HolyCoast: "Co-Op" is Another Way to Say "Public Option"
Follow RickMoore on Twitter

Tuesday, August 18, 2009

"Co-Op" is Another Way to Say "Public Option"

From Red State:
You are going to hear a lot of talk in the coming weeks about co-ops. The Obama administration is signaling that the “public option” may not be needed in the healthcare plan.

They are retreating to “co-ops”. Friends, a cooperative healthcare device is the public option just with a better poll tested name.

Francis noted this morning that “co-ops … will be functionally indistinguishable from a public option because they will similarly benefit from free capital, grabbed from the taxpayers.” In other words, the referee will begin playing the game and, like with the public option, co-ops will kill off private insurance.

The White House says this is to introduce competition into the market. Here’s a big rule in life, though: government cannot compete with private business when government is also writing the rules....

Do not believe that the public option is going away. Do not believe that the Democrats are going to give up on universal healthcare. They are not. They are going to change the language and keep the same goal and plan. It may take them longer, but they will continue pushing forward.

Now we are at the hour of danger. Republicans, wanting to appear reasonable, might cut a deal and go with co-ops. If they do, they are voting for a government take over of healthcare.
If you don't believe me or Eric at Red State, how about Harry Reid?
“We’re going to have some type of public option, call it ‘co-op,’ call it what you want.”
No public option.

No "co-opts".

No Obamacare.

3 comments:

Ann's New Friend said...

The danger is not averted until these people are removed from office.

Mid-term elections! -- is the mantra.

Even then, "the price of liberty is eternal vigilance."

Robert Fanning said...

co-ops, of non-governmental definition, would be subject to maintenance of sufficient liquid assets as to pay all outstanding obligations including legal fees and adjudications. They would require even more capital for start up than the government 'soak the taxpayers' option. Somehow I would see the government assuming the legal and asset requirements of the co-ops and thus be, in fact, a government agency insurance option.

The devil would be in the details of the legislation! People beware. Continue the pressure on Republican legislators to prevent them falling for a monstrous con job.

Nightingale said...

Unfortunately Socialism has two legs, a left AND a right.

I have been disappointed with the "old boys" in the Republican party for not standing up for old-fashioned conservative values of less government.

The GOP needs an overhaul. Enter Sarah Palin and her ilk.