Government insurance will kill private insurance

posted at 1:45 pm on June 10, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

Democrats have taken great care to make the new health-care plans hitting the House and Senate this week look like anything but single-payer, socialized medicine.  They insist that they want to maintain the private insurers in the market and give Americans choices in coverage.  However, by pushing for a government-run plan to “keep insurers honest,” they have created a Trojan horse for socialized medicine, as Ronald Baily explains at Reason:

In his weekly radio address on Saturday, President Barack Obama declared that “it’s time to deliver” on health care reform. In a letter to Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), President Obama wrote, “I strongly believe that Americans should have the choice of a public health insurance option operating alongside private plans. This will give them a better range of choices, make the health care market more competitive, and keep insurance companies honest.” This week Sen. Kennedy released a draft of his proposed “American Health Choices Act” which includes one such optional public health insurance plan. The administration’s goal is to report that bill out of the relevant Senate committees by the end of this month.

Earlier this week, Republican lawmakers sent a letter of their own, strongly warning the president that “Washington-run programs undermine market-based competition through their ability to impose price controls and shift costs to other purchasers. Forcing free market plans to compete with these government-run programs would create an unlevel playing field and inevitably doom true competition.”

When have we seen this before?  Oh, yes … Medicare:

Defenders of the public option quickly point out that Kennedy’s American Health Choices Act promises to pay health care providers 10 percent more than Medicare. But as the Cato Institute’s Michael Tanner noted at Cato@Liberty, “When Medicare began, proponents promised it would reimburse at the same rate as insurance. That promise didn’t last long.” In fact, in his letter to Kennedy and Baucus, Obama explicitly endorsed the idea of setting mandatory physician and hospital reimbursement rates through the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission. In other words, the payments would no longer be merely advisory.

Government doesn’t exist to turn a profit, nor does it face competition.  That’s why, in part, government operates so inefficiently.  We put up with that in certain areas, like the military, because we don’t want private groups arming themselves with tanks, bombers, and armies and navies.  In most other areas, we prefer the private sector, as competition usually gets us the best products and services at the best prices.

Government exists to service its interests, at least in its present form.  Mostly, it serves to further itself.  Any government bureaucracy that sees danger in competition will work to eliminate it.  The dynamic in health-care plans would not be government making private insurers “more honest”, but in squeezing them out of the marketplace to create a monopoly.  Since government doesn’t have to show a profit to exist, it will simply low-ball the other insurers on price until they all drop out of the health-care field.  In an ironic way, it’s similar to how Standard Oil built its monopoly, which the government had to bust in order to get real choice and competition in the gasoline market.

Any public option offered by the government will be nothing more than a virus at the heart of the plan, through which the statists can push through a single-payer national health care system, and it won’t take that long to get it.  Once the insurers understand the dynamic, they will run away from their health-care plans at lightning speed, leaving the field to Medicare, or whatever new name the Left dreams up for it.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

mycowardice on June 10, 2009 at 9:24 PM

No you silly oaf. I’m saying that just because someone wants something does not mean they are entitled.

IOW “pay your own way if you want something” if that’s not too difficult for your limited comprehension.

viking01 on June 10, 2009 at 10:43 PM

IOW “pay your own way if you want something” if that’s not too difficult for your limited comprehension.

viking01 on June 10, 2009 at 10:43 PM

Is health care the only place you apply this philosophy?

How about the police? Should you pay every time the cops help you?

How about public schools? Should you only pay when you send your kids, and should you not be able to send your kids if you can’t pay?

How about the fire department? Should there be a membership where they will only go and save your house if you paid your membership fees?

I get “pay your own way if you want something”, I also get that somethings should be built in our system and we should assume that everyone will need them one way or another. (and therefore account for it)

mycowardice on June 10, 2009 at 10:55 PM

IOW “pay your own way if you want something” if that’s not too difficult for your limited comprehension.

viking01 on June 10, 2009 at 10:43 PM

That hilosophy will get you a nation much like the ‘Great’ Britain Charles Dickens and the Bronte sisters novelized – a cruel caste system based on financial power.

Dark-Star on June 10, 2009 at 11:07 PM

The PROBLEM: Americans can’t afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, and medicine.

The SOLUTION: Force Americans to pay for doctors, hospitals, medicine, and a huge government bureaucracy.

Eyas on June 10, 2009 at 11:08 PM

How would you know Blake that I have never held a real job?

mycowardice on June 10, 2009 at 9:58 PM

Asked and answered. You haven’t. A newspaper route is not a “real job.”

Blake on June 10, 2009 at 11:19 PM

Asked and answered. You haven’t. A newspaper route is not a “real job.”

Blake on June 10, 2009 at 11:19 PM

Ha ha ha! I wonder how many more of those you can come up with.

mycowardice on June 10, 2009 at 11:25 PM

How about public schools? Should you only pay when you send your kids, and should you not be able to send your kids if you can’t pay?

We should do away with “public” schools and privatize the whole system. All parents should be provided with vouchers that are worth the exact same amount of money regardless of where you decide to send your child to school, whether it be college-prep, vocational, religious, or gay.

Comparing education to the health care system is apples and oranges. In general, a student is a student and it cost the same to education Student A at school 1 as it does to education Student B at school 1. With healthcare, patient needs vary from person to person. Thus, treating patient A at clinic 1 will not cost the same at treating patient B at clinic 1.

Since we are supposedly “free” in this country, that freedom should include the freedom to choose NOT to buy health insurance with the understanding, that failing to do so leaves the burden to pay for your care on yourself. If the government really wants to make it affordable for everybody, they would tackle the so-called “red herring” of medical malpractice awards. Limit them to purely pecuniary losses, with NO punitive damages, NO pain and suffering, NO paying lawyers via contingency fees. Doing those few things would allow providers to offer extremely low-cost basic emergency type health insurance that nearly anyone could afford.

Then, if we absolutely, as a society, want to make sure every single person is covered, regardless of their ability to pay, the government could provide a “safety net” type policy for the very poor who could not even afford the most basic private coverage. As a point of fact, there are several states that already do this (Oregon being one of them). The number of people that would have to be provided for would be greatly reduced and we wouldn’t have to tax the crap out of the tax-paying portion of our population to pay for it.

Going to a national system of “required” health insurance makes a mockery of freedom and, if provided by the government, will come with so many government strings attached that it will make “freedom” nothing more than a fantasy. The government has PROVEN that is exactly what will happen by the way the handled the TARP program. You take the TARP money (and you WILL! – even if you don’t want to) and the president gets to fire your CEO, set your compensation levels, decide how you will advertise your products, etc. etc. etc. The same thing will happen if you take government provided “health insurance” (and you WILL – even if you don’t want to) Personally, I don’t want the government telling me how many Big-Macs I can eat in a year.

Pay as you go private fire departments and police departments? They already exist. Private security firms, body guards, mall cops, private detectives, private alarm companies, gated communities with private fire departments, etc. absolutely abound in this country! Live under a rock or what?

But, talk about red herrings.

Sheesh!

Fatal on June 11, 2009 at 12:36 AM

mycowardice on June 10, 2009 at 10:55 PM

Your absurd discourse on entitlement has become tiresome.
Your manner of excessive extrapolation and exaggeration is not worthy of any more of my time. Sorry.

viking01 on June 11, 2009 at 12:53 AM

You folks have no idea of the abyss you are all about to fall into.
Up here, in the Great White North (GWN), we have had socialized medical care for about 40-odd years in Quebec and Ontario, and friends, things are a real mess. Don’t let anybody fool you into thinking everything goes along without a hitch-it sure doesn’t.
There is a critical shortage of doctors, for one thing. Mine stopped practicing two years ago, and I couldn’t get another to take me as a patient. My wife’s doctor did, and he told us both that he is retiring in three years. What are we going to do then?
You will shortly have a hugh, bloated, government bureaucracy, and increased taxes to support it. You will soon be treated to your government spending money where it looks like they are doing something. The Ontario government made a lot of noise about three years ago, saying they would “fast track” certain procedures, to shorten waiting lists for surgeries for cataracts and knee and hip replacements, and a few other procedures deemed to be critical. All they did was to shift resources from other surgeries, to make it look good. My wife waited THREE YEARS for bladder lift surgery–do you know what that does to a woman’s quality of life in the meantime?
Yes, there is no charge to see your doctor, and if you are in real danger of dying, you will be looked after. But if you need a CAT scan, you can easily wait six months to get one.
If you can stand to read the Canadian media, search under health care issues for the last five to ten years—you’ll get an eyefull!

rightsideupinthegwn on June 11, 2009 at 8:12 AM

Forty seven million uninsured?

Who are these millions of people?

Could it be that some elect not to be insured?

TomLawler on June 11, 2009 at 12:37 PM

The most amazing thing is Obama hasn’t paid any attention to the government insurance in Hawaii. If ever there was a litmus test for the success or failure of government insurance, that is it.

mizflame98 on June 11, 2009 at 12:40 PM

Even Harry Truman insisted that any gov’t HC program should be optional, and that maintaining a private system was essential.

This is not your grandparents’ Democrat party.

Rae on June 11, 2009 at 1:39 PM

Fire and police protection, as well as universal public education, are services provided at the behest and expense of the community. They are not “natural rights,” and are not addressed in the Constitution or any of its amendments. This can be demonstrated especially as regards education; although the Founders clearly considered universal public education to be a desideratum in order to produce a trained and informed electorate, not once is it mentioned in the Constitution, and it was not required in all states for over one hundred years (largely at the behest of the business community, which desired a trained and informed labor force). Once offered, though, these services have to be offered to all members of the community under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. So, I think, the debate as to whether health care should be brought under this rubric is right and proper; like the above, what is proposed vis-a-vis health care is a public service, not a natural right.

loneloc on June 11, 2009 at 9:13 PM

As usual, I’m the odd man out on this thread. I firmly agree with O on the public option.

It’s gotta happen.

AnninCA on June 12, 2009 at 12:44 AM

I want Bawney Fwank and Pelosi and Obama making the healthcare decisions for my family.

elduende on June 12, 2009 at 4:06 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4