Dianne Feinstein: Co-Ops Can Substitute For Public Option

That reads like an out to me. (4.00 / 1)

I am also open to considering a non-profit co-operative model, as long as it can accomplish the critical goal of controlling premium costs and spurring competition.

Obviously, it can't.  It seems like she's setting things up to later on declare that the co-op idea being fleshed out won't meet her requirements for a working co-op.

---

by: BruinKid @ Fri Aug 28, 2009 at 23:04:48 PM CDT

Uh, if Coops are "unworkable"... (0.00 / 0)

How come they are working across the U.S., providing quality, affordable health care?

I'm not saying they're the best option, but they have proven to work.

---

by: sacguy @ Fri Aug 28, 2009 at 23:39:14 PM CDT

health care is not the same as health insurance (0.00 / 0)

totally different economic logic.  

surf putah, your friendly neighborhood central valley samizdat

---

by: wu ming @ Sat Aug 29, 2009 at 01:35:59 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

No they haven't! (0.00 / 0)

Not one policy analyst has seriously offered a model of a working co-op that would fulfill the role meant for a non-profit alternative - to lower costs and change incentives in the individual insurance market.  Jay Rockefeller, who's studied this more than, well, you, has done the research and speaks from experience.

Rockefeller: That's unacceptable and I can almost prove it. We've been in touch with all the folks that oversee, represent all the co-ops in the country on all subjects and they point out that there are probably less than twenty health co-ops in the country. There are only two that really work that well. One in Puget Sound, one in Minnesota, except for those two, they are all unlicensed. All present health co-ops are all unlicensed, they're unregulated. Nobody knows anything about them, nobody has any control over them and nobody has ever said, which is stunning to me, no government organization or private organization has ever done a study to what effect they might have in terms of bringing down the insurance prices.

They are untested, they are unlicensed, they are unregulated, they are unstudied. Why would we even think about putting them in as a control on this massive insurance industry instead of the public option?

There aren't any co-ops throughout much of the country, but to appease the conservative Dems we're supposed to throw six billion dollars around and hope that the states will try to make them workable.

The fact that some exist now and cannot reach the economies of scale to seriously affect insurance industry practices is enough evidence in and of itself.  

Stick to defending Karen Bass.  

---

by: Open Thread @ Sat Aug 29, 2009 at 10:16:48 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

As someone who used to be... (0.00 / 0)

...part of THE co-op held up as proof they work, Seattle's Group Health Cooperative, I can speak to the flaws of your argument.

GHC has had 60 years to build up a strong client base and provider network. They were able to build their hospitals and offices at a time when Seattle land values were more affordable and when they weren't facing massive competition from well-funded private insurance companies. There have been articles in the Seattle media quoting current GHC execs and local analysts as saying there's no way you could build GHC from scratch in today's environment.

GHC's rates and premiums aren't any more affordable than the other options available to Seattle residents. In fact, their premiums shot up over the last 10 years along with everyone else's (and was a major reason for the successful unionization drive among UW grad students). They still practice some of the same limitations and exclusions for the individual insurance market that their competitors do.

The only people who think co-ops work are those seeking a center-right political deal to undermine actual public insurance. Very few economists or health industry experts see co-ops as a viable option.

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave

---

by: Robert Cruickshank @ Sat Aug 29, 2009 at 11:19:50 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thanks Robert! (0.00 / 0)

Thanks for the update Robert.

If there's anything we the general public can do to assist with this pressure, please be sure to let me know  via my email addy.

Senator Feinstein has just completely let me down across the board on national and state issues, for too long now. I wasted a vote on her the last election, silly me.  

---

by: Larue @ Sat Aug 29, 2009 at 03:27:31 AM CDT

Feinstein's Campaign Donations Healthcare Related Since '89 (0.00 / 0)

$2,857,362.

That's How Much Senator Feinstein Has Taken From Healthcare Industries Since 1989.

They also have and excel spreadsheet you can download. A GREAT tool to save!

Wonder which way she'll end up voting?

Aside from any OTHER public office ambitions, we have little leverage on her until the end of her term. I just don't see her running for Governor, not at her age. She's 76!

No matter how much we shout and cajole, she can do as she pleases.

She's made her husband VERY rich from her connections to various industries in her time as a Senator.

---

by: Larue @ Sat Aug 29, 2009 at 04:09:23 AM CDT