Friday, August 21, 2009


Our understanding is that in a government funded co-op, the feds would put up the money to start it, therefore they would control it with the intention being that they would eventually drop out when the co-op was up and running and sustaining it self.

BUT, until that happened, everyone involved in providing health care in that co-op would work for the government.

That includes doctors, hospitals, pharmacies, nurses, nursing homes and etc. They would hire, fire, set wages, set rates, premiums and etc.

We've done research, and we can't find anywhere that it's been done on a large scale, more than about 500,000 people. People who got their health care through the co-op would have no choices other than those care providers employed by the co-op, and that could be a non-started for huge areas of the country.

The Co-ops are just another way around public option which is another way around single payer - which is the way to "government take over."

When we see something that doesn't involve "Federal Funding" which means "Government Control - take over" just like the banks and the Auto Industry - then maybe we will start to believe they have our best interests at heart!

Before we go down the "co-op" road, why is it the state restrictions on purchasing health insurance cannot be lifted?