No. The "production" would be the hospitals, doctors, drug companies. The collective would still have to pay for it, and each member pays differently to be a part of it.

For example, both an 18 year old male who has USAA and I are equal “owners” of USAA, but as the owner of the company, we agree to charge him more for car insurance then we charge me, because we both agree he is a higher risk then I am.

I think the Marxist idea, is we contribute the same resources, regardless of our expected usage. That’s not the same thing here.

That could potentially work, and it's an idea worth looking at. I wouldn't go so far as to say it is definitely the answer, but I would hope they would at least posit it for further discussion.

Cost is the biggest problem with healthcare hands down. For a nation as modern as ours the degree to which our population has access to adequate healthcare is horrific. That doesn't mean however that the government is obligated to tax all to provide it to some. Rather I think it's biggest obligation is to find a way to make it as cheap as possible. Healthcare isn't a right anymore than electricity or plumbing, but the vast majority of the nation has both of the latter. Any civilized nation should have cheap access to these things. You still have to pay an electric bill, and you still have to pay a water bill, you don't get them for free. But the government at least has an infrastructure that makes sure you don't have to pay twenty dollars to flush your toilet.

I think the goal of this healthcare initiative shouldn't be to gaurantee healthcare for all, but to be able to make it affordable enough to all honest workers. Note that honest workers does not mean college educated, or wealthy. A person working hard for at an honest job for 9 dollars an hour is just as capable of paying his water bill as someone making 25 dollars an hour, and he's working just as hard. He should be able to get affordable health insurance without going and flipping burgers at a huge restaurant megachain, and then giving a quarter of their paycheck to pay into the insurance plan. And don't get me started on trying to buy your own health insurance these days, that is such a scam it's not even funny.

I don't think we need a welfare healthcare option for lazy people to leech off of. But right now it's just too fucking hard and too fucking expensive for the average joe to get decent health insurance or coverage. Insurance companies have too much leverage with our current system and can get away with what often times amounts to murder. Anything that can keep them in check, make them competitive, and lower costs all around is the option we should be looking at. Healthcare isn't a right, but for a civilized industrial nation our healthcare options are disgustingly poor. Our system is absolutely broken, and harmful to millions, and anyone that disagrees is just comfortable because they personally have healthcare. There does need to be reform, and soon, but it must be a careful reform and not one that just changes the problem, or does nothing to fix the causes of the problem.

The idea of everyone paying equally is kind of tertiary to Marx's idea. Marx just..... really hated corporations, I think. And the idea of profit being built up on backs of workers.

ANYWAY.

If this healthcare plan works and is a lot (lot) cheaper, great! Hopefully it radically reduces (maybe eliminates!?) the number of people who are without insurance.

If this plan passes congress, and it makes sense, and then Obama does not veto it (and this is very much not what Obama wants), then I will praise him for the work he has done.

As for the line I bolded, that’s the beauty of a system like this. You no longer need to get healthcare through your company. Today you do, because they get much better rates then you do alone. This would eliminate that. Everyone gets the “corporate” rate.

My guess is the cost at first will not be much less. Insurance companies today show a profit of only about 4% to 7%. The huge savings will be in the years to come. Today when Insurance companies lobby congress, they do so to change laws that maximize profits. With a Co-Op, the theory would be that they lobby for what’s best for their members.

Also, the cost of high treatment is good for insurance companies. 5% of a 30,000 operation is a lot more income than 5% of a 3,000 one. So cost of procedures going down is counterproductive to the bottom line for an insurance company. To a Co-Op, cheaper is better.

These things however, take time. At least, on all accounts, it’s better then what we have today, to everyone (other than insurance companies).

On further reflection, I have to temper my knee-jerk co-op boosterism.

While a co-op should reduce costs, and it should do it without offending libertarian sensibilities regarding forced participation, it isn't going to address the problem of people going uninsured. It should reduce that problem by making it affordable to some, but it won't make it affordable to all.

So you're still going to be left with millions of people who don't go to see a doctor about that strange pain, but wait until it's a crippling pain, then go in for emergency treatment, costing other health payers much more money than they would pay under socialized medicine.

Still, it's better than nothing.

My chief concern is lack of coverage, Mafoo, more than cost - cost only really concerns me because it results in a lack of coverage!

I don't like it. Smells like a ponzi scheme

I think the coverage can, and will come when the plans get cheaper.

Universal coverage is a decent idea. However, it's absolutely impossible given current prices. If done now, it'd be a death trap for any sort of fiscal responsibility (and as we've seen, many people are upset with what's been proposed).

As long as the government doesn't force it on people, I think it's a very good idea.

Also, I am unsure how this solution, if implemented is a Democratic, or Republican idea. Obama never pushed for this kind of solution, so I fail to see how he could get any credit, unless he plays the small part of not vetoing it (and I'd wonder if GWB would have done the same thing, had this bill been proposed when he was in office). Time will tell if Congress finally does something right.

Let me ask you this. If it cost $10 a year, and 20% of the population didn’t pay it, would it bother you that they weren’t covered?

For me, what’s important is that it’s something every American can obtain. It’s of no concern to me what you do with your life. It’s your life. I just want to make sure it’s an option to you. If you don’t get insurance, get sick, and then have to file bankruptcy, I want to remove every reasonable excuse a citizen can use as to why they weren’t covered. Right now, the only excuse is cost.