It doesn't seem they're making any concessions at all.
Instead of a state subsidised provider owned by the state, there's going to be a state subsidised provider owned by consumers. Since it's non-profit (indeed, loss making, without the subsidies) in either case, I'm not sure how this differs in any substantive way.
If you just want a privately owned co-op that provides health cover, you could do that today, you could've done that a hundred years ago, you could've done that two hundred years ago.