Cato’s Michael Cannon has explained:
It makes no difference whether a new program adopts a “co-operative” model or any other. The government possesses so many tools for subsidizing its own program and increasing costs for private insurers—and has such a long history of subsidizing and protecting favored enterprises—that unfair advantages are inevitable.
Meanwhile, Robert Reich has attacked the idea from the left, arguing that co-ops “won’t have the scale or authority to do what a public option would do.”
Whichever argument you agree with (I’m with Cannon), the one thing that’s perfectly clear is that the co-op idea isn’t very viable as a compromise from a purely political perspective. Free market advocates see it as a government-run plan by another name, while liberals view it as a toothless cop out. The co-op idea is the result of a typical Washington dealmaking culture that tries to split the difference in any policy dispute, but it simply does not have a constituency outside of the Finance Committee of the U.S. Senate.
Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://spectatorworld.com/.