Hillarysworld

While this is good news... the co-ops issue needs to be examined extremely carefully.... right now there are co-opts in industries such as farming and local utilities... see the reason they can work in those industries, the costs can be predictable and either they are nonprofit or they are directly in cooperation with private companies... BUT with a healthcare co-opt, the costs are NOT predictable... and the thing is these co-opts are started by seed money from the US govt, and will be given money from taxpayers until they are up and running..

the problem is the same as a public option, when does the government decide how much money is enough? b/c these co-ops are non-for-profit, they aren't worried about costs, and especially as they will be taxpayer funded... so even though its not an outright public option with a govt takeover... how long will the taxpayer keep funding a co-op that has no cost restriction and has a spigot to taxpayer money.

This is exactly the mess that was caused by the Freddie/Fannie, while they were supposed to be a quasi-govt/ private run companies.. the issues are the same... they are subsidized by taxpayers, if they lose money as they have, they are bailed out by the taxpayer... and they have to follow any forced rules by the govt.

so.... co-opts arent as good as they seem, b/c the result ends up as the same..

now, if the co-opts are completely in the hands of private insurance, that is a different story.. a govt can says to the private insurances.. that they have to provide a special progam/co-opt for people who cannot afford HC... now the govt would have to make sure all private insurance companies have to do this.. taht way there is not one company that gets adavantage over another... b/c there are about 10-15 million people who are now NOT insured. but there are probably half that that want insurance but can't afford it.... ALSO.. AMA(american medical association).. which only represents about 29% of doctors in this country.. needs to be forced to allow more doctors to graduate... you see.. the AMA are the people who give the MCATs(exams to qualify to get into med school), and the AMA decides how many doctors are graduating.. the reason they don't want too many docs... the salaries go down... so I understand their view.. however.. if there are more patients comning in.. then let more doctors graudate.. the costs will come down, and the salaries of docs will still remain high, which is prefectly fine..... but the most important point is then there is a lesser chance of rationing care... also.. open up HC plans across state lines.. like they do for car insurance...

so more people comning into the system to buying HC..... each private companies provide a co-op.. NO govt seed money..and NO govt intervention... but this way the insurance people get more customers.. and therefore they can afford to have a co-op for people who can't afford the more premium care, but they will have HC that takes care of them..and private companies can still stay healthy and alive

allow more resources into the system.. more docs graduateing.. therefore no rationing.. and docs still maintain high salaries.. and more docs to serve more people.

HC can be bought across state line... more competition.. and these companies will havew to hire more people to take care of more people... so jobs being created..

these way.. NO NO govt invention, people who want HC can afford to get it, more resources, no rationing.. and new jobs being created.


just my 2 cents..

-- Edited by ssmith on Sunday 16th of August 2009 12:45:59 PM

-- Edited by ssmith on Sunday 16th of August 2009 01:00:44 PM

Ssmith thank you for that analysis.  I am truly undecided on health care I am sick of people yelling at me because I don't want a single payer system.  I will accept that option only if the Liberals can prove to me what the American government runs and controls that work? 
I am just not sure about a lot of things concerning health care but I am sick of being told I am a right wing nut job who gets my talking points from Hannity or Beck the truth is I don't watch political shows because I prefer to make up my own mind.  I guess everyone sees the Hillary in my name and just assumes that I support all of her issues.  I loved and respected Hillary since 92 but that doesn't mean I agree with everything she did. 
I am very right wing but I am also a liberatarian which means I support gay marriage people are always surprised by this.
This health care debate is very nasty and I am sorry but it is the Liberals who are being nasty.  I am getting so tired of nasty comments that I am sure that this plan must be horrible if they have to use attacks on Americans to try and prove that they are right.

The word 'not-for-profit' is the most mis-used in the industry. We must start using 'humanitarian' and 'charitable' as the tags and see whether those apply... and often it does not apply to 'not-for-profit' and it is an interesting discovery when you realize that you have been assuming they are the same..

A non-profit company that is NOT a charitable organization is the worst of both public and private options. It feeds profit motive (and yes, it does; they simply call it something else, and they pay out bonuses and call those something else also!) without the private entity taking on risks... they get all kinds of grants.. and they do not pay taxes! When they run up bad accounts and get deep into debt, the government is forced to bail them out.. just watch what happened to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

A 'non-profit' [501(c)(3)] would be a VERY CUSHY IMPLEMENTATION OF PUBLIC OPTION.   I bet there are some people waiting in the wing to become the CEO and Board members of that entity/group. 

Why not leave it to private sector for-profit companies - let the free market work -- and set up standards that need to be met in the service expectations. i.e., Ensure that there are standards to be met, but not create a favored/not favored players on the field. Also open up the state borders at the same time. Such measure would truly reform the industry and lower the costs, while letting the free market work in favor of the consumers.


-- Edited by Sanders on Sunday 16th of August 2009 02:59:40 PM

Adding to my post...

Having said that, if this leads to a true reform of 501(c)(3) and a LOT more disclosure requirements -- sources and uses of funds disclosure requirements -- on them, and some public accountability, it may be a very good thing for the public with respect to ALL 501(c)(3) organizations. Presently, such disclosure requirement is non existent, and any question anyone asks of them gets them either no answer at all..

[Just get the name of a very wealthy-looking "non-profit" outfit near you and search for their financials, sources and uses of funds, and see what kind of details you can find!! Yes, there is one source that accumulates these reports online, but the entities file reports late, and it is about 2-4 pages of non-descript info. You just about never find sources and uses of funds in detail. For-profit companies are far more accountable to the shareholders and the public!!]

-- Edited by Sanders on Sunday 16th of August 2009 03:46:29 PM

-- Edited by B positive on Sunday 16th of August 2009 10:09:49 PM

I don't trust any of these people on health care. I wish they would all just drop the issue until they figure out wtf they're doing.