With a co-op system for health insurance, we can all receive treatment and work as a group, rather than individually, with pressed budgets and stressful circumstances.
I am not a big fan of the current publicly funded health care system in my state so I imagine that a country wide option would be just as disastrous. If people are not made to take action or hold their own health insurance what is to stop them from going to the doctor for every little thing, and sometimes just to get drugs. It runs up the debt of my state and think it would the entire USA.
Before we had the big insurance companies like we have today, we had health insurance co-ops. However, the plan to make it public would likely be different. It can be hard to start a co-op, due to the current competition with big companies. If it were a public program, the network would already be established. It may be a good alternative if it will save money and if the government does it in such a way that still provides people freedom and choice.
Health insurance co-ops have proved most successful in those instances where they have been administered as non-profits, much like credit unions are often more successful financial institutions than commercial banks. Of course, a co-op has to cover it's expenses, but with conscientious supervision and direction these co-ops can offer many benefits to members.
I totally agree that the health insurance co-ops is a good alternative to public insurance as the penetration of the insurance is very low. Moreover, the general public is not aware about the various insurance schemes, which exist in the market. So, in a way, health insurance co-ops can be a good alternative to public insurance, but the health insurance co-ops cannot fully abolished the public insurance.
Health insurance co-ops would be a great alternative to public insurance. With the public insurance the taxpayers would be footing the bill. With a co-op the owners would be footing the bill. The only problem with this is the fact that it is not easy to start a co-op. There are not many people who would want to take the chance of owning a insurance company. Granted the reward would be great but the risk involved is very high. Although it may be better then having the taxpayers foot the bill considering most of the people who do not have health insurance could not afford the higher tax rate that would come due to the public insurance.
A locally run cooperative can do many things well, and it would certainly seem like health care is the same way -- protection of the community of known individuals would be the goal rather than extraction of profit for the use of individuals not socially connected. People can share resources without worry that those resources will pick up and leave the community if they own a share in them.
This president is way too progressive for his own good. Having the government give us a public option is costing way too much money, and is not a right in this country. Co-op programs for health insurance seem more fair and balanced and will provide us with enough competition to keep prices half-way acceptable.
Businesses provide services in return for a profit. Customers have the right to choose other service providers, and thus get service elsewhere if the business does not provide the services they want. Many of the largest health insurers in the nation, like Blue Cross Blue Shield, are non-profit companies already. Health insurance co-ops should be a valid non-profit competitor in the field. However, a government mandated co-op, like any other backed monopoly, is a disservice to the population. When people have no other choice, there is nothing to force the government monopoly to do better. Think of how bad the Big Bell phone companies were, before deregulation and cell phones. Think of how much suffering goes on under socialized medicine in Canada now, where people pay taxes all their lives and then come to America for cancer treatment because the waiting list is long enough to kill them if they stay in Canada. Almost a million people in Britain are on a waiting list for surgery. Lack of choice means that bureaucrats can fritter money on planning and initiatives, but keep maternity wards and cancer wards closed to control costs. This helps no one but bureaucrats. Health insurance co-ops can be a valid competitor to health insurance. However, if they are a government monopoly, they are a disservice to the citizenry. Health
Health insurance co-ops are a viable alternative to public health insurance for many reasons. public health insurance inevitably is a costly venture for tax payers and results in a reduced level of care and options. Co-ops give individuals the choice and power to negotiate the coverage they need at an affordable cost. Countries who currently offer public healthcare have long waiting lists and limited care options.
The advantage of public insurance is that it creates a competitive market for insurance-based health coverage. If only private insurance is available, then there is the possibility for collusion among the companies to keep the prices high. Public-based insurance, though, would most likely be charged at the market rate and, therefore, no excess of funds to have to pay for coverage.
America is one of the only nations that views health care as a luxury item, not a given right as a human being. We need to get over this theory. It is harmful not only to our children, but to ourselves. People go for long periods of time without preventative health care in this country, and it is sickening. Co-op insurance may work in some instances, but a clear cut model, based on Canada or Switzerland, is needed now, not tomorrow.
Not everything can be privatized. Making money off of people's health problems is just morally wrong, and the government has an obligation to stop such practices. Insurance companies want to have total control of the insurance market, so it can monopolize our health care. If the government has a hand in how much it costs to get healthy, I believe the cost will go down.
One of the hardest things to get set up is a network. You will have to find hospitals and doctors, and also negotiate a contract for their services. Most will not want to negotiate contracts out for a new co-op with limited membership. You will also need to be able to meet licensing regulations, have a way to handle claims, and establish reserves to pay the claims that are submitted.
Insurance co-ops can only do so much in the event of a catastrophic illness or injury to one member of the co-op. Case example, many of the religious sects, such as the Amish and Pennsylvania Deutsch, are members of a pseudo-medical co-op. All of their money goes into their church, which then pays the needed medical bills for their families. However, several years ago, when a mentally distraught man entered one of their schools, killing and injuring many members of their families, the medical bills were extraordinary. It took millions of dollars to cover these costs, and the average co-op would not be able to handle this type of event. Even an event such as an accident, or a severe infection affecting multiple members could bankrupt the co-op. A child born premature with problems can cost millions. Cancer and diabetes can even cost millions. These are all likely possibilities that can strike anyone at any time, no matter how healthy they appear to be. They cannot be predicted and they will be costly.
I believe that every plan helps people while hurting others. So for all the new people you help going to co-op, you also hurt others that are not covered in areas that the old plans covered. Either way you have to find what's better for the masses and the greater number because either way someone will get hurt.
I believe that health care should be equal and available to every citizen of America. I think that because of the important of good health care is to your living it should be that same great health care for everyone. I think the only fair way to make that happen, is to create government run health care similar to Canada's system. I know people consider this a form a socialism but I look at health care like education and that it should be provided for all citizens. I do not think if you leave it up to for-profit groups to create a inexpensive for all, that they would be able to accomplish that.
Health insurance Co-ops are great. I am particularly fond of them. HOWEVER the problem with them is that they require those who need medical help to always have the money to pay the co-payment available. This is not always the case for those who live pay-check to pay-check, or even fail to pay the bills on their current income (there is the level of poverty in the US where people have to decide between heating and food in the winter) - so for those who need public insurance most, the co-payment isn't an alternative.
I think public health insurance is the most fair option for everyone over health insurance co-ops. Many people do not have access to health insurance co-ops. A public health insurance option would ensure that those, even with low or no income, would be able to afford an option of health insurance. Health insurance should be a basic right of Americans, not a liberty for those who can afford it. A public health insurance option would provide this right and also help reduce health insurance costs as there would be no worries about uninsured or underinsured patients.
Health insurance co-ops are not a good alternative to public insurance because they essentially function the same as insurers anyway. Ideally, insurance co-ops are started by a group of individuals to offers services that cannot be found elsewhere. Realistically, simply starting up an insurance network does not just happen out of the blue, so it is highly doubtful that such organizations can be established and effective in providing adequate insurance. Historically, co-ops have been formed and a couple are still in existence, but they differ very differently from other insurers. In effect, it is unclear as to how a co-op would be a better alternative to public insurance.