I think a real co-op with no government assistance (that’s not saying govt can’t pay premiums for the poor) and no govt protections that has to survive in the market by itself is a good idea. (Otherwise it’s just another name for the public option.)
But it’s not enough. A big part of why health care costs are so high is that they are invisible to most consumers. That is a fundamental flaw in the employer-based health insurance model. And so far Congress seems unwilling to make room for structural changes in that.
Some companies (e.g., Whole Foods) have apparently worked out a system that makes their employees more aware of costs, but they’re in the minority, and many great possibilities are, again, illegal. Congress could do a lot just by getting out of the way, making more option legal.

There are a lot of dissenting voices on that blog. People should go read them.
In my econ 101 analysis, there are three fundamental roadblocks to the success of any co-op.
1. The operational efficiencies of the established firms means they have lower cost structures than a new co-op. Co-ops will have higher expenses, at least for a time.
2. The external presence of the established firms means they have more sales and marketing savvy, and a stronger influence on legislation (duh!), than any new co-op. More revenues, in other words.
3. The idea behind a coop is that the money saved by members (revenues – costs) is rebated back to them. In practice, this doesn’t happen. Those funds are retained to provide financial security for the coop in the event of a rainy day.
At the end of the day, we need a “game changer.” What we get with a co-op is a weak, uncompetitive organization.
Sure, if you can use a coop to control the supply of something, like Ocean Spray cranberries or a rural electric coop, they can be successful. But in the insurance biz, it would be like throwing a puppy into a shark tank.

A form of co-op with real bargaining power might be able to provide a s shadow of what the public option could do and do so in ways that don’t provoke conservative ideologies….
I think the President has been long open to Co-ops as a possible alternative but would need to see that they would really be structured so as to compete on price, and keep pushing overall health care prices down.
The main question is could they reach the same scale and negotiating heft that something like the public option would have (as it would be able to leverage Medicare negotiations) to really bring down costs.
I’ve not yet seen a plan for Health Insurance co-ops that makes a good case that they can provide that cost competition, but would love to.
But the GOP has already signaled early that Co-ops are a Government Takeover of Health care too… http://www.gop.com/News/NewsRead.aspx?Guid=72edae22-984e-4019-872c-1438fcc5452f

I have no problem with Co-ops being an alternative to private insurance, but I still would like the ability to buy into the public option as well.

In my mind, a government-established co-op is one step away from a Fannie Mae-type takeover by the gov’t, thus establishing the public option so soundly rejected by critics.

Nathan:
How is a private co-op, (which after seed money is a stand alone non-profit receiving no government subsidy) anything like Fannie Mae?
Fannie Mae is a GSE…
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/gse.asp
…and Co-ops as their key advocate on the Dem side aren’t like that at all.
Co-ops — should they exist — would be privately held non-profits, not state or Federally run.
http://conrad.senate.gov/issues/statements/healthcare/090813_coop_QA.cfm

Medical sharing plans already exist, and their participants are counted as “uninsured”.

ChrisB,
Since it’s very unlikely that we will get a single payer system (H. Clinton supported it and Obama never did), the “game changer” Jjoe mentions, and which I strongly support, perhaps co-ops and clinic based systems like the Cleveland Clinic, etc. are the best alternative politically possible. Unfortuately, it appears the Republicans are against co-ops, too. Chris, please flesh out what you mean by health care costs being invisible to most consumers so that we can apply that idea to the various proposals. Probably co-ops can not be formed without initial government assistance and succeed to bring down costs without hundreds of thousands of members see
http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-HealthcareReform/idUSTRE57G40G20090817
Doug

“Since it’s very unlikely that we will get a single payer system (H. Clinton supported it and Obama never did), ”
I’m someone to whom facts and truth matter. So this matters. Obama in his own words:
http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-in-03-id-like-to-see-a-single-payer-health-care-plan/
I think #1ChrisB nails the big “if” when he said, “I think a real co-op with no government assistance…” The problem with that, is that if the government is starting the co-op, rather than it being an organic grassroots type of thing, it AUTOMATICALLY is government funded and subsidized.
Co-op is just a new incarnation of “public option”. Both really mean “government option” and a trojan horse to single payer.

Doug,
Obama has clearly stated his preference for single-payer systems and his various surrogates have clearly stated that it is a goal toward which current offerings are designed to move. I’ve linked to the video in the previous health care post.
“please flesh out what you mean by health care costs being invisible”
People who have employer-based health insurance or are on any government program, have little to no awareness of what their health insurance costs (premiums) and pay little to no attention to how much individual procedures cost.
For instance, when we had our first child, every OB visit, numerous ultrasounds, and the delivery cost us a grand total of $200 dollars. We could prod the doctor for more ultrasounds, and the cost would have been no different to us.
If we had to pay more for each of those things, we would be less inclined to ask for unnecessary ultrasounds. If we had to pay, or at least interacted with, our premiums, we would be more aware of the things that we can do to affect those premiums.
The conservative calls to move the tax exemption for health insurance from the employer to the employee is intended to accomplish some of that. Giving people more control over their insurer, combined with HSAs, is intended to do that more.
But anything that gets people to think about cost in connection with their health care has the potential to create a downward pressure on prices and on demand. It’s like your car insurance; you don’t make unnecessary claims and might even pay for some things it will cover to keep your premiums down.
We don’t want people to not go to the doctor when they need to, but we do want them to not go to the doctor when they don’t need to (e.g., for a cold/flu for which the doctor can prescribe nothing but rest and fluids).

My problem is – Government run anything – so stop pushing a reform that only has a chance of reforming and taking away our core Freedom -