There I was, this morning, snoozing in bed. (Earlier this summer, I replaced my buzzing alarm clock with a kindler, gentler option of CD Player/Radio). I have it tuned to public radio, so BBC News then NPR News come on as I hit the snooze until I get up.
What I woke to this morning was to the discussion contained in this article/podcast. Please take a moment to check it out if you haven't.
http://www.npr.org/...
Since the public option was voted down, there has been renewed talk of Senator Kent Conrad's co-op plan. I never thought it was a good idea, and this article goes into why, with the help of the Planet Money team and a gentleman named Keith Seinfeld, who is a reporter who actually HAS a co-op plan right now.
The gist of it is this: The co-ops DO NOT work to reduce costs, but rather focus on elements such as a 'better product' and 'customer satisfaction'. Yes, that's helpful, but it doesn't get prices down. And let's be honest, happy isn't the same as affordable for most people. I am happy with my health plan now, for the most part, but they keep raising premiums, deductibles, co-pays, etc while reducing actual benefits, setting ridiculous restrictions and undercutting me when I need them the most (when I'm seriously ill). And I don't need to be in a co-op to have that experience; I'm experiencing it now.
But the true gem of this is contained here:
He says he doesn't see his own Group Health Cooperative as being better than other providers at controlling costs. What's more, the input from its 600,000 members may not amount to much when only 3,000 of them choose to vote.
Apparently, the 'major' difference is that I can vote on the board of a co-op. (I'm presuming it's majority vote, for what that's worth). The problem is, hardly anyone votes. So, there goes your 'stakeholder power'...right out the window.
The other problem is almost no one knows how well they run. There isn't any data to back it up. We only have 2 major co-ops and no studies have been undertaken to determine how, as Senator Conrad indicates, they would drive down costs. If there's no data, no studies to refer to, how can the claim be made in any seriousness?
Co-ops are expensive to start and run*. Anyone who thinks that the big insurers who already have monopolies in certain states aren't ready to run these guys out of business before they are, is on the side of insurance companies as a dominating force in this society. They would also be highly regulated, giving the 'big boys' a distinctly unfair advantage.
The public option must be the primary option to combat the status quo.
UPDATE: Here is Ezra Klein. Even more damning, Kent Conrad hasn't really read about other countries' systems, doesn't understand them and even Ezra states 'co-ops' are 'so incomplete.'
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/...