The public option is a compromise between those who want a single payer plan and those who want to keep insurance companies in business. It is designed to put the choice in the hands of consumers. But alas, there are those who want the public option choice killed. People like Democratic Senator Kent Conrad (ND) who this week declared the public option plan dead. Instead he favors a “cooperative option” one similar to the already existing Blue Cross Blue Shield, which is set up as a non-profit, run by insurance companies.

According to Daily Kos Blue Cross Blue Shield hopes to participate in the cooperative insurance program. Other insurers too, have said, yes, they'd be willing to cover the uninsured if they can be guaranteed 45 million new customers, with government support of course. Don’t worry, they promise to regulate themselves and treat people kindly.

Kent Conrad, democratic senator from North Dakota who made waves this week declaring public option dead and championing cooperatives happens to come from a state where Blue Cross and Blue Shield control 90% of the health insurance market. So we can probably assume he’s intimate with their style of management and the ways in which this model is better than other health insurance companies.

He would know for example, that there was a huge controversy in North Dakota in March of this year when it’s CEO was fired and given a “golden parachute” of a severance package – of 2 million dollars at the same time customers were facing a double digit increase in premiums. This came on the heels of public outrage in response to following a widely publicized $250,000 sales reward trip to a Caribbean resort and more than $850,000 in bonuses last year to top executives.

In defense of this “golden parachute” the chairmen of the board, Dennis Elbert said, “When we benchmark that salary against other Blue Cross Blue Shield CEO’s that is a relatively small salary….This is a very, very, large organization, a very significant organization.”

This is a cooperative? Conrad should explain how using tax-payer money to support overpaid CEOs in the name of health care reform could ever be a sound fiscal policy. I wonder how much Blue Cross Blue Shield contributes to his campaign?

While, it may be possible for a cooperative to work, we have few, if any good examples-- and a resounding question remains-- at what point do CEO profits become obscene and immoral when 18,000 American citizens die every year from a lack of health care? Should our government use our tax dollars to prop up yet another industry whose CEOs make billions of dollars each year?