- Dick’s Sporting Goods lays off 478 PGA golf pros
- Senators: Cease-fire must allow Israel to defend against rockets, tunnels
- Sierra Leone doctor fighting Ebola catches disease
- Iraq welcomes Russian fighter jets, helicopter gunships into ISIL fight
- John McCain laments: Obama’s ‘self-pity … is really kind of sad’
- GOP offer to fix VA gives $10 billion in emergency funds
- Paul Ryan offers to repair U.S. economic safety net with a single grant stream
- Kim Jong-un builds bond with Putin: $250M Russia-backed addition to key port opens
- Pope Francis meets Meriam Ibrahim, a Sudanese woman sentenced to death
- Detroit porch shooting trial: Suspect says he didn’t know gun was loaded
BUTLER: COOP d’etat: An acronym does not a co-op make
Question of the Day
"When I use a word," says Humpty Dumpty in Lewis Carroll's "Through the Looking Glass," "it means just what I choose it to mean."
Members of Congress have this down to a fine art. Take the health care legislation recently introduced by Sen. Max Baucus, Montana Democrat and Finance Committee chairman. Some say the senator made a bold decision in not including a government-run public option in his proposal. Indeed, he seemed to be responding to the many people who see the public option as politically divisive and merely a Trojan horse for a single-payer health system.
But instead of embracing a "public option," he included a "co-op" as a way of ensuring that Americans would have a familiar and effective alternative choice to traditional health insurance.
The word "co-op," short for "co-operative," is indeed quite familiar to Americans. Many Americans live in apartments in co-op-owned buildings. You can order a live lobster from the Maine Lobsterman's co-op and have it delivered promptly to your door. Over in Wisconsin you'll encounter the sheep breeders' co-op. Or maybe you keep your bank account with a credit union, another co-op.
They all have something in common. They are private associations organized by private people, and they are jointly and privately owned and controlled.
So being able to get health insurance through a co-op would seem to be a good idea and very different from a government public option, right? So this part of the Baucus proposal makes sense?
Ah, but remember Lewis Carroll. It turns out that the word "co-op" in the Baucus plan has a different meeting from the way the rest of America understands it. In fact it isn't even a word. It is an acronym. It stands for a Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan, and it is a new federal health program, not a private entity like the one that sends you lobsters or gives you your cash at the ATM.
Rather than the familiar private co-op, the Baucus COOP program has start-up funds provided by the federal government and allocated by a federal board. The new membership plan cannot even be an existing co-op organization - sorry, no health plan delivered with your Maine lobster. And while chartered by a state, it must operate according to rules established by the federal Department of Health and Human Services.
In fact, suggesting that Mr. Baucus' COOP is a true private co-op is a bit like saying a bill titled the Treasury Agents to eXpand the Crackdown on Unsuspecting Taxpayers must reduce taxes because its acronym is TAXCUT.
What's so frustrating is that the federal government could and should be removing barriers to ordinary Americans getting health insurance through a range of organizations they trust, such as farm bureaus, churches, AARP, unions - and yes, real co-ops. Members of Congress and millions of federal workers can do this to a degree. They can sign up for union-sponsored plans and even a "faith-based" plan certified as containing no services objectionable to the Catholic Church.
Thus federal employees can choose coverage through organizations they trust, with benefits that suit them. So why can't the rest of us?
The main reason is tax policy. Health coverage obtained through your employer counts as tax-free compensation. But if your family wants to buy coverage directly from the Virginia Farm Bureau, or the National Postal Mail Handlers Union, you typically get no tax break. Federal employees choosing a Mail Handlers Union plan get a tax break and a subsidy.
Congress needs to give families the same tax relief for affinity-group plans obtained outside the place of work as it does for employer-sponsored coverage. That would mean new choices. And new, private competition for traditional health plans, to "keep them honest" as the president claims only a public plan can do.
True co-ops should be included as a new private option. Today's tax law bars member-owned mutual insurance companies, like Mutual of Omaha, from functioning as a nonprofit health insurance company. If Congress changed that we would at last see mutual insurers teaming up with organizations to offer private co-op health insurance as an alternative.
That's what we need to improve choice and competition. Not a public plan. And we need a public-funded COOP program about as much as we need a TAXCUT bill.
Stuart Butler is Vice President of Domestic Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation (heritage.org).
TWT Video Picks
The subsidies are a hit with patients who don't exist
- Hamas rejects Kerry's call for cease-fire; Fears grow others could join fight against Israel
- 'We're coming for you, Barack Obama': Top U.S. official discloses threat from ISIL terrorists
- Algerian plane diverted due to storms, second aircraft: 116 missing
- Obama's empty tough-talk: Gun prosecutions plummet on his watch
- House panel OKs resolution to sue president for Obamacare delays
- Conservative groups decry Democrats' 'war on women' tactic
- Obama says public not familiar enough with issues
- Evidence shows Russia firing artillery into Ukraine: Pentagon
- Astronaut shares 'saddest photo' from space: Bombs bursting over Israel, Gaza
- Doctor, 2 others shot at Pennsylvania hospital: reports
Obama's biggest White House 'fails'
Celebrities turned politicians
Athletes turned actors
20 gadgets that changed the world
Fighting in Iraq