Verified answer

The insurance companies do not want any competition and are paying millions of dollars to ensure they don't.*

Because they are VERY different beasts.

A "public option" is, at one end, a government-run insurance program. At the other end, it's a government-run health care provider, building hospitals, employing doctors and nurses, etc. Notice that it probably won't "compete" with private insurers because it doesn't even have to break even, let alone turn a profit. It will likely be subsidized by taxes and fees on people who don't participate in it, or by deficit spending financed in the future. If it doesn't have to compete on the same level as its competitors, then it will quickly eliminate all competitors. After that happens it's called a monopoly, only this monopoly will be run by the government instead of a corporation. Both private and public monopolies have huge THEORETICAL gains with huge REAL drawbacks.

A "co-op" is a buying pool, where the government sets requirements for insurers to sell their plans through the co-op. I suppose you could set so many requirements on participation in the co-op it could act like its own health care provider, but that's unlikely. A co-op basically provides one larger buyer that negotiates for a whole bunch of different, smaller buyers. It provides more negotiating leverage for individual buyers.

You could have both, but why? The public option simply goes farther than the public co-op.

The American right wing fringe vetoed the public option and not surprisingly Obama caved.

As an Illinois state senator, Barack Obama proudly called himself a proponent of single payer healthcare. But now that he's president, he won't even consider it as an option for the reform our healthcare system so desperately needs. What do you suppose happened between then and now?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFgA1LP3wjA&feature...

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_33...

I seriously wonder how long real progressive Americans are gonna put up with this or gonna continue to foster illusions in left wing fig leafs like Kucinich who always backs the corporate Democrat at the crucial moment and fall in line with the party discipline. The Democratic party is simply the other party of big business.

Both corporate parties are political instruments of the financial aristocracy, but the Republicans are the open advocates of big business. The Democrats pretend to defend the interests of the working people, while in practice serving the same corporate elite. This double-dealing role of the Democrats is expressed in their habitual spinelessness and insincerity.

In an opposition role, the Republicans conduct themselves intransigently, while the Democrats bow and scrape, beg for "bipartisanship," and end up looking like the weaker party even when possessed, as now, of a sizeable majority.

With a Democrat in the White House, the Republican minority in Congress today attacks and blocks administration legislation, using every available parliamentary device, like the filibuster. When they were a majority in Congress, the Republicans even impeached a twice-elected president, Democrat Bill Clinton, on trumped-up charges.

The Democrats, by contrast, never availed themselves of the full powers of the legislature when, against their own expectations, they won a congressional majority in 2006. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ruled out impeachment hearings over Bush's illegal wars, spying on Americans, and countless violations of the Constitution. The Democrats would neither vote down nor filibuster the stream of "emergency" bills to continue the funding of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

There is NOTHING in the Constitution of the United States that allows the federal government to interfere in health care. Why do you call it a "public option" when I cannot opt out of paying for this socialism? Public insurers already compete with each other. How will bringing a taxpayer funded bureaucratic entity into the question change anything except force all taxpayers to pay for fat people, drunks, tramps, junkies and smokers to have what their choices necessitate? If these people need health care as a result of their choices, let them pay for it.

The principles President Obama set out from the beginning of this reform effort are affordability, high-quality care, inclusiveness. To date, the president has not been out front in setting a bottom line of what he will or will not accept. Meanwhile, behind the scenes, all the proposals, deals and compromises are being fought out among the houses of Congress, the lobbyists and the public-interest sectors. The president has said that he wants Congress to take the lead in working on the bill with input from various agencies of his administration.

However, the longer he waits before setting his bottom line, the weaker the final bill will be, and it may not deserve the name of “health care reform” at all. When will the president have the audacity to state where he stands and then use his oratory skills and political capital to ensure that the bill embodies the principles he has set out from the beginning?

A public option ran by the Federal government is not really constitutional( whether it is being done now or not), democrats consistently oppose co-ops or allowing insurance to be sold across state lines(both have been put forward for decades by Republicans).

Co-Ops do not need to be government backed or sponsored. Peoples co-ops are not legal as of now and would be very viable .

Do you know what a co-op is?

There are 2 Federal Government Co-ops in existence at this point.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Care to reconsider ?

Because the private sector can not compete with the government sector. No organisation other than the government can afford to operate on a deficit for such a long period of time. They will put private insurers out of business in a de facto kind of way.

There is no reason other than Insurance companies stand to loose profitability! This hurts them and others who have investments with them! Look at Blue cross, it's a non-profit organization.... There is no reason there cannot be a government option allowing small businesses and individuals to gain a larger voice in the industry to drive prices down!

A co-op is completely untested whereas a public option has been proven to work.

Because there is such an outcry about the public option that they have to propose something different to determine if it's legitimate dissent, or if it's the right wing talking heads telling their moron followers to complain about everything Obama does, no matter what it is.