The Slow Road to Govt Health Care: Co-Ops

Co-op Supply, a farm supply store in Everett, Washington, USA (Credit: Joe Mabel)

As President Obama’s poll numbers plummet and outrage over the proposed government takeover of health care rages on, socialists in congress are beginning to talk more of “co-ops” as a solution to our health care system woes.

Don’t be fooled.

A genuine co-op for health care, in the traditional sense of a co-op, wouldn’t be a bad idea. There have been co-ops in the United States for a long time, perhaps most typically in the agriculture industry. A co-op, or cooperative, is typically a voluntary association of people and/or groups that is formed to meet their common needs and is jointly owned by those involved with it.

That isn’t what socialists in congress have in mind when they talk of “health care cooperatives.”

As Shakespeare said, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet…and socialism by any other name would stink just as badly as it would by calling it what it really is.

In reality, their idea of health care co-ops is another Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac debacle: a government entity funded by the taxpayers which operates under the illusion of being “private” while enjoying taxpayer largess and minimal accountability.

As illustrated by Scott Harrington in his recent Wall Street Journal article, while the name would be changed to protect the guilty, it would still be government meddling in health care at the taxpayer’s expense.

Government-authorized co-ops also are not necessary to provide consumers with nonprofit alternatives. Nonprofit mutual insurance companies, most notably many Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans, already offer health insurance in many states. They are dominant players in some states.

Absent taxpayer subsidies or special rules, co-ops would not have any inherent advantage over private health insurers in establishing provider networks, negotiating with providers, and monitoring health-care utilization and fraud. Proposed co-ops instead would require billions of dollars of “start-up” subsidies.

More important, the creation of government-authorized co-ops would entail significant risk of ongoing subsidies by taxpayers (if not by private health-insurance buyers), of substantial private insurance crowd-out, and of eventual conversion to a government-run plan. Like a proposed public plan, government-authorized co-ops would be backed implicitly if not explicitly by taxpayers.

How do we know congress’ idea of “health care co-ops” is a skunk by any other name?  If it isn’t obvious already, consider what some of these socialists have said:

“We’re going to have some type of public option, call it ‘co-op’, call it what you want. — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), 7/10/09, Washington Post

“The [co-op has] to be written in a way that accomplishes the objectives of a public option.” — Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT), 6/12/09, Politico

“It will have, coming out of the House, a public option. The only debate on that is what it will be called.” — Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), 7/13/09, Reuters

Don’t be fooled, America.  These usurpers don’t know any other number than the Song of Socialism. They are incapable of playing any other tune.

The only way to put an end to this radical move toward socialism and away from any resemblance to constitutional government is to keep the heat up until the next election or two, then work very hard to make sure every socialist and liberal in Washington D.C. (whether they have a “D” or an “R” after their name) gets their walking papers in favor of representatives who are serious about keeping their oath to the U.S. Constitution.

Time to roll up our sleeves, my fellow Americans!

Note: Reader comments are reviewed before publishing, and only salient comments that add to the topic will be published. Profanity is absolutely not allowed and will be summarily deleted. Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will also be deleted.