The Health Care Co-Op Idea

Krugman has a fine column on this: Health Care Showdown.

Sure would be nice if there were some knowledgeable reporters out there to press lawmakers based on a well rounded understanding of actual facts, and then report back to us.

KT, are you in a position to press harder? Are the questions asked in context with all of the alternatives? "If these (x,y,z) are the benefits of a true public option, how would your proposed co-ops provide a better health care result?" "Why are you looking for an alternative to a public plan when the public clearly wants that option?"

All the debates I see taking place are skirting around the basic problem which is simply this. No one can afford proper health care if they get really sick. Our standard insurance works around the problem in what differs litte from a ponzi scheme. By pooling the resources of the sick and the well together, insurance companies manage to get the people who don't file claims to subsidize the people who do. In the meantime, becvause they stand between patients and doctors and hospitals they distort the normal feedback loops that so-called 'free' markets require in order to correctly price services. When I asked my Brother-in-law surgeon about the problem he cited his own recently comeleted knee surgery. His hospital bill was $60,000 but since he had full coverage, the hospital will be billing his insurer only $25,000 and calling it a day. So $35,000 of his hospital bill is tacked on 'insurance' to the provider to act a hedge against uncollected invoices.
.
The point I'm making is that no matter what we do, the basic model that says that people who get sick will get their bills paid by someone else is set in concrete. Any move we make to widen coverage will come out of someone else's pocket. And the real problem of distorted pricing will continue to be unaffected.

WVNG, I'm sure KT is doing the best she can. I know it seems ridiculous for everyone to pursue these alternatives, but the reality is that the GOP has nothing else to rally around and the Democrats, I'm sorry to say, are the biggest bunch of cowards this side of the Pecos.
.
What we need is for voters, particularly swing voters, in each state where Senators have caved on health care to stand up and threaten, by any communication means available, to withhold their vote if these Senators don't produce a public option. National poll numbers just aren't enough when you have this many boot quakers in charge.

WVNG, I'm sure KT is doing the best she can. I know it seems ridiculous for everyone to pursue these alternatives, but the reality is that the GOP has nothing else to rally around and the Democrats, I'm sorry to say, are the biggest bunch of cowards this side of the Pecos.
.
What we need is for voters, particularly swing voters, in each state where Senators have caved on health care to stand up and threaten, by any communication means available, to withhold their vote if these Senators don't produce a public option. National poll numbers just aren't enough when you have this many boot quakers in charge.

oops sorry about the duplication

Paul, so what's the point? Would you have a model where its every man for himself? Sick people pay based on the cost of their illness, which they could never afford and those who are lucky enough to be disease free pay little or nothing?

I think the people proposing the Health Care Co-Op idea are doing it because they think it would fail. The for profit healthcare industry is terrified of the idea of a single payer system because countries that have it, like it. On the one hand they say it would lead to the public not getting good care and on the other hand they say they couldn't compete with it. That's BS and they know it. They're conducting a world class disinformation campaign against a single payer because they know the public would like it, would prefer that option and their profit margins would shrink.
.
If they can get health care co-ops passed they'll be able to say that they tried to reform the system but that it didn't work out. We'd be back to page one. This ploy isn't about providing a viable alternative, it's about putting an alternative out there that is doomed to failed and protecting a broken system that denies coverage to the people that need it the most.

PD: "The point I'm making is that no matter what we do, the basic model that says that people who get sick will get their bills paid by someone else is set in concrete. Any move we make to widen coverage will come out of someone else's pocket."
.
And? Every other industrialized nation has health care that costs less that ours and manages to cover everybody pretty effectively. Of course there is a flow of $$ from those not receiving services to those who do. That's how any insurance risk pool works. Our particular problem is that the USofA does it badly.
.
To KT, when you are interviewing someone who is spouting nonsense, do you feel empowered to do what Greenwald said?

Paul, so what's the point?
.
My point is that none of the proposed solutions seem to be addressing the problem. The reason everybody fears the government plan is that they have a deeper 'heat-sink' of available funds which everyone likes to treat like free money. (My comments about earmarks follow a similar logic.) We can look to identify where money is being wasted in medical care - There's sure to be a ton; we can acknowlege that the lack of coverage causes people to make really bad health decisions which end up costing more in the long run; we can take a long hard look at billing procedures and policies and look for where costs are being artificially inflated to pad against uncollected debts, but we have to stop imagining that if government ran their own insurance, that it would magically make health care affordable. It isn't affordable and that's the real problem that won't go away.

KT says: "If they see a real groundswell for something, if their office is getting inundated with calls, if they are hearing it from people back home, you'll see something happen."
.
but sacredh says: "They're conducting a world class disinformation campaign against a single payer because they know the public would like it, would prefer that option and their profit margins would shrink."
.
And the media broadly contributes to the disinformation that makes a groundswell impossible by giving the disinformers a platform to spout whatever they choose to say.

KT - good for you. Will we see it on CSPAN?

KT: I sincerely believe that you are doing your best to address this problem, but I don't know what else you can do when they keep turning your questions into a talking points game. You're keeping this subject alive and maybe that is the best we can hope for for the time being. Your efforts are appreciated and will hopefully lead to reform.
.
The problem is that the industry has virtually unlimited resources to make sure that true reform doesn't take place and that whatever reform does take place will not affect their profit margins. A single payer system is the goal and it's a goal the current system is fighting tooth and nail against. As long as they can rake in truckloads of cash they'll keep healthcare costs sky high, they'll kick the sick people off the roles to protect the influx of cash and they'll prosper while we suffer.
.
Please keep plugging away on this. I know it has to be frustrating, but you're doing something that most journalists are avoiding. Keep asking the questions and keep this subject front and center.

The truth is the only model that will ever really work and could be considered uniquely American at the same time, since it is currently the latest rage among the rich -- is concierge medicine. Yes, I know what you're thinking, but it's not only about being at a patent's beck and call 24/7.
.
It's about taking responsibility for a patent's health in its totality instead of only being involved on a per visit basis. If every policy, whether subsidized or not, paid a doctor a set amount per patient with an allottment for pharmaceuticals (not including specialized care or medicine or hospital care)and received a bonus for not exceeding that amount because patients did not need specialty or hospital care, the population would get a lot healthier and more physicians would go into family practice because the money would be in preventive medicine.
.
Obviously the rest of the money in the policy would go to fund, speciallty pharma, specialists and hospitalizations. The bottom line would be to use America's ever-worshipped market principles for good and give doctors a financial incentive to keep patients healthy, patients would have a financial incentive to stay healthy, if they paid a illness surcharge for preventable and controllable chronic illnesses, that wasn't absurd but provided an incentive to keep up best practices incentivizing patients to do their part.
.
What's ridiculous is a system that only rewards companies for collecting money from folks when they are well so they can cut them off when they get sick.

In all fairness, wvng is frustrated because he has seen this way too many times before and KT is bearing the brunt of that frustration because she is one of the few reporters/bloggers that actually engages her readers and not in a dismissive way.
.
KT is also frustrated because she can't and will never get an honest answer out of the major decision makers in this health care debate.
.
You have some pols who are hiding behind their concern for the American people when in reality all they care about is keeping the money they receive from the health care industry flowing into their reelection coffers and they are not going to be honest about that. They are counting on the American public to not notice or forget at election time. (They have before.)
.
You have some democrats who are just spineless and are more afraid of ads being run against their stance on health care by their republican opponents than they are of their supporters anger and they will never be honest. Instead what you get is "we don't have the votes and it will never pass." And they are counting on their voters to accept that excuse.
.
The only way to get these people in both camps to understand anything is by withholding money and votes from them. If this issue is important to you than you have to stop donating to the ones who are letting you down. Now! And I would call their offices and tell their staff that since their boss is unable to even signal that they are going to vote for the American people on this, they have lost your vote. Even if it means a member of the opposition party takes their seat. Too bad so sad. You are not doing a damn thing for me anyway so what's the point. I rather write and bit@h out someone I actually oppose and didn't vote for than have to waste time and energy opposing someone I'm suppose to be supporting.

I don't care how much money industry has, if we can't use the Internet, facebook, myspace and twitter to get a few million people in the street for health care, while Republicans can get coverage of a few thousand teabaggers out for God only knows because they sure didn't, then we deserve what ever crap we get.

Dee: I agree with you but the problem is that public apathy is difficult to overcome. If most people were like the bloggers here in Swampland then meaningful change would happen much more quickly. They're not. They believe there's nothing that can do that will make a difference. They're wrong and aren't willing to take the actions needed to initiate change. I call my elected representatives and write letters. I haven't been able to convince a single person I work with that it is worthwhile to get involved.

'The point I'm making ...people who get sick will get their bills paid by someone else is set in concrete..."

PD: my taxes pay for lots of things which do not benefit me directly. The point about a sane insurance policy is to have a pool of funds which will be used for those who need health care. The current system which allows insurers to give Senators tons of cash, themselves bonuses and incomes up to $20 mill a year is at the root of the problem. We need to understand what insurance means.

Someone said to me yesterday: My taxes pay for air traffic control. I have not flown in ten years. Why should I pay for that?

I don't care how much money industry has, if we can't use the Internet, facebook, myspace and twitter to get a few million people in the street for health care, while Republicans can get coverage of a few thousand teabaggers out for God only knows because they sure didn't, then we deserve what ever crap we get.
_
If I didn't know better, I'd say you were joking.
_
you need real money to get people organized; the "tea parties" were backed by murdoched multi-billion dollar empire, and a whole host of other deep-pocket conservatives. The Obama campaign was not a populist movement, but fueled by $130 in campaign contributions that were collected before the first primary vote was cast.
_
If Time Inc wanted to provide real coverage of the health care debate, every article and blog post would include information about how much is being spent (over $100 million) by special interests to influence health care legislation -- and who is getting that money. For instance, the article cited by Karen identifies Kent Conrad as the source of this co-op idea...but would be far more informative if the writer had bothered to mention that Conrad had gotten more than 3/4 of a million dollars in political contributions from the health care industries.
_

KT: You might try this formulation as a follow- up to "That's going to be worked out:"
.
Senator, is it responsible to enact a health care plan that assumes [premise A] if [probable negative consequence of A or precondition necessary to A] hasn't been resolved?