You probably want to go ahead and watch the video to which this blog post links. I doubt you'll want to wait to read all of this hoo-ha first.
One of the reasons I find the New Order so distasteful is that otherwise thoughtful, intelligent people I know seem to suddenly lack that part of their brain that allows them to reason.
Recently, I had a facebook status that lamented a strange and seemingly widespread position taken by many of my dear friends. That position was this: I just don't see how some people can claim that a public option could be anticompetitive. Those that say so must be insane! And close-minded!
Far from saying anything about the desireability of such a public option, through my facebook status I lamented people's (at least asserted) inability to fathom how a public option could be anticompetitive. Anticompetitive like Walmart.
A public option, being subsidized directly by taxpayers, would undercut current plans which would be unable to compete with a plan that was woefully underpriced. Like Walmart, its ability to undercut other plans so drastically would drive those other plans out of the market. Leaving only the big fat behemoth (and maybe the pricey upscale models no normal person can afford). There would be a difference, however: Walmart must still fund itself; a public option that is directly subsidized by taxes could undercut other plans to a degree Walmart could only dream of.
The responses my facebook status received were what one might expect. How stupid and ridiculous I must be! Plus: forget what my brain might tell me -- one person even commented on how curious it was for someone with government insurance to think such a thing! (Forget first that the insurance I am on and have been on I get or got because of remunerative work I or my father gave to the government. Forget second that this has nothing to do with whether a public option would be anticompetitive.)
One problem with an anticompetitive public option that has upset me over the past few months is the thought that the anticompetitive nature of the public option is precisely what recommends the public option to so many on the Left. Once your anticompetitive public option drives all or most of the private options out of the marketplace, it naturally transitions into a single-payer health system.
What troubles me most about this isn't the idea of a single-payer health system. I understand why some would want such a thing, and I understand there are pros to such a system. (I currently oppose such a thing because I am unconvinced such a system's pros would outweigh the many cons that would come with it.)
What troubles me most is that I feel politicians are not being open about it with the American people. The reason for this seems clear.
If our politicians were open and honest about it, the people would tell them hells to the no, and the government re-conception of health care and health insurance would be dead in the water.
So, I provide you with the link above! Inconceivable that a public option could be anticompetitive, you say? Well, the Left's politicians don't seem to think so. As so many are so quick to point out, these people are not idiots.
A public option is the natural precurser that leads us directly into a single payer health system. It is anticompetitive, and that is what recommends it to those in power. Unfortunately those in power are not being honest with the American people, and in some cases they are being downright dishonest. The American people have a right to know exactly what the changes debated today have in store for them.