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

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I'll point out that Cali's only stated objection to co-ops is that he believes they will have more administrative costs. Therefore he wishes to prevent membership control (of a co-op) and instead have government control by bureaucrats.

He does like to change the topic when it doesn't suit him.

Obama himself can't even mount a credible argument of why co-ops are inferior to a public plan.

Change the subject? I responded to YOUR post. If you don't like where the conversation is heading, stop driving it in that direction.

And no, administrative costs aren't the only reason not to use a co-op (I don't know why you dismiss it as an irrelevant concern, though- we are talking about literally billions of dollars being gobbled up unnecessarily in administrative fees. I thought you actually cared about wasting money).

Co-ops are extremely expensive to start up (Senator Conrad, the co-op proponent, has suggested start-up costs of between $4 billion and $10 billion (these are just costs to get the thing running, and not the costs of maintaining it). Furthermore, what happens if the co-op starts to crash from lack of funding/underenrollment (limiting purchasing power and the effectiveness of the co-op)/etc? Does the entire co-op go under? Does the government bail it out?

Co-ops in health care don't tend to do well at controlling costs, either. Group Health Cooperative in Washington, for example, has increased its premiums by 12.3% a year since 2000 (hard to sustain; there is a reason there aren't many surviving healthcare co-ops).

You tell me- why are you in favor of co-ops? You are finding yourself increasingly alone on this quest, as Republicans already bailed out on the concept.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

The only private insurance fraud cited in your example is where the insurer ripped off the doctors.

Who cares? Fraud is fraud. It is not only illegal, but a huge inefficiency in the market no matter who is ripped off. Private insurance fraud is rampant, so to point your finger at Medicare only seems really disingenuous.

You could argue that medicaid and medicare have it built-in to rip off doctors.

Then do.

Medicare can slow growth because they can arbitrarily cut their reimbursements and providers have no recourse (at least not the recourse they do with private insurance).

Medicare certainly does not accept all comers. Me, for example, I can't buy medicare.

You know what I meant. Yes, it has enrollment requirements, but clean past medical history isn't one of them.

Like I said before, private insurance subsidizes Medicare. A doctor that only has medicaid and medicare clients will go under very quickly.

You aren't concerned about the administrative costs. You are concerned about lack of govt. control. But you aren't honest enough to say it.

And the public subsidizes private insurance heavily. Your point?

Of course I am concerned about administrative costs. If you would stop pretending to be an expert on everything (including what I am thinking), this conversation would be much more reasonable and productive.

And that's why Obama is going to lose this one (he loses even if it passes). Because the public knows he is lying.[/QUOTE]

[MikeWaters]

I didn't say I was in favor of co-ops. I do find the idea of membership-run co-ops far superior to govt.-run bureaucracies however.

The debate is academic, because there will not be a public option.

It's co-ops or nothing at this point.

[MikeWaters]

Btw, I just checked, and it appears your GW "study" (really it's a policy piece) is not peer-reviewed. It's self-published. I skimmed the article and couldn't find any analysis indicating that private insurance has equal or more fraud than medicare/medicaid.

Again, you serve up a hack-piece.

[MikeWaters]

$6 billion to get self-funded non-profit medical coops in all 50 states? That is cheap.

You mention the Washington co-op, but don't mention the Minnesota one. Is this another case of you cherry-picking?

Aren't you upset about year to year increases in Medicare and Medicaid spending?

Here is a govt. report showing that Medicaid costs are expected to increase faster than overall healthcare inflation in the next 10 years.

At this rate, Medicaid growth is projected to slightly exceed growth in overall health care expenditures, which is projected by CMS actuaries and economists to increase by 6.7 percent per year over the next 10 years, or over twice the rate of general inflation. Additionally, Medicaid’s share of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is projected to reach about three percent in 2017. The combined share of GDP spending for Medicare and Medicaid is projected to be 6.9 percent by 2017.

http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2008pr...20081017a.html

The idea that a public plan won't have rampant costs is an illusion.

And btw, anytime the govt. can step in and bail out an insurance company (i.e. the public option), that is not a level playing field (which Obama has promised).

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Btw, I just checked, and it appears your GW "study" (really it's a policy piece) is not peer-reviewed. It's self-published. I skimmed the article and couldn't find any analysis indicating that private insurance has equal or more fraud than medicare/medicaid.

Again, you serve up a hack-piece.

My "hack piece" is better than your lack of any piece to support your contention that Medicare and Medicaid fraud far outweigh fraud in private care. You brought up fraud in Medicare and Medicaid to support your contention that private care is far superior. Not at all helpful if you can't demonstrate that private care does a far better job on fraud (and you haven't at all).

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

$6 billion to get self-funded non-profit medical coops in all 50 states? That is cheap.

You mention the Washington co-op, but don't mention the Minnesota one. Is this another case of you cherry-picking?

Aren't you upset about year to year increases in Medicare and Medicaid spending?

Here is a govt. report showing that Medicaid costs are expected to increase faster than overall healthcare inflation in the next 10 years.



http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2008pr...20081017a.html

The idea that a public plan won't have rampant costs is an illusion.

And btw, anytime the govt. can step in and bail out an insurance company (i.e. the public option), that is not a level playing field (which Obama has promised).

How do you think it is going to work in all 50 states? Do you actually believe a co-op will fully function in Montana? North Dakota? South Dakota? Wyoming? New Mexico? Idaho? Nevada? Really? You think you will get a critical mass of enrollees in those states so the co-op functions effectively? lol! You really haven't thought this through. You heard "co-op" and just started running.

And of course I am concerned about rising premiums in Medicare and Medicaid. Fortuntately, those are far lower than rising premiums in the private sector (which increased by 119% over the last decade). The CBO estimates costs of employer-based care will increase by 100% over the next decade (Congressional Budget Office, “Taxes and Health Insurance,” February 29, 2008).

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

How do you think it is going to work in all 50 states? Do you actually believe a co-op will fully function in Montana? North Dakota? South Dakota? Wyoming? New Mexico? Idaho? Nevada? Really? You think you will get a critical mass of enrollees in those states so the co-op functions effectively? lol! You really haven't thought this through. You heard "co-op" and just started running.

And of course I am concerned about rising premiums in Medicare and Medicaid. Fortuntately, those are far lower than rising premiums in the private sector (which increased by 119% over the last decade). The CBO estimates costs of employer-based care will increase by 100% over the next decade (Congressional Budget Office, “Taxes and Health Insurance,” February 29, 2008).

Why do you assume it won't?

Why do you assume that a government plan works in all states?

The CBO estimates costs of employer-based care will increase by 100% over the next decade

Of course, there's no bias here. Really, Cali, you gotta do better than this.

I have read and will try to locate that in 1964 government estimated 1984 Medicare costs to be $4 Billion when in fact it was $400 Billion. Do you really believe any government auditor has one iota of credibility in the prediction department when it comes to costs? Do you really want us to believe a government auditor instructed to skew costs in favor of government programs won't just cook the numbers?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Why do you assume it won't?

Why do you assume that a government plan works in all states?



Of course, there's no bias here. Really, Cali, you gotta do better than this.

I have read and will try to locate that in 1964 government estimated 1984 Medicare costs to be $4 Billion when in fact it was $400 Billion. Do you really believe any government auditor has one iota of credibility in the prediction department when it comes to costs? Do you really want us to believe a government auditor instructed to skew costs in favor of government programs won't just cook the numbers?

We deal with the numbers and estimates available, Arch.

As for a co-op not functioning properly in all 50 states, I assume it won't because a co-op needs a critical mass to be successful, and it isn't at all clear how they will reach that critical mass in many of the smaller states (in Washington, the co-op I mentioned before took over 60 years to get to 600,000 enrollees, and Washington is much larger than many of the other states).

The CBO isn't biased. Feel free to review what the CBO is (a non-partisan entity) as well as their releases of this year (which have gone heavily against Democrats multiple times).

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

We deal with the numbers and estimates available, Arch.

As for a co-op not functioning properly in all 50 states, I assume it won't because a co-op needs a critical mass to be successful, and it isn't at all clear how they will reach that critical mass in many of the smaller states (in Washington, the co-op I mentioned before took over 60 years to get to 600,000 enrollees, and Washington is much larger than many of the other states).

The CBO isn't biased. Feel free to review what the CBO is (a non-partisan entity) as well as their releases of this year (which have gone heavily against Democrats multiple times).

"non-partisan" doesn't mean devoid of bias.

CBO made the $396 Billion for the original Medicare estimate. Their predictions are worthless dung.