Health Care Cooperatives

One of the new buzzwords in the debate regarding health care reform is the formation of non-profit "co-ops" as an alternative to a new public plan.  Michael Tanner of Cato has some observations:

A closer look suggests that the only thing intriguing about the co-op alternative is whether it is a completely meaningless construct or simply camouflage for the “Public Plan” option...

Supporters of government-run health care have no intention of letting the co-ops be independent enterprises that operate by the same rules as other insurers. This is not really about creating more choices and competition. In fact, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) makes it clear, for example, that the co-op's officers and directors would be appointed by the president and Congress. He insists that there be a single national co-op. And Congress would set the rules under which it operates. As Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) says, "It's got to be written in a way that accomplishes the objectives of a public option."

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks likes a duck, it’s probably a duck...

If a "co-op" is run by the federal government under rules imposed by the federal government with funding provided by the federal government, it’s simply government-run health insurance by another name. Opponents of a government takeover of the health care system should not be fooled.

Comments

[Bubba]

Calling Obamacare's "public option" a "co-op" is the functional equivalent of telling the public that the sky is green, not blue, and to ignore what your lying eyes tell you.

[Joe Guarino]

That is an apt way of describing it, Bubba. I do not know whether this is going to be the ultimate form of what Congress produces, but it seems to be that which is currently being pursued. I hope people are not deceived.

Fortunately, it seems many folks are awakening, at least for now, to all the problems with plans for universal coverage.

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

Call me a child of the 60's, but isn't a "co-op" run by the government some kind of contradiction in terms?

[Stormy]

From Wiki:

"A cooperative (also co-operative or coöperative; often referred to as a co-op or coop) is defined by the International Co-operative Alliance's Statement on the Co-operative Identity as 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. Cooperative enterprises are the focus of study in the field of cooperative economics."

Dr. Mary is exactly correct.

[delow24]

Maybe instead of "co-op" the term "collective" should be used. Isn't that what they used to call it in the good old USSR?

[Bubba]

I like the word "coop", as in "chicken coop".

That's the intent of Obamacare in the long run......to herd the human "chickens" into the government's health care coop.

[Stormy]

Collectivism is probably the most accurate term. Collectivism can take the form of fascism or totalitarianism as they emphasize the role of the state over individuals.

From Wiki:

"Ayn Rand, founder of Objectivism, was a particularly vocal opponent who believed the philosophy of collectivism led to totalitarianism. She argued that "collectivism means the subjugation of the individual to a group," and that "throughout history, no tyrant ever rose to power except on the claim of representing the common good." She further claimed that "horrors which no man would dare consider for his own selfish sake are perpetrated with a clear conscience by altruists who justify themselves by the common good." (The "altruists" Rand refers to are not those who practice simple benevolence or charity, but rather those who believe in August Comte's ethical doctrine of altruism which holds that there is "a moral and political obligation of the individual to sacrifice his own interests for the sake of a greater social good.")."

Isn't this what the lawmakers are doing, justifying nationalizing our health care because it is for the greater social good?

[jaycee]

"Ayn Rand...argued that "collectivism means the subjugation of the individual to a group," and that "throughout history, no tyrant ever rose to power except on the claim of representing the common good." She further claimed that "horrors which no man would dare consider for his own selfish sake are perpetrated with a clear conscience by altruists who justify themselves by the common good.""

BINGO!!
That pretty much explains the goals of Obama and the Dem Party these days.

As a friend used to say, "A liberal with a cause is more dangerous than a Hell's Angel with an attitude!"

[cheripickr]

Dead on, Stormy, you should also have Mark Levin's "Liberty and Tyranny" on your bookshelf.

[Stormy]

cheripicker,

I was at Costco yesterday, and they had the book on sale. I was in a hurry and did not take time to consider buying it. I will return soon to do so.

[Stormy]

"Supporters of government-run health care have no intention of letting the co-ops be independent enterprises that operate by the same rules as other insurers."

Of course, they can't. They know that if the co-ops had to operate on a level-playing field with private insurers and play by the same rules, they would not succeed. The lawmakers refuse to acknowledge that the free market already provides significant competition. The problem is the requirements levied upon them causes inefficiencies in the free market. What we have here is a government solution looking for a problem. In essence, lawmakers looking to find a way to takeover 1/6 of the American economy from private enterprise.

From: June 23, 2009
Hello Europe, Good-bye Europe
By Randall Hove

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/hello_europe_goodbye_europe.html

"So while Europe was cutting government spending, in many cases by dramatic fractions of GDP, the US was essentially treading water. And that was before the Bailout Fairy arrived in 2008 and President Obama and his stimuli arrived in 2009. We will likely never see a 20%-of-GDP federal government again. Per the CBO, the best we will see in the next 10 years will be 22.7% of GDP (for total government spending near 40% of GDP) in 2012. And even these projections do not include ObamaCare, estimated at somewhere between $1 trillion and $2 trillion of government spending over the next decade."

"In short, on the socialism scale, we are smack in the middle of Europe right now. But we are becoming more socialist, and Europe is becoming less."

"Let's look at political elections rather than spending and GDP. The US elected Barack Obama in 2008, the most liberal member of the US Senate in 2007. But in recent years, European and OECD countries have been leaning center-right: Merkel in Germany, Sarkozy in France, Berlusconi in Italy, Harper in Canada. The recent EU elections surprised many by the strength shown by conservatives."

"For those looking for a tipping point, look behind you. It happened November 4, 2008."

We are already a Social Democracy on a Western European scale, and we are becoming more socialist, while Western Europe is moving in the opposite direction. As indicated in the article, can you believe that we are more socialist now than Canada?

[Stormy]

Socializing health care reminds me of public education in this country. It becomes a money pit that permanently produces mediocre, or worse, results that increasingly more money never improves, with well-paid administrators who are focused more on building a power base than the well-being of the targeted client.

[Joe Guarino]

Great thread-- thanks for the comments.

One of the things to watch is that the health care cooperatives would probably be required to maintain a "minimum benefits package" by the federal government. What the health plans should and should not include would be subject to political manipulation-- and these forces tend to make insurance more expensive. Also, rationing can be achieved through the co-ops.

Finally, the same fiscal problems exist-- how to fund insurance for much greater numbers of people (even those within these coops) without breaking the bank, without raising taxes dramatically, without detracting from existing services, without starving the system, and without creating scarcity. And there is still the problem of how to do these things when the federal government already has massive, critical unfunded liabilities under Medicare and Medicaid.

The health care co-ops do not provide easy answers to any of these problems.

[Stormy]

If the government is committed to providing insurance to the 47 million uninsureds, then they should establish something similar to the Auto Assigned Risk program or the Windstorm Pool. These programs have the participation of licensed insurance companies, and they provide coverage to people who are generally considered uninsurable in the free market place because of their particular issues. They can get coverage, but it does cost more.

If their objective is to provide coverage to those 47 million people, then this could be a way to do it. It uses private insurers, with a modicum of government supervision. If they do not want to proceed in this manner, then the health care debate is not really about making insurance available to everyone.

[Stormy]

Is anyone aware of this new mandatory savings plan which was included in Obama's 2010 budget? P.37 of Obama's 2010 budget blueprint calls for “Making Saving for Retirement Easier as the Economy Recovers.”

“Over the long-term families need personal savings, in addition to Social Security, to prepare for retirement and to fall back on during tough economic times like these. However, 75 million working Americans—roughly half the workforce—currently lack access to employer-based retirement plans. In addition, the existing incentives to save for retirement are weak or non-existent for the majority of middle and low-income households. The President’s 2010 Budget lays the groundwork for the future establishment of a system of automatic workplace pensions, on top of and clearly outside Social Security, that is expected to dramatically increase both the number of Americans who save for retirement and the overall amount of personal savings for individuals. research has shown that the key to saving is to make it automatic and simple. Under this proposal, employees will be automatically enrolled in workplace pension plans—and will be allowed to opt out if they choose. Employers who do not currently offer a retirement plan will be required to enroll their employees in a direct-deposit IRA account that is compatible with existing direct-deposit payroll systems. The result will be that workers will be automatically enrolled in some form of savings vehicle when they go to work—making it easy for them to save while also allowing them to opt out if their family or individual circumstances make it particularly difficult or unwise to save. Experts estimate that this program will dramatically increase the savings participation rate for low and middle-income workers to around 80 percent.”

It represents yet another government encroachment upon our individual liberty. While employees would be “allowed” to opt out, employers would not. One more way for the government to take our money and "hold" it.

[Joe Guarino]

Stormy, I was aware this was being discussed as a possible agenda item, but was unaware it made the budget blueprint. I think it would be unwise for the government to impose more cost burdens on employers, for retirement or health care-- unless we want more jobs to leave the country.

[Jon Firebaugh]

Good comments by all who have posted before me. I think that the truth is that the statists are not for creating a true Co-Op, but are COOPTING our freedom.

From Dictionary.com :

COOPT : to appropriate as one's own; preempt

For a testament to less government subsidies and free markets cut and paste this link:

http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2004&month=04

to an April 2004 article in Imprimus, one of the pre-eminent publications devoted tor liberty. The main thrust of the article is that New Zealand was collapsing under the yoke of government subsidies, until they succeeded in moving away from socialism. IEliminating subsidies created inovative ideas and freer markets which energized the c country's economy.

[Joe Guarino]

Jon, I agree. Statist plans necessarily reduce liberty.