Category Archives: Public Option

Allowing the states to opt out of the public option: Yet another reason to do away with the Senate.

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

There’s disagreement among Senators about whether or not healthcare reform legislation should have a “public option.” Rather than take the time and make the effort to develop the concept to the point where it either makes sense or doesn’t for all Americans, the Senate Democratic leadership and the Obama Continue…

Punch Line of the Day: Did you hear the one about Medicare and the Public Option?

Thursday, October 22, 2009

Proponents of the Public Option are fond of pointing to Medicare as an example of how effectively the government can provide healthcare insurance. For the sake of argument, let’s assume that Medicare is, in fact, the perfect government program with no funding or administrative issues – God’s gift to healthcare for Americans over 65. So it would seem, given that almost all of our countrymen in that age group are covered by Medicare – and that’s precisely why it’s not an argument for the Public Option.

If there was ever proof positive that a Public Option will put private sector healthcare insurance out of business, it’s Medicare.   Continue…

Obamination: The Fallacy of the Public Option

Monday, August 17, 2009

The purpose of the “Public Option” in President Obama’s healthcare reform initiative is to keep the costs of medical care down.

One of two things is true: Either prices in the healthcare industry are currently determined by competitive market forces, in which case they are what they are and the government needs to stay out of it, or the prices we pay for medical services and pharmaceutical products are too high as a result of non-competitive forces ranging from benign market anomalies to outright monopoly.

Let’s assume it’s the latter. The solution then is NOT to have the government go into competition with the private sector, but to attack and regulate out the non-competitive influences which are keeping prices higher than a competitive market would dictate.

If, for example, the auto manufacturers were to collude to fix new car prices above competitive levels, would the Obama or any other Administration start a government owned and operated automaker to give the people a competitive, lower priced alternative? Of course not. Existing government institutions would use laws already on the books, and some new ones if necessary, to break up that monopoly. Don’t like my example? Make up one of your own, but the point will be the same.

What we have here is a President and a large segment of Democrats in Congress which President Obama’s election has emboldened who believe in the power of government through direct involvement in the economy to an extent which is neither supported by experience or consistent with the fundamentals of capitalism – and it’s making a lot of elected officials, businessmen and women in large and small companies, and a whole lot of us regular citizens justifiably uncomfortable.

-wf


Site Meter