Tuesday, April 1, 2008

Misunderstanding Competition

Over at the thoroughly intelligence-free City Journal, David Gratzer and Paul Howard have an article bashing health insurance mandates (and, by implication, Hillary), while talking up "more competition" as the solution for health care:

Rather than handing out more government subsidies, we should inject more competition into markets by allowing people to buy health-insurance policies across state lines. This would give the uninsured a broader menu of affordable options and allow companies to market national plans.
Repeat after me: Forcing private health insurers to compete with a government-run single-payer option increases the level of competition. If private health insurance is truly better than a government-run single-payer option, then you should have nothing to worry about. No one will buy into the government-run option, the private health insurance market will prevail, and you can congratulate yourselves with a big round of "I told you so." When you actively try to block the government from extending a single-payer option to everyone (that is, everyone who isn't eligible for Medicare, Medicaid, etc.), that's called "anti-competitive behavior." Before you push for "more competition" instead of "socialized medicine," it would help if you understand the concept of competition.


Star said...

I'm hunting around on official governmental sites and a few non-gov ones to try to understand what the health care act really does and doesn't do. So, apparently, it's not an alternative and affordable gov-based health care insurance, but it seems to have put in place a lot of regulations that will help the private insurance market be fairer. I'd like your updated observations, if you'd care to make them. Thanks.