A Good Compromise Will Screw Everyone
Someone once said, “A good compromise leaves everyone angry.”
Most people who believe in the free market system argue that capitalism works best when companies compete with one another to keep prices down and to weed out the companies who charge more for inadequate products and services. I have no problem with this. If there are several organizations that do provide things the public needs for the lowest possible cost, good for them. This will force out companies that want to maximize their return with the minimal amount of investment.
If the government needs to get into the act in providing a service the private sector has a stranglehold on in order to A) make sure the services provided reaches the largest pool of consumers, and B) keeps the cost of those services down, they should do so. I’ve mentioned before how the government already does this in a way that most people take it for granted. The federal government through the United States Postal Service provides a courier service for letters and packages. They are able to do this even though the two largest privately owned courier services, United Parcel Service and Federal Express, remain profitable. UPS and FedEx do things the Post Office doesn’t and vice versa (UPS and FedEx ship freight while the USPS does not). However the services all three entities provide are kept in check by the prices set by the Post Office.
I mention this because in the debate about President Obama’s proposed health care plan, some people believe that a public option is something that would cause great detriment to privately owned health insurance companies. In his speech to the American Medical Association President Obama argued, “[A] public option will give people a broader range of choices and inject competition into the health care market so that [it] forces waste out of the system and keep[s] the insurance companies honest.” I argue this is a good thing. People still get to choose what sort of coverage best suits them and their families, private insurance companies will change their business plans to remain competitive, and no one is left to twist in the wind.
The trouble is there are some Democrats in the Senate who think that this is bad for private health insurance companies. Senators such as Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Max Baucus (D-MT) would prefer to either initiate a trigger for the public option (suggesting if health care costs continue to skyrocket, the public option will start in seven years) or not have the public option at all because Senate Republicans don’t want private, for-profit companies competing with the government who can provide basic services for much less money. These Democrats want to do this in the name of bipartisanship. To me, this is the surest way to make sure that actual reform doesn’t take place and keeps the majority of Americans mired in the same ineffectual muck we’re growing accustomed to.
Most people who believe in the free market system argue that capitalism works best when companies compete with one another to keep prices down and to weed out the companies who charge more for inadequate products and services. I have no problem with this. If there are several organizations that do provide things the public needs for the lowest possible cost, good for them. This will force out companies that want to maximize their return with the minimal amount of investment.
If the government needs to get into the act in providing a service the private sector has a stranglehold on in order to A) make sure the services provided reaches the largest pool of consumers, and B) keeps the cost of those services down, they should do so. I’ve mentioned before how the government already does this in a way that most people take it for granted. The federal government through the United States Postal Service provides a courier service for letters and packages. They are able to do this even though the two largest privately owned courier services, United Parcel Service and Federal Express, remain profitable. UPS and FedEx do things the Post Office doesn’t and vice versa (UPS and FedEx ship freight while the USPS does not). However the services all three entities provide are kept in check by the prices set by the Post Office.
I mention this because in the debate about President Obama’s proposed health care plan, some people believe that a public option is something that would cause great detriment to privately owned health insurance companies. In his speech to the American Medical Association President Obama argued, “[A] public option will give people a broader range of choices and inject competition into the health care market so that [it] forces waste out of the system and keep[s] the insurance companies honest.” I argue this is a good thing. People still get to choose what sort of coverage best suits them and their families, private insurance companies will change their business plans to remain competitive, and no one is left to twist in the wind.
The trouble is there are some Democrats in the Senate who think that this is bad for private health insurance companies. Senators such as Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Max Baucus (D-MT) would prefer to either initiate a trigger for the public option (suggesting if health care costs continue to skyrocket, the public option will start in seven years) or not have the public option at all because Senate Republicans don’t want private, for-profit companies competing with the government who can provide basic services for much less money. These Democrats want to do this in the name of bipartisanship. To me, this is the surest way to make sure that actual reform doesn’t take place and keeps the majority of Americans mired in the same ineffectual muck we’re growing accustomed to.
Comments