Key Centrists Rally Around Conrad's Co-op Plan For Health Care (VIDEO)

Two centrist Senators who will play vital roles in the health care debate, said on Sunday that they were intrigued by the idea of structuring co-operatives for health care coverage in place of a public option favored by most progressives.

Sens. Susan Collins and Ben Nelson lauded the proposal of their co-panelist, Sen. Kent Conrad, during an appearance on CNN's "State of the Union." In the process the Maine Republican and Nebraska Democrat left the obvious impression that if the Senate were to introduce a health care reform proposal structured around co-ops and not a publicly run health care option, the legislation would garner the 60-votes potentially needed for passage.

"It is an intriguing idea," said Collins. "I commend Senator Conrad for coming up with this idea. It is far preferable to the government run plan that has been discussed by the administration. This is a possible compromise. I need to know more details. We need to know how it would work. But it is certainly better than a Washington-run plan."

Added Nelson: "Senator Conrad's onto something here. This can be an additional method for competition."

To this point, both Collins and Nelson have hinted that they would not support a public option for health coverage - citing the argument that it could drive private insurers out of the market by creating unfair competition. Their respective votes could play key roles should the Senate consider the matter with a filibuster threshold. Nelson, however, has indicated he would vote for cloture on a public option even if he ultimately opposed the bill.

Conrad's proposal is designed as a third-way of sorts between a public option and the status quo. Co-ops would be membership-owned and operated, run as non-profit organizations, adhere to state laws for health care coverage, and provide health care insurance for individuals and micro-business

Reaction to Conrad's co-op idea has been mixed, with a bit of trepidation among progressives who are skeptical it would bring about systemic change to the health care industry and generally want to see more details, including what enforcement mechanisms and eligibility requirements might look like. On Sunday, the North Dakota Democrat didn't get too deep into the micro-analysis, choosing instead to tout his plan's most significant attribute. He has the votes, he said, and the public plan doesn't.

"The problem is votes, at the end of the day, nothing advances unless you get 60 votes in the United States Senate," he said. "I know there are some who say we can do this through reconciliation... I think on exploration people find that really does not work... So I think you're in a 60-vote environment, and that means you have to attract some Republicans as well as holding virtual all the Democrats together. That, I don't believe, is possible with the pure public option. I don't think the votes are there."

Comments

[jscope]

02:47 AM on 06/16/2009

The advocates of single-payer are responsible for its failure, not the Republicans and Democrats whom everyone knew would protect the health care industry's campaign financing.. It 's perceived as a "liberal" proposal . It should have been sold to voters across the political spectrum - boomers, fiscal conservatives, young couples, conservatives as well as liberals - as the most fiscally responsible plan from a hard-nosed business standpoint. You insist that single payer can only be government-run when that has been forever demonized by opponents. A private sector single-payer plan ends that argument. If you can't get these people behind you, it's over. Health care is big business. Point out that single payer mirrors the practices of big business - .consolidate, downsize, use huge market power, like Walmart, to drive down costs and force providers to compete for the business. Spread the costs, cut duplication of bean counters. Employer provided health care is subsidized by the taxpayer, not market-driven. There is no competition.You can't afford to pick a doctor not in the network, You can't change insurance companies. The insurance company stands between you and your doctor. Taxpayers have become a a giant venture capital fund, financing health care while struggling to lower their own expenses in a shattered economy. Their return on investment is a private sector single-payer system run by a commission. Harry and Louis said "we don't want the government in our medicine cabinets." People don't want 1,000 insurance company bureaucrats in there either.

[aflyinyoursoup]

02:05 AM on 06/16/2009

Centrist=Fence Sitter=Sold to The Highest Bidder...
All in the name of Feigned Moderation...
Moderation=No Passion...
No Passion=Might as Well be Dead!...
And the beat goes on...

[expired]

03:27 PM on 06/15/2009

This link has been posted for those who would like to help get health care reform pushed through sans the corporate kick backs.

https://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/5148/t/3392/shop/custom.jsp?donate_page_KEY=2552

[KauaiJohnnie]

01:48 PM on 06/15/2009

Let's be clear, this "compromise" is a "bait-and-switch" that will have no affect whatsoever on the health care Americans receive.

If there is no public option, it will be very, very difficult for me to continue contributions to the Democratic party. Rather I'll just "opt-out".

[layman]

10:58 AM on 06/15/2009

There's neither health nor care in the congressional discussion about health care but protection of big corp profits. It's egregiously obvious corruption, an illegal act, is occurring in congress in broad day light, and no body really care in congress but the kicking and screaming PEOPlE. who can't afford neither the health nor the care.

[Alphomega]

02:11 AM on 06/15/2009

It's a tragedy that meaningful healthcare reform is being blocked in the Senate by "centrists" coming from small conservative states (Baucus/Montana, pop. 967K; Conrad/N. Dakota, pop. 641K). This factor once again brings to the fore the problem with private financing of political campaigns, since it's now easy for interest groups, like healthcare insurers, to target their campaign contributions to Senators having key committee assignments, and for Senators coming from small states the contributions have more of an effect because their campaigns generally cost less.

[layman]

11:11 AM on 06/15/2009

Sadly it's a pretty screwed up system or thoroughly abused system. And sadly it's the American brand of democracy.

[aofh]

01:52 AM on 06/15/2009

The coming mid-term elections need to be a referendum on Congress. We need candidates, regardless of party affiliation, who are willing to chuck the status quo and do the public's bidding. We need candidates who will openly embrace single payer, and we need to support them no matter what. Only when such candidates start getting traction in primaries will the incumbents get the message. We need to make this issue a litmus test.

[brt929]

01:43 AM on 06/15/2009

A co-op is not a new idea, and it is not a compromise.

As it is, we have many medical insurance companies that are supposed to be for non-for profit. Their premiums are increasing just as much as the others.

All it means is small businesses will combine their groups with other small groups.

If you are not going to give us a public option, then the Federal government needs to take over regulation of the insurance companies, because the states aren't up to it. In fact, the local state insurance commissioners are in the pocket of the insurance companies.

[Azuki]

12:41 AM on 06/15/2009

To this point, both Collins and Nelson have hinted that they would not support a public option for health coverage - citing the argument that it could drive private insurers out of the market by creating unfair competition.

There are certain things that should not be run by for profit corporations. I really don't care if health insurance companies are driven out of business (even though I really don't think it will happen). Not only is the current system expensive, it is unfair. Large corporations can negotiate decent health insurance plans at lower rates with no pre-existing condition clauses. If we were all treated as though we were part of one large group, insurance rates would be drastically lower for individuals and small businesses.

Yes, insurance companies might make less money, but I really don't care. Again, there are certain aspects of our lives that should not be controlled by for profit corporations. Insurance company CEOs make so much money that a 10% cut in their pay could insure 35,000 thousand Americans. Here's the WebMD source: http://blogs.webmd.com/mad-about-medicine/2007/08/ceo-compensation-who-said-healthcare-is.html

Their true fear isn't going out of business. It's not having us pay their enormous salaries and bonus anymore. I've been a corporate executive and I understand the value of an excellent senior executive. However, no single individual is worth the huge amounts these people are paid, especially when it's at the expense of human life.

[RepugsOut08]

01:59 AM on 06/15/2009

Excellent post!
My insurance premium went up $200 per month, and my insurance company's CEO got paid $250 million that same year.
Of course the letter I got explaining the raise in my premium cited rising costs. It didn't mention the CEO's salary. I found that out in a news article on the ridiculous salaries being paid to CEOs, which happened to mention my insurance company's top dog as one example.

[dukeitout]

12:34 AM on 06/15/2009

I fear that real enemy of meaningful health care reform is not the clueless Republicans, but the weak-kneed Democrats. 90% of the current republicans will vote against it for a myriad of baseless reasons; and 20% of the democrats will oppose reform because their re-elections are dependent on the pharmaceutical and insurance industries' financial support (bribes). Let's see what happens.

[brt929]

01:51 AM on 06/15/2009

I agree a 100%. Somehow we need an organization, that will buy commercials and put the heat on these feckless Democrats- Cantrall, Baucus, Bayh, and the rest of the blue dogs.

[easarsfield]

02:31 AM on 06/15/2009

amen !

[RepugsOut08]

02:04 AM on 06/15/2009

We have to make those weak Dem's re-elections dependent on votes instead of bribes. People living in those states need to flood their offices with angry calls, and let them know they'll be looking for new jobs come election time if they vote against the people.

[treetracker]

12:34 AM on 06/15/2009

So know they get honest - no more "I don't know how we can pay for a public option" to we "don't want to put the insurance companies out of business."

http://www.acponline.org/advocacy/where_we_stand/access/cost.pdf 2004 Study done by the American College of Physicians

"Costs Borne by the Government
Governments finance the bulk of the uncompensated care received by the uninsured, spending about $30 billion in 2001 on payments and programs largely justified to serve the uninsured. This figure includes grants, direct care programs, tax appropriations, and Medicare and Medicaid payment add-ons. Compared to other government expenditures, total government spending in the name of the uninsured is considerably less than spending on Medicare ($247 billion), Medicaid ($226 billion), and tax subsidies for private insurance ($138 billion), according to the authors of “How Much Medical Care Do the Uninsured Use, and Who Pays For It?.”

$138 billion in tax subsides to private insurance. Double the cost the report estimates uninsured care costs. And we pay $30 - 40 billion in taxes to cover 1/2 the costs of uninsured care now.

$138 billion! Who gets the biggest share of the tax breaks? CEO's, of course. And it comes back in the form of campaign donations. There's our public financing!

But no PH option to reduce costs or help the uninsurable or uninsured.

We are just a bunch of suckers watching while they play kabuki theater for us.

[gbee]

12:08 AM on 06/15/2009

Let me get this straight, they want an option that does not compete with for profit health care? Well, how is it supposed to lower prices then? All it will do is RAISE prices. Having 50, count 'em 50, health care systems, each with DIFFERENT rules and regulations will do for health care what 50 different air quality standards has done for the price of gasoline (supposedly).

[zukervati]

12:34 AM on 06/15/2009

Because "they" are part and parcel sold out - whether Rethuglican or Dumcrat. At a time like this we need Obama to use his political capital. I'm just not sure what he's waiting for? Time is now, not his next term. Hope, though a great slogan, is not the strategy!

[unwashedmasses]

11:29 PM on 06/14/2009

I'd love to know who will cover the disabled. I'll bet the co-ops would be just fighting over us.

And as far as MEDICARE - D goes, (I can't believe Nelson brought this up as a beacon of health care cooperation), it positively STINKS and even the pharmacists agree with this.

NO MORE DIVERSIONS. Every single one so far has been introduced to derail the health reform we were promised.

[ncmom54]

11:29 PM on 06/14/2009

a comparison;
SUTA & FUTA are the employer paid taxes toward state and federal unemployment...
when the 'bottom fell out' in 08, all Congress had to do was vote to extend those benefits in order to help the newly unemployed (through no fault of their own) survive. They can do it again if necessary. anyone not covered by SUTA/FUTA did not have this safety in place.

on another front, and it's only speculative.. but if we had Single Payer only; and a pandemic or some other tragedy occured it would be a much more efficient process to either ramp up services or at least account for everyone who's vaccinated or treated. As the state of health care stands right now, there's no way to deliver an across the board service to the public since half the country has no insurance at all.
If somebody has a better perspective on this, please help me understand it.

[RepugsOut08]

12:36 AM on 06/15/2009

Excellent point on the pandemic comment.
There really is only one reason to not have single payer, and that is to make the insurance and pharma companies, along with hospitals, obscenely wealthy. It is that obscene wealth that is now fighting single payer and a public option so hard.

[jazzman]

11:20 PM on 06/14/2009

This is a bogus plan. Get it 'moderate' Democrats. We're on to your game. It's bogus just like the trigger option was bogus. The only people fooled by your slight of hand is you, not the public. Go for this and you'll see outrage from the citizens of the U.S. Stop kidding yourself. Stop kidding us and give us REAL health care reform not this dreamed up crap to bury the public option.

[unwashedmasses]

11:33 PM on 06/14/2009

It's just to muddy the water, just like MEDICARE D did.

Fooled me once, shame on (HELP ME OUT HERE, BUSH!!!!) me, fooled me twice - oh! I can't remember!