The U.S. General Accounting Office produced a report on cooperatives in March 2000 that was mostly sour on the idea. Using five different co-ops as examples, the study concluded that on the key function-- lowering the cost of insurance-- these non-profit insurance pools came up well short.



"The cooperatives' potential to reduce overall premiums is limited because (1) they lack sufficient leverage as a result of their limited market share; (2) the cooperatives have not been able to produce administrative cost savings for insurers; or (3) their state laws and regulations already restrict to differing degrees the amount insurers can vary the premiums charged different groups purchasing the same health plan."



Part of the problem was availability. While cooperatives sought to provide more choice of insurance to participants, oftentimes they failed to get consumers a broader range of options. "Not all plans are available in all areas served by each cooperative, and individual employers using some cooperatives may limit the choice of plans their employees can select," the study concluded.



And without a large number of participants, co-ops essentially were subject to the whims of the insurance market, unable to use market influence to get consumers better deals on coverage. "None of the purchasing cooperatives we reviewed had a large enough market share to create bargaining leverage and therefore had a limited ability to significantly increase the percentage of small employers offering coverage in their state," the study found.

As the President stated in March, ‘The thinking on the public option has been that it gives consumers more choices and it helps keep the private sector honest, because there’s some competition out there.’



We agree with the President that a public option will keep insurance companies honest and increase competition.



There is strong support in the House for a public option. In the House, all three of our bills contain a public option, as does the bill from the Senate HELP Committee.



A public option is the best option to lower costs, improve the quality of health care, ensure choice and expand coverage.



The public option brings real reform to lower costs over the 10-year period of the bill.

The public option is central to healthcare reform. Real reform, which lowers costs and ensures all Americans get the quality, affordable healthcare that they deserve, cannot be accomplished without a robust public option. As we have stated repeatedly for months now, a majority of the members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus will oppose any healthcare reform legislation that does not include a robust public option. Our position has not, and will not, change. As Co-Chair of the Progressive Caucus, I look forward to working with my colleagues to develop comprehensive legislation that allows all Americans to choose the healthcare plan that’s right for them and their families. But I will not support any bill that does not include a public option.

This morning Howard Dean was on MSNBC explaining why Insurance Industry shill Kent Conrad's (D-MT-$828,787) coops won't work-- and then taught the media a lesson about buying into right-wing/corporate talking points-- i.e, that the "public option" is a "dirty word." He also brought up the specter of primaries against corporate shills passing themselves off as Democrats who oppose the public option. Take a look at the video at the bottom of the post. Dean did a good job but it's a complex issue and not one that sounds good as a slogan or works on a bumper sticker. Sam Stein over at HuffPo, on the other hand, nails it so that even the weakest members of the Democratic herd, your Blanche Lincolns, Richard Pryors and Kent Conrads-- will understand why coops won't lower costs Like we pointed out yesterday, over 60 progressives have said they will not vote for a bill that doesn't include the public option . Today more members of Congress started speaking out against the attempt by the Insurance Industry and their right-wing, Limbaugh/Fox-fueled screaming wind-up soldiers to turn back the clock again. Speaker Pelosi has reiterated that even if Obama and the shills in the House of Lords cave to the Insurance Industry, the bill that comes out of the House will have a public option Anthony Weiner (D-NY)one of the 60-some-odd signers of the various pledges to kill any bill without a public option. But, in an interview on CNBC this morning, he made it clear that he and many other Democrats who didn't take the pledge feel just as strongly as those who did. He said there are around 100 members of Congress who will oppose a bill written by Insurance Industry lobbyists for the Senate Finance Committee. "There are just too many people in Washington who believe that the public plan was the only way that you effectively bring some downward pressure on prices, and if he [Obama] says well we're not going to have that, then I'm not really quite sure what we're doing here."One of the members who organized the original letter to Pelosi saying that progressives would not accept a shill bill without a robust public option was Arizona Congressman Raúl Grijalva, co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Is issued a statement today that made it clear that he doesn't give a hoot what Wall Street wheeler dealer Rahm Emanuel is doing to appease political donors with a meaningless bill.Pretty clear! And so was Barbara Lee (D-CA), Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, which has tended to give Obama a great deal of leeway. Rep Lee just drew a line in the sand" “Recent comments by Obama Administration officials regarding the public option and health reform are deeply troubling. Any bill without a public health insurance plan like Medicare is not health reform. Without a public option there will be no way to keep insurance companies honest and their rates down. A public health option that competes with private insurers will set standards that could help lower costs and improve access. The Congressional Black Caucus remains committed to ensuring that health reform is meaningful and that means making sure the a public option is part of the package.”Jerry Nadler (D-NY), one of health care reform's most devoted champions, was on NPR this morning with Katherine Lanpher and he didn't shy away from reminding his listeners/constituents that insurance companies are "basically the most profitable industry in the country because they are skimming so much off the top," before pledging again that he'll vote against any bill without a robust public option.Its even more difficult for members of the House of Lords to take these kinds of strong statements against the Insurance Industry and their colleagues who are in the lobbyists' pockets. Over the past couple of weeks we've watched admiringly as the Senate's two most courageous and independent-minded members, Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Jeff Merkley (D-OR), have done just that. Today Russ Feingold also stepped forward on behalf of working families. “A public option," he told his Wisconsin constituents, "is a fundamental part of ensuring health care reform brings about real change. Opposing the public plan is an endorsement of the status quo in this country that has left tens of millions of Americans uninsured or underinsured and put massive burdens on employers. I have heard too many horror stories from my constituents about how the so-called competitive marketplace has denied them coverage from the outset, offered a benefit plan that covers everything but what they need or failed them some other way. A strong public option would ensure competition in the industry to provide the best, most affordable insurance for Americans and bring down the skyrocketing health care costs that are the biggest contributor to our long-term budget deficits. I am not interested in passing health care reform in name only. Without a public option, I don’t see how we will bring real change to a system that has made good health care a privilege for those who can afford it.”Almost time to watch the Howard Dean video I promised. But first let me implore you again to thank the members of Congress who are standing up the Obama and standing up to the threats and wrath of the big corporations and, worse, Rahm Emanuel. You can do what they did-- stand up for the public option . Even a one dollar symbolic donation will let these members of Congress know you appreciate their stand.Even Bob Herbert at theand Eugene Robinson at the Washington Post are starting to wonder what has happened to the agent of Change and Hope we elected a few months ago. Has Rahm Emanuel had this much of an impact on him already?

Labels: Anthony Weiner, Barbara Lee, Howard Dean, Jerry Nadler, public option, Raul Grijalva, Russ Feingold