The Trunk

Asking the Right Question

“In general, when companies are left to compete amongst themselves for our dollars - we tend to benefit.”

—

meckz|net=

Frequently yes—which is why I assume you’ll join me in supporting a public option. There is no meaningful competition in the healthcare industry. Only a tiny percentage of people individually chose their own insurers. And the dominant insurer in many states has such a large market share that there aren’t viable alternatives. (See graphic.)

Health insurance companies can’t simply be started by talented entreprenuers with big dreams. Being a viable insurer requires (at least) hundreds of millions in reserves. Creating a national public option would restore competition to these markets—and everybody benefits.

Of course, there is a bigger problem. There are more important things for health insurers to do than profit. If the free market decrees that 15% of the country should risk death from readily preventable or treatable diseases, this is simply not an acceptable outcome. Ensuring universal coverage should be a national priority. The profit motive alone won’t do it. Now it’s time to try something else.

Squashed’s logic seems to be (1) there isn’t enough competition, so (2) we need a government plan to compete against the existing competition. Before we jump to (2), shouldn’t we think a little bit about why there isn’t enough competition? And before we impose more coercive government policies, shouldn’t we consider repealing the coercive government policies that created the problem?

Source: azspot