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.

1 comments:

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.