Health insurance co-ops: Designed to fail

Senator Jay Rockefeller was excluded from the bipartisan group of Finance Committee members who worked on the bill Chairman Max Baucus unveiled on Wednesday, so he spent part of his summer vacation researching the fake public option favored by some "gang of six" members. He reported on his findings in an open letter to Baucus and ranking member Chuck Grassley. You should click through and read Rockefeller's whole letter, but here are some excerpts:

"First, there has been no significant research into consumer co-ops as a model for the broad expansion of health insurance. What we do know, however, is that this model was tried in the early part of the 20th century and largely failed. As the USDA states in its response letter, `Government support for the cooperative approach to delivering universal health care was reduced during [World War II] and terminated afterward.' This is a dying business model for health insurance. Moving forward with health insurance cooperatives would expose Americans, who are hoping for a better health care system, to a health care model that has already been tried and largely failed in the vast majority of the country.

"Second, there is a lack of consistent data about the total number of consumer health insurance cooperatives in existence today, and there have been no analyses of the impact of existing health insurance cooperatives on consumers.

"Third, all of the consumer health insurance cooperatives identified by the [U.S. Department of Agriculture] and [National Cooperative Business Association] operate and function just like private health insurance companies. Therefore, it is unclear how expanding consumer health insurance cooperatives would actually achieve greater affordability for consumers or bring about greater competition in the private market...

The Congressional Budget Office doesn't expect the co-ops to affect the cost of the Baucus bill:

(The proposed co-ops had very little effect on the estimates of total enrollment in the exchanges or federal costs because, as they are described in the specifications, they seem unlikely to establish a significant market presence in many areas of the country or to noticeably affect federal subsidy payments.)

The failure of co-ops to provide competition in Iowa bears out the CBO's expectations:

In the 1990s, Iowa adopted a law to encourage the development of health care co-ops. One was created, and it died within two years. Although the law is still on the books, the state does not have a co-op now, said Susan E. Voss, the Iowa insurance commissioner.

Wellmark Blue Cross and Blue Shield collects about 70 percent of the premiums paid in the private insurance market in Iowa and South Dakota.

It's past time for President Obama to stop sending out White House staff and cabinet secretaries to signal that Obama might accept cooperatives as an alternative to a public health insurance option.

Here's hoping that even in the absence of presidential leadership, Rockefeller can get strong amendments attached to the Baucus bill or make sure it never gets out of the Senate Finance Committee.

Tags: Barack Obama, Chuck Grassley, Co-ops, Congress, health care reform, health insurance cooperatives, Jay Rockefeller, Max Baucus, Public Option, Senate (all tags)

Comments

14 Comments

Baucus Math

Finance Committee membership=23
Democrats=13 Republicans=10
Health Sub-Committee Membership=19
Democrats=11 Republicans=8
Democrats not on Health Sub-Comm=Baucus + Conrad
Republicans not on Health Sub-Comm=Grassley + Roberts
Chairman of Health Sub-Comm=Rockefeller
Finance Liberals on Health=Rockefeller + Kerry + Wyden + Schumer
Baucus needs 12 votes to get bill out of Committee

How does he get there? Not by sending the bill to Health Sub-Comm. That gives control to Rockefeller. Not even by referring it to the Full Committee, too many liberals.

Instead you do the math. If I lose four liberals I need three Repubs plus me plus eight Dems to get twelve.

That is all this was, Baucus desperately trying to thread the needle to sideline Rockefeller and three other libs by getting three repubs. Which is why he rode the plane down to the crash and now is still trying to put the wreckage together.

Baucus may have started with a sincere belief that only he could get to sixty and that only by isolating liberals. Now he is face with losing the math to Rockefeller. Every R he lost was one more  Lib Baucus had to pick up. Now he is reduced to the point when Rockefeller and any two of Wyden, Kerry, and Schumer (all shut out of the Gang of Six) can tell him to get stuffed. Even if he gets Snowe to go along.

Numbers are bitches. And in reality they were never Baucus's bitches. But now they belong to Rockefeller. And by all accounts he is both fully aware of that and pissed about the attempted end run. Good times.

by Bruce Webb 2009-09-17 08:37PM | 0 recs
There was a surreal feeling to this entire process

The key words in your diary are "even in the absence of Presidential leadership...."

This entire, miserable cluster---- is ultimately about a failure of Presidential leadership.

When the Democrats have 60 votes in the Senate, as well as an overwhelming majority in the House, it should be a fait accompli to get a comprehensive health care bill enacted within the first year of a Presidential term. Presuming, that is, that you have a strong President. And that is what's missing here: this President is a huge wuss.

When the thousands of authoritative books are ultimately written about this debacle, the pundits will all debate when the turning point occurred. For me, it happened over and over again during the summer, as the President made repeated appearances in behalf of health insurance reform. But then each Sunday morning, various administration officials---Gibbs, Sebelius, Axelrod---repeatedly corrected interviewers, reminding them: "there is no Obama health care bill"

I hope the takeaway from this mess for team Obama is that they learn: major initiatives can't be outsourced. The President must own them, right from the get-go.

by BJJ Fighter 2009-09-17 08:57PM | 0 recs
You dont think we are going to get a bill?

If we dont get a bill this time, Democrats need to take universal healthcare out of the party platform.  Reform cannot be done.  I never want to hear another Democrat ever promise it.  Yank it out of the party platform right now.  

by Kent 2009-09-17 10:15PM | 0 recs
Re: You dont think we are going to get a bill?

Oh please!  If people like you were in charge, the Civil Rights movement would have ended in about 1875.

by Steve M 2009-09-17 11:30PM | 0 recs
Re: You dont think we are going to get a bill?

If we do get something, it will be analagous to the Civil Rights Act of 1957, which most people have probably never heard of. It was a toothless and largely symbolic law passed during the Eisenhower years, just to make everyone feel morally superior and good about themselves...."see, we've done our job......."

by BJJ Fighter 2009-09-18 06:54AM | 0 recs
It took less time to get civil rights

Than it has to get universal healthcare.  We have been trying to get this since 1912 and we still cant get it.  The definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result.  I think that is the problem here.  This was our last bite at the apple and we have missed.

I cannot believe that people here were stupid enough to believe that we could actually change our healthcare system after we have been failing to do so for almost 100 years.  

by Kent 2009-09-17 11:43PM | 0 recs
Re: It took less time to get civil rights

You're like the king of wishless thinking.

by Steve M 2009-09-18 03:51AM | 0 recs
It took almost 200 years

to get civil rights.

by DTOzone 2009-09-23 10:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Health insurance co-ops: Designed to fail

"even in the absence of presidential leadership"

interesting phrase on a blog with admins who are so busy that spam diaries stay up for days at a time. As a result, I now have to go in to rehab to buck my WOW addiction.

by QTG 2009-09-18 03:22AM | 0 recs
getting more creative

about finding ways to change the subject from the topic at hand, I see.

by desmoinesdem 2009-09-18 04:40AM | 0 recs
That wouldn't happen

if the problems with the Senate and House weren't constantly being gratuitously blamed on the President.

by QTG 2009-09-18 06:50AM | 0 recs
we wouldn't still be debating this

if Obama didn't keep sending Gibbs, Axelrod, and Sebelius out to declare that the president might be open to co-ops.

Unless you think Obama has no control over what members of his administration say on tv, then he is also responsible for the fact that co-ops are still on the table.

by desmoinesdem 2009-09-18 07:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Health insurance co-ops: Designed to fail

The fact of the matter is, no reform will work if we dont change the way we practice medicine and related to that lower costs. No public option or any other option will matter if we dont start practicing preventive medicine. Look at Obesity, we are the wealthiest nation in the world, yet we have the highest obesity rate in the world. Why? Because we maintain some of the worst dietary and physical activity habits in the civilized world. Look at the school lunch menus, look at what we serve our kids at home, ourselves and so forth. Unless we take an approach led by educators and the medical society that prevention not disease management is the goal, it wont matter how many we insure or who gets access. The continued and spiraling costs of lifestyle related diseases such as diabetes and heart diseases will eventually bankrupt us.

Any change in healthcare has to include a complete buy in from government and medicine that what we are doing isnt working and simply insuring more people wont fix anything other than give more people access to expensive medications and tests.

by BuckeyeBlogger 2009-09-18 05:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Health insurance co-ops: Designed to fail

My hope that the Baucus bill might actually be a good thing, given that nobody but nobody would support it who hadn't already been bribed by the insurance industry was clearly naive.  This morning, Paul Krugman calls it better than expected and says it should be the basis for the final bill.  Thanks Paul.  Could you be helpful for maybe once?

by Jess81 2009-09-18 07:41AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------