I've been doing some thinking lately about this, and about the inherent dilemmas, legalities, social/cultural issues and barriers.
I think previously, we tentatively figured out (http://tinyurl.com/328dk8) (summarized at http://wiki.coworking.info/Healthcare ) that creating a formalized health care entity might push Coworking into territory that could be detrimental to the core values/principles of this decentralized movement.
I think we also tentatively figured out that local laws make creating one network-wide solution very problematic.
I think Chris, and maybe others were thinking about the idea of group-buying, to help coworkers leverage their numbers. This is a good idea, yet, if I recall correctly, we also seemed to find geography is still an issue, because one provider cannot cover many different states, in many cases.
The way this works is that "members send a monthly check, or "share," that ranges from $200 to $400 to the plan or to members the plan designates with "needs," or medical bills. The plans subtract overhead and administrative expenses from the total collected and use the remainder to pay claims"
Members are "vetted" or qualified to join the "plan" based on a letter from their clergy person verifying they are an active church member, and trustworthy person.
So, what does this have to do with Coworking?
Well, this "church plan" shows a plausible legal international route to sharing health care costs among a network of people, religious or otherwise. These "church plan" participants are really just donating money to one another, facilitated by their churches, and by "plan" coordinators. Might a non-religious network of people also think about a way to pool money, and route it to people who need it in this way? I think so.
The system that I envision here is:
1. Participation is based upon the trust metrics of others who are already in the network (others "vouch" for you). 2. Money is pooled on the scale of coworking spaces. Pariticpants pay a trusted volunteer in their local homebase coworking space 3. Verification of medical need happens on the scale of coworking spaces, with the ability to appeal to the greater network shuld the local coworking network fail to assist or address for some reason. Participants may opt to bypass the network and send donations directly to people who are appealing this way 4. Coordination of local spaces is done through a group of elected, term-serving network orchestrators, who are dispersed around the network, and who split up the labor in a diverse way, so that one local person does not become the "lord and master" of their own local region. Other people are elected to act as voluntary impartial mediators and conflict resolvers 5. P2P open identity based trust metrics help keep trust issues transparent 6. All donated monies are totally transparent and accounted for, 100%
The idea here is that it is legal for us to give money to each other for pretty much anything we want to, so it becomes a matter of figuring out how we can give each other money in an equitable, not-for-profit way, that can systematize some aspects, and can buil on inherent trust.
> 4. Coordination of local spaces is done through a group of elected, > term-serving network orchestrators, who are dispersed around the network, > and who split up the labor in a diverse way, so that one local person does > not become the "lord and master" of their own local region. Other people are > elected to act as voluntary impartial mediators and conflict resolvers
I should add to this that "coordination" and "orchestration" is really not much more than message amplifying. Making sure that the whole network is aware of where money is needed on any given month, or week. So, there really is not much "power" in this role.
> Members are "vetted" or qualified to join the "plan" based on a > letter from their clergy person verifying they are an active church > member, and trustworthy person.
What about people like me who are atheists and eminently trustworthy and moral people?
Sorry, I don't mean to bash on your proposal, as health care in the US needs all of the innovative thought and energy it can get, but I'm also pretty darn tired of being assumed to be amoral/immoral just because I've never needed the help of a bunch of old white men to figure out what's right and what's wrong. I'm an atheist, and that does not mean I'm a bad person. You may be a Christian, but that doesn't mean you're a bad person either.
...getting back on topic...
FWIW, I don't think the current regulatory environment in the USA makes health insurance coverage a good fit for a coworking group in the USA. Real estate issues are different from health insurance issues, and they take fairly different solutions, resources, and skillsets. The only way I could see this kind of thing working is if each coworking space took on its regulars as paid staff and insured them that way. For most groups, that's much more commitment than makes sense for other important aspects of the business model.
>> Members are "vetted" or qualified to join the "plan" based on a >> letter from their clergy person verifying they are an active church >> member, and trustworthy person.
> What about people like me who are atheists and eminently trustworthy > and moral people?
> Sorry, I don't mean to bash on your proposal, as health care in the > US needs all of the innovative thought and energy it can get, but I'm > also pretty darn tired of being assumed to be amoral/immoral just > because I've never needed the help of a bunch of old white men to > figure out what's right and what's wrong. I'm an atheist, and that > does not mean I'm a bad person. You may be a Christian, but that > doesn't mean you're a bad person either.
> ...getting back on topic...
> FWIW, I don't think the current regulatory environment in the USA > makes health insurance coverage a good fit for a coworking group in > the USA. Real estate issues are different from health insurance > issues, and they take fairly different solutions, resources, and > skillsets. The only way I could see this kind of thing working is if > each coworking space took on its regulars as paid staff and insured > them that way. For most groups, that's much more commitment than > makes sense for other important aspects of the business model.
At IndyHall we're going to be working with a couple of brokers to not only provide individual and group plans, but to educate indies on how to optimize these plans as well as long term savings cash flows.
-Alex
On 8/21/07, Geoff DiMasi <ge...@punkave.com> wrote:
> On Aug 21, 2007, at 3:36 PM, Graham Freeman wrote:
> On 21 Aug 07, at 10:58, Samuel Rose wrote:
> Members are "vetted" or qualified to join the "plan" based on a > letter from their clergy person verifying they are an active church > member, and trustworthy person.
> What about people like me who are atheists and eminently trustworthy > and moral people?
> Sorry, I don't mean to bash on your proposal, as health care in the > US needs all of the innovative thought and energy it can get, but I'm > also pretty darn tired of being assumed to be amoral/immoral just > because I've never needed the help of a bunch of old white men to > figure out what's right and what's wrong. I'm an atheist, and that > does not mean I'm a bad person. You may be a Christian, but that > doesn't mean you're a bad person either.
> ...getting back on topic...
> FWIW, I don't think the current regulatory environment in the USA > makes health insurance coverage a good fit for a coworking group in > the USA. Real estate issues are different from health insurance > issues, and they take fairly different solutions, resources, and > skillsets. The only way I could see this kind of thing working is if > each coworking space took on its regulars as paid staff and insured > them that way. For most groups, that's much more commitment than > makes sense for other important aspects of the business model.
To clarify, the idea I was proposing is that people could do a similar thing as a network of non-religious people. There would be no religion requirement of any kind in the idea I am talking about here. The only requirement would be that other people in the network can verify that you are real and trustworthy
On Aug 21, 3:36 pm, Graham Freeman <graham.free...@cernio.com> wrote:
> > Members are "vetted" or qualified to join the "plan" based on a > > letter from their clergy person verifying they are an active church > > member, and trustworthy person.
> What about people like me who are atheists and eminently trustworthy > and moral people?
> Sorry, I don't mean to bash on your proposal, as health care in the > US needs all of the innovative thought and energy it can get, but I'm > also pretty darn tired of being assumed to be amoral/immoral just > because I've never needed the help of a bunch of old white men to > figure out what's right and what's wrong. I'm an atheist, and that > does not mean I'm a bad person. You may be a Christian, but that > doesn't mean you're a bad person either.
> ...getting back on topic...
> FWIW, I don't think the current regulatory environment in the USA > makes health insurance coverage a good fit for a coworking group in > the USA. Real estate issues are different from health insurance > issues, and they take fairly different solutions, resources, and > skillsets. The only way I could see this kind of thing working is if > each coworking space took on its regulars as paid staff and insured > them that way. For most groups, that's much more commitment than > makes sense for other important aspects of the business model.
I really love Sam's idea. Personally, and after many bad experiences with the health care insurance companies down here (I'd like to know what they DO cover, really...'cause it seems like nothing), I'd love to subvert their system and create a truly community based approach to this.
Like a co-operative.
Sounds radically Canadian, really. ;)
It will just take time. And lots of research. And I'll just bet the insurance companies have some sort of great lobby against this kind of thing that seems to smack of communal thinking (the reds!).
Maybe we need to have a HealthCamp. Get Michael Moore involved, even. :)
Tara
On 8/21/07, Samuel Rose <samuel.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
> To clarify, the idea I was proposing is that people could do a similar > thing as a network of non-religious people. There would be no religion > requirement of any kind in the idea I am talking about here. The only > requirement would be that other people in the network can verify that > you are real and trustworthy
> On Aug 21, 3:36 pm, Graham Freeman <graham.free...@cernio.com> wrote: > > On 21 Aug 07, at 10:58, Samuel Rose wrote:
> > > Members are "vetted" or qualified to join the "plan" based on a > > > letter from their clergy person verifying they are an active church > > > member, and trustworthy person.
> > What about people like me who are atheists and eminently trustworthy > > and moral people?
> > Sorry, I don't mean to bash on your proposal, as health care in the > > US needs all of the innovative thought and energy it can get, but I'm > > also pretty darn tired of being assumed to be amoral/immoral just > > because I've never needed the help of a bunch of old white men to > > figure out what's right and what's wrong. I'm an atheist, and that > > does not mean I'm a bad person. You may be a Christian, but that > > doesn't mean you're a bad person either.
> > ...getting back on topic...
> > FWIW, I don't think the current regulatory environment in the USA > > makes health insurance coverage a good fit for a coworking group in > > the USA. Real estate issues are different from health insurance > > issues, and they take fairly different solutions, resources, and > > skillsets. The only way I could see this kind of thing working is if > > each coworking space took on its regulars as paid staff and insured > > them that way. For most groups, that's much more commitment than > > makes sense for other important aspects of the business model.
> I really love Sam's idea. Personally, and after many bad experiences with > the health care insurance companies down here (I'd like to know what they DO > cover, really...'cause it seems like nothing), I'd love to subvert their > system and create a truly community based approach to this.
> Like a co-operative.
> Sounds radically Canadian, really. ;)
> It will just take time. And lots of research. And I'll just bet the > insurance companies have some sort of great lobby against this kind of thing > that seems to smack of communal thinking (the reds!).
> Maybe we need to have a HealthCamp. Get Michael Moore involved, even. :)
> Tara
> On 8/21/07, Samuel Rose < samuel.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > To clarify, the idea I was proposing is that people could do a similar > > thing as a network of non-religious people. There would be no religion > > requirement of any kind in the idea I am talking about here. The only > > requirement would be that other people in the network can verify that > > you are real and trustworthy
> > On Aug 21, 3:36 pm, Graham Freeman <graham.free...@cernio.com> wrote: > > > On 21 Aug 07, at 10:58, Samuel Rose wrote:
> > > > Members are "vetted" or qualified to join the "plan" based on a > > > > letter from their clergy person verifying they are an active church > > > > member, and trustworthy person.
> > > What about people like me who are atheists and eminently trustworthy > > > and moral people?
> > > Sorry, I don't mean to bash on your proposal, as health care in the > > > US needs all of the innovative thought and energy it can get, but I'm > > > also pretty darn tired of being assumed to be amoral/immoral just > > > because I've never needed the help of a bunch of old white men to > > > figure out what's right and what's wrong. I'm an atheist, and that > > > does not mean I'm a bad person. You may be a Christian, but that > > > doesn't mean you're a bad person either.
> > > ...getting back on topic...
> > > FWIW, I don't think the current regulatory environment in the USA > > > makes health insurance coverage a good fit for a coworking group in > > > the USA. Real estate issues are different from health insurance > > > issues, and they take fairly different solutions, resources, and > > > skillsets. The only way I could see this kind of thing working is if > > > each coworking space took on its regulars as paid staff and insured > > > them that way. For most groups, that's much more commitment than > > > makes sense for other important aspects of the business model.
> To clarify, the idea I was proposing is that people could do a similar > thing as a network of non-religious people. There would be no religion > requirement of any kind in the idea I am talking about here. The only > requirement would be that other people in the network can verify that > you are real and trustworthy
Sam, I apologize - I mis-read your message such that I thought you were encouraging a religious tie-in.
I think I was touchy after recently hearing an insipid puff piece masquerading as journalism on NPR about how parents' worst nightmares are of their kids marrying atheists. The "reporter" went so far as to devote an extended portion of her time to talking about an episode of some prime-time TV show, as if that had any bearing on the real world.
So, when I read something that I interpreted as meaning that only Christians who are in good standing with church officials should get health care, I got annoyed and only skimmed the rest of your post.
> Flip the system on a large scale from the inside out? Count me in :-)
> On 8/21/07, Tara Hunt <horsepig...@gmail.com > wrote: > I really love Sam's idea. Personally, and after many bad > experiences with the health care insurance companies down here (I'd > like to know what they DO cover, really...'cause it seems like > nothing), I'd love to subvert their system and create a truly > community based approach to this.
> Like a co-operative.
> Sounds radically Canadian, really. ;)
> It will just take time. And lots of research. And I'll just bet the > insurance companies have some sort of great lobby against this kind > of thing that seems to smack of communal thinking (the reds!).
> Maybe we need to have a HealthCamp. Get Michael Moore involved, > even. :)
> Tara
> On 8/21/07, Samuel Rose < samuel.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
> To clarify, the idea I was proposing is that people could do a similar > thing as a network of non-religious people. There would be no religion > requirement of any kind in the idea I am talking about here. The only > requirement would be that other people in the network can verify that > you are real and trustworthy
> On Aug 21, 3:36 pm, Graham Freeman <graham.free...@cernio.com> wrote: > > On 21 Aug 07, at 10:58, Samuel Rose wrote:
> > > Members are "vetted" or qualified to join the "plan" based on a > > > letter from their clergy person verifying they are an active > church > > > member, and trustworthy person.
> > What about people like me who are atheists and eminently trustworthy > > and moral people?
> > Sorry, I don't mean to bash on your proposal, as health care in the > > US needs all of the innovative thought and energy it can get, but > I'm > > also pretty darn tired of being assumed to be amoral/immoral just > > because I've never needed the help of a bunch of old white men to > > figure out what's right and what's wrong. I'm an atheist, and that > > does not mean I'm a bad person. You may be a Christian, but that > > doesn't mean you're a bad person either.
> > ...getting back on topic...
> > FWIW, I don't think the current regulatory environment in the USA > > makes health insurance coverage a good fit for a coworking group in > > the USA. Real estate issues are different from health insurance > > issues, and they take fairly different solutions, resources, and > > skillsets. The only way I could see this kind of thing working > is if > > each coworking space took on its regulars as paid staff and insured > > them that way. For most groups, that's much more commitment than > > makes sense for other important aspects of the business model.
