Could a co-op be a legitimate option?

As talk of a public option for healthcare appears to be dying down, cries for a co-op, once again, are getting louder.

Back in June, we wrote about Sen. Kent Conrad's (D-ND) plan to essentially create a regional cooperative that he believes could achieve the public option's goals without the government's help. Now, Conrad's "Gang of Six"--two other Democrats and three Republicans from the Senate Finance Committee--have a better chance to push this agenda, as they are scheduled to discuss how to "keep prospects for a bipartisan health plan alive" on a teleconference, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Conrad has talked about co-op programs in Seattle and Minnesota as examples of how such a strategy would be enacted. In those two instances, as with Conrad's vision, the federal government would only give start-up money to the various regions to help get the co-op plan off the ground, but would have no managerial responsibilities thereafter.

Those that oppose such ideas, such as Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), believe that a co-op could essentially be considered the same as a public option. Kyl says that the start-up money and the tax advantages that would be made available for co-ops would "put private insurers at a disadvantage"; he also believes that, despite what Conrad thinks, the government would exercise control of the co-ops.

What do you think? Do you feel that a co-op is a legitimate option?

To learn more:
- read this Los Angeles Times article

Suggested Articles

The profit margins and management of Community Health Group raise questions about oversight of managed care insurers.

Financial experts are warning practices about the pitfalls of promoting medical credit cards to their patients.

A proposed rule issued by HHS on Tuesday would expand short-term coverage, a move Seema Verma said will have "virtually no impact" on ACA premiums.