I watched Chuck Grassley, Kent Conrad, and Howard Dean on Face the Nation this morning. The four things that I think that the three of them agreed on were:

1. the health care system (insurance and delivery) was in need of reform
2. broad "bi-partisan" (conservative, moderate, liberal or Republican/Independent/Democra­t) support for a reform plan was DESIRABLE (though perhaps not possible)
3. a standalone "for profit" insurance system was DOA for political reasons because the majority of Democrats were opposed to a system like that because they think that a lot of people would end up getting screwed and the system would not work as advertised. (I happen to agree with this.)
4. a "public option" was "problematic" for political reasons because though a large majority of Democrats favored it, few if any Republicans supported it and a handful of Democrats might oppose it because (following what Grassley said) the public option would eventually drive out all other options and would be a big and inefficient government bureaucracy. (I happen to disagree that a public option would drive out other options but I understand the concern.)

Apparently, both Conrad and Grassley agree that a system of national non-profit cooperatives that would compete with health care plans offered by "for-profit" insurance companies and providers and serve the same basic function as a "public option". Though I don't think that Dean was asked about the coop idea, I expect that he would be skeptical. That said, I would like to hear more from Grassley and Conrad about the "details" of what they have in mind. Along those lines, there was an interesting front page article on Group Health Cooperative in the Seattle Times this morning. Group Health is being used as a model for what a national coop might look like.

Does Group Health hold answers in health care debate?

A good article but health insurance should not be a commodity and no one should profit on the publics health care. What politicians don't want to talk about is Medicare and the VA health care programs that are far more cost efficient than any private insurance company.

... on Face the Nation. He argued that Medicare/VA was the best option and that the coop idea was just a political compromise.

I just didn't want to emphasize that because the article was focused on the coop alternative.

If your question is "Why settle for coops?" when there are better alternatives, I am sympathetic. That is what you should be asking folks like Conrad and Grassley.

(In fact, I am not sure how many Republicans would support co-ops or health reform generally. But that is a separate question.)