What's so objectionable to liberals about the co-ops?

[MikeWaters]

Cali thinks the WA coop is in the same boat as the new proposed coops. He forgets that there are supposedly 40 million new people that will be getting insurance. Not to mention all the businesses that shed insurance and leave their employees to fend for themselves.

You know, forgetting the minor details, as usual.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Cali thinks the WA coop is in the same boat as the new proposed coops. He forgets that there are supposedly 40 million new people that will be getting insurance. Not to mention all the businesses that shed insurance and leave their employees to fend for themselves.

You know, forgetting the minor details, as usual.

Anything which doesn't fit in their narrowly defined and acceptable parameters of a "solution" for an ill-defined "problem" is offensive. Details don't matter.

Government does it better is their mantra. I wonder if that's their philosophy in the bedroom as well.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Cali thinks the WA coop is in the same boat as the new proposed coops. He forgets that there are supposedly 40 million new people that will be getting insurance. Not to mention all the businesses that shed insurance and leave their employees to fend for themselves.

You know, forgetting the minor details, as usual.

What is the difference, Waters? Seriously? 40 million new enrollees? Not in Montana. Not in South Dakota. Not in Wyoming. Not in New Mexico. In the aggregate? Fine. But co-ops are set up on a state by state basis (because each state has its own insurance laws and regulations to deal with which will govern that co-op). 40 million is a pointless number for the concept of the co-op because no single co-op will have purchasing and leveraging power of 40 million people (and some will have so few as to make it unlikely they can succeed at all). This ISN'T the case with the public option, though. So if you want something that gives buying power to an entity with 40 million enrollees, the public option is your choice. Glad to have you on board.

Also, the public option would be fantastic for people who have employer-based care (cheaper for same coverage). What's the problem? For some, a co-op would also be cheaper (perhaps in New York, California, etc.), but for many others it wouldn't (Montana, Wyoming, etc).

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

What is the difference, Waters? Seriously? 40 million new enrollees? Not in Montana. Not in South Dakota. Not in Wyoming. Not in New Mexico. In the aggregate? Fine. But co-ops are set up on a state by state basis (because each state has its own insurance laws and regulations to deal with which will govern that co-op). 40 million is a pointless number for the concept of the co-op because no single co-op will have purchasing and leveraging power of 40 million people (and some will have so few as to make it unlikely they can succeed at all). This ISN'T the case with the public option, though. So if you want something that gives buying power to an entity with 40 million enrollees, the public option is your choice. Glad to have you on board.

Also, the public option would be fantastic for people who have employer-based care (cheaper for same coverage). What's the problem? For some, a co-op would also be cheaper (perhaps in New York, California, etc.), but for many others it wouldn't (Montana, Wyoming, etc).

I suggest you look at what Kent Conrad is saying about the co-ops before you dismiss them.

"Can't work." which is suddenly NO WE CAN'T!

Let's play a game here and pretend that the "public option" will have vastly better administrative costs. Let's say 10%.

So you save that 10% initially in the first year. Then what? What prevents the curve from shooting upward, what prevents 8% annual increase in expense?

This is the question that liberals won't answer. But I'll answer it. Rationing of care, either through denying care explicitly or implicitly. Implicitly by paying so little to providers, that you won't be able to find a provider to take care of you.

Like I said, it doesn't matter. There won't be a public option. It's all academic.

And then we will have people like Cali who deny co-ops to people, over the fact that they would rather have pure socialism rather than indirect socialism.

[MikeWaters]

Told you that there was no way there was going to be a public option. Discussion about it was and is purely academic.