afford insurance, then it becomes a social issue, and the costs from that could be extremely high in many different ways.
The co-op insurance idea won't work for the reasons stated by deathray in his opening comment, another point I am curious about is whether the co-ops would pay a dividend to members which is in a way a profit motive.-
100%
Sailboy3 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
America spends a little more than 3 % more of our GDP then Canada, but Canada covers 100% of its population and 100% of its medical cost. America spends 9% of its GDP on health care for only 80% health care cost of only 40% (Medicare/Medicaid) of its population. So, no, our system is quite broken.
Reply
-
-
100%
jovial3 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Of course it won't lower costs. The whole Republican teabagging idea is that the whole idea should fail. They don't even want medicare. They don't want to discuss ways to fix this problem with healthcare. They don't even want to have the conversation period! It's sickingly amusing to see Obama and other Senate Democrats trying to make it seem like some Republicans will cross over. They hold broad contempt for the idea and the people associated with it.
Reply-
100%
Beeboppin713 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I agree and recognized this from the start of the debate. They will shoot down any common sense ideas so that they can come back later and say, "See we told you that reform wouldn't work! Now, trust the private sector to fix it." And of course, we know from the mistakes in the past that the private sector isn't equipped to handle reform. Their ideas are designed to rake in more profit off of American citizens at the expense of the sick.
Reply -
0%
dgoodii3 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So the democrats can pass it regardless. They lack the fortitude to do it, if by some chance it would fail, they can not stand the chance of taking the blame. Both parties are only in it to be in control of the government.
Reply
Cost is the issue and not a single committee has debated or had hearings on the costs, at least I have not heard them. Pointless to insure all without bringing in more funds from those being insured, otherwise cost to those already paying goes up to cover them. Plus new users of care will be paying the same rates, though over time this may be flushed out as every service is paid for. If they can reduce cost of each service to actual cost with no mark up for unpaid services, staff, utilities and facilities still need to be paid for.
How about some simple new regulations to address some of the real issues with health insure, pre-existing clauses, uncovered services, and other major issues consumers have.
Tort and liability reforms, protecting the doctors from predators and fraud. National licensing and liability insurance reforms so doctors and nurses can locate more easily where needs are.
There are lots of things neither side has addressed at all, most do not want to, real problems might get reformed and fixed.
-
-
100%
Poulenc3 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Mr. Obama and Co.: y'all beginning--well, have finally definitely managed--to pizz me off!
Reply
Keep your eyes on the prize: true health-care reform. Don't ever again mention a "compromise," such as dropping the public option, especially when no one has demanded it!
Get out of the business of accommodation--especially to those who would keep you stalled into he next millennium if they had their way.
Forge ahead!
Thank you.
(signed)
A guy who voted for you who's feeling BETRAYED!-
100%
AnteUp3 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Ditto, Poulenc - Have they completely forgotten the enthusiasm that produced all
Reply
those votes? WE - the people who elected Obama are still out here - we just haven't
been consulted from the day the process on reform began. Thank you Sen.Baucus,
Sen.Grassley ............and don't you think that Rahm is way too politically savvy to
have just missed us? I get the feeling we have been INTENTIONALLY ignored.
I'd like to know why I'm feeling like chopped liver -and that's by my own side!!
-
-
100%
DarkWizard3 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm sorry, but I believe it is a mistake to continually cave to big pharma, big insurance, and Republican bullying!
Reply
In fact, single payer should be put ON the table!
Pandering to special interests and a party that has no intention of passing any bill, no matter how many compromises are made, is ridiculous!-
50%
jimdoze3 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You guys have the Presidency, the Senate and the House. Plus, you all know best what is good for us. Why aren't you Going For It and completely taking over the health care system, top to bottom? Why are you all letting a few Brooks Brothers suited astroturfers stand in the way of your holy grail?
Reply -
100%
icono13 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Two Devils dealing with each other.
Reply
http://bucknakedpolitics.typepad.com/buck_naked_po...
-
-
-
More News
Fox News Politics
Top House Homeland Security Republican Will Subpoena Social Secretary
Afghanistan Plan 'Incomplete' Without Pakistan Push, Lugar Says
Lawmakers Race to Extend Reduced Tax on Large Estates
New Jobless Claims Fell Unexpectedly for Fifth Straight Week
Researcher Reportedly Threatens to Sue NASA Over Climate Data
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.