It was just two weeks ago when I posted, “Oppose Obama's Stealth Government Takeover of Health Care,” which warned about the intention of President Obama and Democratic congressional leaders to get Congress to approve health care reform legislation with a “public option” that would put our nation on the path to a completely government-run health care system (See also our newly posted, "Obama’s Orwellian Health Care Reform."). Back then in mid-July it appeared that both the House and Senate would comply with the President’s strong request to pass health care reform bills with a public option before the August recess.

Nonetheless, during the past two weeks the wheels have begun to come off the health care reform juggernaut as grassroots opposition to the President’s proposal has grown rapidly. First, the Senate announced its committees needed more time to craft health care reform legislation and wouldn’t be considering a health care bill in the full Senate until September. Next, one of the House committees working on a health care bill, the Energy and Commerce Committee, has been prevented from finishing work on its bill by the opposition of Blue Dog Democrats.

Although the Blue Dogs have as many as twelve problems with the health care bill in their committee, one of their main concerns has been over the public option. In fact, just this afternoon Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.), who has acted as a spokesman for the dissident Blue Dogs on the committee, announced that a deal had been struck for the committee to proceed on its markup of its bill as long as other Democrats on the committee agree to several demands including weakening a government-run insurance plan (also known as the public option) that would compete with private insurers and postponing a vote on health care reform by the full House until September.

Since the health care industry makes up 17% of our economy, comprehensive health care reform legislation is necessarily very complex. However, one aspect of the health care reform debate stands out in importance -- namely, the extent of government involvement in our health care system. We already have a mixed system with both private funding through individuals, businesses, and private insurance companies and government funding through Medicare and Medicaid. President Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress are advocating any new health care reform bills include a “public option,” which refers to a government-run health insurance entity which would provide “competition” with private health insurance companies. Since no private insurance company could compete with the resources behind the “public option,” especially in light of extensive (and soon to be greatly increased, no doubt) government regulations on private insurers, this public option would set the stage for a transition to a completely government-run health care system over time.

Enter the Cooperative Compromise

The stage appears to be set for a great, deceptive compromise which would address the concerns many Americans, most congressional Republicans, and apparently many congressional Democrats have with increasing government involvement in our health care system and which would, behind the scenes, also provide a path to a completely government-run system that President Obama and most congressional Democrats prefer.

As evidence of just how much traction the opposition to a government takeover of health care has gotten, consider that a few days ago my Democratic congressman stated in a letter to me that “I do not support a government-run, single payer system.” Although he is representing a historically Republican district he is not listed among the 50 plus members of the Blue Dog Coalition. Based on his past performance, I assume he will be a solid vote for any health care reform bill endorsed by the Democratic leaders; however, at this point he is clearly stating his opposition to a “government-run” system. He would clearly be most comfortable voting for a health care reform bill that appears to avoid enlarging the government's role in health care.

Now imagine a compromise health care reform bill that seems to prevent a government takeover of health care but at the same time provides a platform for transitioning to a government-run system. That’s a bill that President Obama could endorse and that virtually all congressional Democrats, including the Blue Dogs, and many Republicans could vote for. And, there’s no need to imagine this bill. It’s being crafted right now by three Republican and three Democratic senators, who are members of the Senate Finance Committee. The key to this compromise bill is the provision for “health care cooperatives,” which would replace the “public option.” In recent days several members of this group of six senators have made it pretty clear that health care cooperatives will be a key provision in their bill.

Here’s a video of an interview on July 27 with Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Senior Republican on the Finance Committee and one of the three Republicans working out final details in their committee’s health care reform bill:



Notice that in this interview Senator Grassley likes to point out that his committee is restructuring one sixth of the U.S. economy, which goes to show just how important the health care industry is to our economy. He also sees his committee’s role as that of crafting a workable compromise health care bill based on health care cooperatives that can be supported by many Republicans as well as Democrats. He prides himself as being ahead of the curve in helping produce the compromise that many Republicans will end up supporting this fall. And, he’s also very certain of success in getting this bill approved by the full Senate. He points out that only once during the past ten years has a compromise bill crafted by Senator Baucus and himself failed to pass in the full Senate.

So, in light of the Democrats’ current difficulties in getting health care reform legislation with a public option (read government-run competition to private insurance plans) passed in either house, it seems likely that Grassley's health care cooperative compromise will be incorporated in the health care bills that are actually voted on by the full Senate and House this fall, either in the initial bills or in a final conference report bill.

I won't take the time in this article to document how well the concept of health care cooperatives engenders thoughts of private, non-governmental, consumer-driven health care. That's what Grassley and the other senators working on this compromise are counting on to make their health care bill attractive to congressional Republicans.

What's more interesting is how these health care cooperatives could be used as a transition to a completely government-run health care system.

First, here's an interesting perspective on why these cooperatives would be doomed to failure:

[W]hat would Conrad’s non profit (really for-profit, tax-exempt) co-ops be able to do that the Blues plans couldn’t and didn’t? How would they cut costs more than Kaiser’s plans (non-profit insurers that make their docs rich)? The simple answer is that they wouldn’t survive long, and they wouldn’t make health insurance more affordable, because politicians would require them to provide incredibly expensive coverage with low co-payments and deductibles. Consumers would have no incentives to curtail health care expenditures, and the co-ops would have tremendous incentives to be the most rigid and nasty HMOs in history until shell shocked politicians put them out of business.

Second, here's a very interesting analysis of how the cooperatives could easily lead to a government-run health care system in an article entitled, "Co-opting the Co-op: That kooky health care cooperative idea is still the Democrats' best shot at bipartisanship." Here's the very telling conclusion:

Still up in the air is what a national co-op would look like. Would it be truly nationwide or would each state have its own? How much startup funding would it get from Congress? Will the government have a hand in running it, or will it be entirely patient-controlled? Would it have the power to negotiate the best rates, to make it competitive with private plans?

Depending on the answers to these questions, the cooperative proposal could be the Democrats' greatest defeat or biggest victory. It could be as unambitious as adding another private plan to the mix. Or it could be nearly synonymous with public-option itself. (emphasis added)

So there you have it. The cooperative compromise proposal could end up being "nearly synonymous with public option itself." Which means that the cooperative compromise proposal could end up ensuring passage by Congress this year of a comprehensive health care reform bill that would lead to a completely government-run health care system over time even though most grassroots Americans and congressional Republicans would have been deceived into thinking the bill would prevent a government takeover of health care.

The bottom line for those of us who are opposed to a government-run health care system is that we cannot be content to rail against a "government takeover" of health care. The Democrats are already well aware that a government-run health care system doesn't play well with the American public. And, key Republicans, such as Senator Grassley, are already hard at work crafting a health care reform bill with a deceptive, health care cooperative compromise which they expect will be passed by Congress with bipartisan support. So, we need to be opposing "health care cooperatives" in addition to "government takeover," "government-run," "single payer," "universal" health care legislation. Although health care cooperatives could be useful theoretically, in our political and regulatory environment they would only prepare the way for a government-run system.

Click here to contact your representative and senators in vigorous opposition to President Obama's and the congressional Democrats' "public option" health care proposals and also the Republican "health care cooperatives" alternative.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (7)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments

danwhitehead1 said:

	I predict - - - - - - that the scum who would rule are going to get their way. There is one way, and one way only, that these swine will be stopped . . . a replay of 1776. Remember that thing about the tree of liberty and the blood of tyrants?
	report abuse vote down vote up

July 30, 2009
Votes: +8

danwhitehead1 said:

	Thomas Jefferson - - - "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Beg pardon for leaving out the blood of patriots. I wonder if Thomas Jefferson could be considered the last of the truly Constitutional presidents?
	report abuse vote down vote up

July 30, 2009
Votes: +5

loren said:

	Freedom How sad it is that most Americans have forgotten that freedom isn't free. Far to many good men have died for the freedom we used to enjoy. Is this the interest we give them for their sacrifice ?
	report abuse vote down vote up

July 31, 2009
Votes: +3

Frank Lockhart said:

Free American I reject the federal socialist attempt to wrestle my liberty through a false security. To quote Jefferson " I would dare not trade security for any amount of liberty. " I outright reject in the most outraged that the federal statist want to releive me of my very freedom , how dare they presume that they are the all knowing in their retarded assumptions. I say Liberty or Death.. To those whom seek my liberty its a serious issue and My freedom is not a barter chip. They may not have it at any cost.. An American Veteran...

report abuse vote down vote up

July 31, 2009
Votes: +2

phil rogers said:

	... THIS MAN MUST BE STOPPED! PERIOD!
	report abuse vote down vote up

August 01, 2009
Votes: +1

phil rogers said:

	... THIS "MAN" MUST BE STOPPED! HE HATES AMERICA AND ALL IT STANDS FOR!!!!
	report abuse vote down vote up

August 01, 2009
Votes: +2

Ken VT said:

	LIBERTY? Life, Liberty and the pursuit of SANITY. What in Gods name are these fools doing. We need a new party the AMERICAN PARTY!
	report abuse vote down vote up

September 02, 2009 | url
Votes: +0