I might have missed it but I wonder if you’ve actually presented any of your own ideas for reforming our health insurance system? It appears that you believe the system is in need of some reform but I’m not certain what form that reform would take.

Why not? Driving companies out of business that fail their customers so completely is about as American as you can get.

Right, the American way is capitalism. The market will fix itself. If a company fails it’s customers, capitalism insures that eventually it will fail. Customers will go elsewhere. Companies fail all the time, the problem starts when the government circumvents that process, mettles in a market and props up bad business (see: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the whole banking industry).

But, demonizing the private carriers, driving them out of business and replacing them with a government run options is not it.

Why not? Driving companies out of business that fail their customers so completely is about as American as you can get.

In fact, the BCBS companies almost all grew out of the co-ops of the depression era. They are demonized in the rhetoric of the current reform push, for trying to do the very thing that the reform is hoping to do (i.e. holding down the rising cost of health care). Any government plan (or government supported co-op) would be forced to end up making the same decisions these demonized companies do or it would fail.

Insurance, by definition, is a co-operative enterprise (whether it is for profit or not).

I think everyone can agree that some changes could be made to improve the current Health care system. But, demonizing the private carriers, driving them out of business and replacing them with a government run options is not it.

That sounds about right to me.

Rick,

I had thought highly of the co-op idea, but with your post and the Heritage link, I have to admit this is not much better than the public option. Thank you for a hysteria-free dose of reality.

I think part of the answer is a matter of scale. The successful co-ops in Seattle and Minneapolis are small enough to be well run and large enough to spread the risk out over as many people as possible.

That, and the average resident of the above cities is probably somewhat more liberal and therefore more deposed to the idea of co-ops in the first place. I’ll bet Co-ops would be a runaway success in Berkley and Cambridge, while they would be non-starters in Birmingham and Orange County. Other parts of the midwest with histories of progressive policies (such as Wisconsin), may also find success with co-ops.

Which raises an interesting idea, could the solution to the health care crisis be for each of the individual states to come up with their own answer under a loose federal mandate? We leave the implementation of so many responsibilities (such as education) up to the state governments, why shouldn’t health care for all be any different?

I also have to wonder if state insurance commissioners, who tend to be as power mad as any left-wing D.C. pol, would cooperate with their counter-parts in other states…and this assumes that the states still would regulate insurance provided via the co-ops. Or would the co-ops be federally regulated? Would the infrastructure be self-regulating?

I agree that if private businesses could combine and pool and expand their base of insureds would be a great idea. Would government consent to being cut out of that loop, though? And again, what would be the regulatory structure?

Again, good job here, and something to chew on.