Wednesday, August 19, 2009

Public option vs co-op's

The public option died because it could have had the effect of driving health insurance companies out of business. Unless enough people like me paid extra for private insurance, the insurance industry would simply have to move on. There are many people out there who would see the demise of HMO's as a good thing. But I think that this administration probably realized that it isn't ready to become the sole provider of healthcare to an obese nation.

We should give health care co-op's a shot. Unlike a business, a co-op does not seek to make a profit; unlike a government, it cannot run on a deficit indefinitely or print its own money. Plus, you are free to leave a co-op at any time. To switch health insurance companies, you often have to get a different job. To switch governments, you pretty much have to move. A co-op measures its success solely by the quality of service that it provides to its members, and can continue to operate effectively no matter who wins Ohio and Florida in 2012.

The best way that Congress can move this along is to make all health insurance payments tax deductible. As things stand now, a company health plan is tax deductible, but a individual health plan is not.


Anonymous said...

Hey, here's an idea...How about the general government sticking to things that it is AUTHORIZED to do, and quit screwing up everything it touches? Maybe stop restricting an indiviual's freedom to purchase health care insurance from beyond the state line?

Daddy said...

>To switch governments, you pretty >much have to move.

May not help much. This is the only government in western world, as far as I am aware of, that extends its power grip on its citizens living abroad. One would have to give up citizenship, but even that may not help, as the example of that British guy who has never been in US but is requested for extradition to US for hacking US-based institutions online from UK.

milton f said...

"We should give health care co-op's a shot."


We should give freedom a shot.

Congress is the group that restricted access to health care beyond a state's border. That means if the state you live in requires health care providers to include coverage for say, breast implants, YOU get to pay to cover all those who would like to purchase such coverage.

Why should an individual be restricted to only purchase health care insurance from ONE of these united States?

I say we ought to open the market up to MORE COMPETITION...


Robert Enders said...

If that British hacker is guilty then I hope that he gets federally funded healthcare during an extended vacation in Terre Haute.

Milton F:
Perhaps I should not have used "we". People who have an irrational fear of insurance companies should give co-op's a shot.

I agree that people should be allowed to buy health insurance from any state. There is no reason to restrict the interstate trade in insurance.

Daddy said...

he does not need it, - they already have free health care in UK.

As they typically reciprocate, we'd better be prepared to go to Abu Graib or Londonistan like for permitting girlfriends to drive with their face not covered..

Search This Blog

Alfie Evans

1. When a doctor says A and a parent says B, I tend to go with what the doctor says. Usually the doctors are right. After reviewing Alfie...

Blog Archive


Brgd. General Anthony Wayne US Continental Army


My blog is worth $11,855.34.
How much is your blog worth?


About Commenting

Keep it clean and relevant to the post. If you have a question that isn't related to a recent post, email me at . You can also email me if you want to make an anonymous comment.


Per the by-laws of the Libertarian Party of Allen County, the Chair is the official spokesperson of LPAC in all public and media matters.

Posts and contributions expressed on this forum, while being libertarian in thought and intent, no official statement of LPAC should be derived or assumed unless specifically stated as such from the Chair, or another Officer of the Party acting in his or her place, and such statements are always subject to review.