That's what the Republican National Committee is now saying, with some help from Senate Majority Leader Harry Read. The RNC forwarded a press release/research memo to reporters today claiming that a "'public option' by any other name is still government health care." But does it smell as sweet? Probably not to supporters of a true public option, and it was perhaps out of a desire to alleviate those concerns (and pose a future co-op passage as a White House victory) that Reid deemed co-ops as "some type of public option" in early July--a quote the RNC references prominently.
Neither of them are really right: co-ops would get started with
government loans and grants, and the government would come up with the
regulations, but they'd be owned by customers. Problem is, it's hard to
say it's the same as government-run health care without Republicans coming back at you and saying...the same thing.
Reid's comment was sort of offhand in its phrasing--"call it 'co-op,' call it what you want"--but it's become fodder in the health debate nonetheless.
Qualms about government-run health coverage are exactly what Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) sought to alleviate by introducing the co-op proposal, at the behest of the 11 senators tasked with shepherding health reform through the upper chamber (read Conrad's FAQ on the co-op proposal here).
The idea is that co-ops (whether it's one national co-op, state co-ops, or a national co-op with state affiliates) would serve the same function as government-administered health insurance, in that they'd operate as non-profits and perhaps utilize some added bargaining power or lower payment rates, thus forcing for-profit insurance companies to drive their own costs down, out of sheer economic necessity, once they had to compete with a non-profit that had some consumer cost advantages.
But it would do so specifically without being a government-run plan--and that's the line both Reid and the RNC blurred.
Shocked.
Republican are scum.
Conrad, one of my senators, keeps talking about how these co-ops, as non-profits, could offer significant discounts or when compared to traditional, for-profit insurance companies. But, of course, as President Obama said just this weekend, not all private insurance companies are for-profit. For example, here in Conrad's home state of ND, BC/BS is a non-profit private insurance company. ND's population is about 642,000. BC/BS covers somewhere between 350-400,000 of that population. Conrad has said that for a co-op to be financially viable it will need at least 25,000 members, but to be able to have any kind of real negotiating leverage, the co-op would need at least 500,000 members to negotiate competive rates with providers. So, does Conrad or anyone else pushing this co-op idea really think that there will be any viable state co-op in a state the size ND? And if it's a regional co-op, what law governs? BC/BS of ND is governed by the laws of ND, but BC/BS of other states is governed by those state's laws. Do you really think someone in ND where there are very good insurance regulations/laws would want their insurance policy goverened by the laws of some other state?
Conrad has been given a free ride as far as co-ops go. And what happened to Max Baucus, who supported a public option as recent as 11/2008. Their primary interest seems to be in some kind of "bipartisanship". Well, Mike Enzi has already said that even if he agrees with whatever the Finance Committe comes up with, he won't vote yes unless Obama, Reid, and Pelosi guarantee that that's what will be the bill Obama eventually signs. And Grassley has said that he won't support any bill, even if it has everything in it he wants and nothing he doesn't want, because it won't be a "good" bill unless he can bring some other Republicans along. So, anybody who thought the GOP would sign on to any Democratic plan that included co-ops rather than a public option has been, as Conrad would way, "wasting energy", and Conrad goes to the top of my list of energy wasters.
Do folks like Kent Conrad and Max Baucus realize that it doesn't matter what they put in the bill or what words they use, the GOP is going to demagogue it to hell and vote against it? Their goal is not reform - their goal is defeat whatever bill the Dems and Obama put forward. They can remove the public option, remove the co-ops, remove the trigger, remove any chance fed funds might be used for an abortion, remove coverage for end of life consultations, remove everything short of a line that says, "This is a healthcare reform bill", and most of the GOPers will still vote against it and most of the town hall crazies/ignoramuses will still scream, "Socialism!", and, "Death Panels!", and, "Where's the birth certificate?" If Kent and Max start to realize this, then maybe they'll stop trying to negotiate with fools like Grassley and Enzi and use the Democratic Party's large majorities in both houses of Congress to push through meaningful healthcare reform legislation that will help Americans.
Of course, it could be that like the GOP, neither Conrad nor Baucus wants to pass meaningful healthcare reform legislation that will help Americans.
This is the logical next step for the Republicans.
'There can be no public option.'
'Okay.'
'Great. Now that we've established that there can be no public option, there can be no co-op.'
There isn't any limiting principle or any point at which the Republicans will concede that the Democrats' proposals do not constitute "government-run health care." If the idea behind dropping the public option is that it will mollify the Republicans, it won't. Their goal isn't to get the best bill they can. It's to try to prevent any bill at all from becoming law.
The Republicans will reject everything the Democrats propose.
The Democrats are just using the Republicans as an excuse not to do anything themselves. They need to get their own act together, before they lose the majority that they should be taking advantage of right now.