Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
my understanding is that the proposed co-op system is basically the same public option they were trying to push before with a minor paint job.
Your understanding is wrong. Foremost, the co-op system would be private insurers versus a government owned/run public plan. Isn't the fear of scary government run programs supposed to be the boogeyman in the public option debate?
If the private insurers end up being anything like Acorn or Planned Parenthood, then yeah, I think the same argument against a Public Option remains in place.
The boogieman is that the government will use unfair pricing to effectively force truly private insurers out of the business, leaving just the government run system left standing. If the co-ops are all licensed non-profit organizations which receive special deals and access to government subsidies and then compete against for-profit insurers in an environment with price controls in place to ensure that a for-profit company can't remain afloat, it's no different at all (and in some ways worse).
The specifics surrounding these proposed co-ops are still far too vague to make a specific call about them, but I don't think is unreasonable to oppose such things until the details are much more clear. As I've said in past thread, Conservatives have already been burned with the "wait until everything's written. Trust us. The final version will address your concerns..." scam a couple times already this year.
Obama and the Dems have pretty much burned up any trust capital they had with the Republicans, Conservatives, and a whole lot of Independents as well. At this point, no one's listening to what they're promising. We want to see what's actually written down on paper. That game has been played too many times.