"thunder" wrote in message
t...
On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 07:50:50 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:


On the face of it, it's a sound idea - actually, a little like an HMO in
concept which seem to work well.
So will a co-op work? It does in some states and they seem to be very
effective and efficient in patient care. The few that I know about are
small, self-contained (all-in-one service centers from testing to care)
and being non-profit, the costs are containable and in general, less
than standard health plans.

I was in a similar system quite a few years ago - it was a non-profit
health care system run by Hanneman Hospital in Worcester. To tell the
truth, it was high quality care, the specialists were top rank and in
general, the feeling was of a small doctors office where people knew who
you were - a very nice. Everything was contained within one facility -
you see the doctor, get an x-ray (or CAT/PET/MRI) on the spot readings,
go back and see the NP or PA and if they needed to get the doc, they got
the doc. It was good.

So in my experience, the co-op seems like a good idea. Run by the
government though? No - I can't see that. The very nature of
government does not allow for efficiency, cost containment and
effective.

It's my understanding that it wouldn't be run by the government, but set
up as a non-profit, owned by the subscribers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/he...n.html?_r=2&hp


This would be similar to what Congress has... they pick and choose among
plans all run by regular insurance companies? I think that's the focus off
the "public option" that's gotten so much attention lately. It's not gov't
run. Re co-ops... they would work if they have enough bargaining power with
the insurance companies. Most aren't big enough to have much impact on
costs. That would be a major efficacy stumbling block.

--
Nom=de=Plume