The Furor Over a Government Run Public Health Insurance Option

Health care reform is being pushed like never before. Nearly all sectors of our society are clamoring for it. The medical profession wants it. The insurance industry wants it. The business community as a whole wants it. The President wants it. Most important of all, I want it.

Even the people who have health insurance coverage are seeing their costs are higher than they would be otherwise if it were not for the burden of all the uninsured individuals who drive up prices for everyone else. Surely, this is the year health care reform will be passed.

Not so fast! Lots of people want something done, but they don't all agree on what is to be done. Most agree that the ideal would be some form of health care coverage for everyone. The one's who don't support this are the people who would rather exclude anyone who might get in line for medical services ahead of them if they have the opportunity. Instead of admitting their selfishness, they find more socially acceptable reasons to oppose the idea.

A major focus of opposition for many of these people seems to be around a government provided public health insurance option. There are several points they make which on the surface seem reasonable.

* They say a government venture into health insurance would be an unfair competitor to the private insurance industry. The very size of the government insurance would put that program in a position to command price concessions for health care services that private industry could not rival.

* They say the government is attrociously inefficient and a bureaucratic nightmare. They point to the typically long lines of people applying for drivers licenses or car registrations at the Department of Motor Vehicles in most states.

* Some people are simply philosophically opposed to anything that expands the role of government. They are fond of saying that a government big enough to give you whatever you want is also capable of taking everything you've got.

As I said, on the surface, many of these arguments seem reasonable. But look more closely.

First, the government's running of mail and package delivery service in the form of the postal service did not stop other companies like Federal Express, United Parcel Service and other couriers from getting a foothold and thriving. What was once a virtual monopoly in the hands of government lost considerable marketshare to private industry. It could certainly be argued that those private companies are actually all the better for having to compete against the government.

Second, comparing a possible government run public health insurance program to most states' Department of Motor Vehicles is a false analogy. Every vehicle owner or driver is required to go through their department of motor vehicles and only there to obtain appropriate licenses and registrations. There is no private option. When it comes to health insurers, there are lots of options. The DMV analogy resonates with a lot of people because we all hate those long waits. But it is a smokescreen because it does not really apply.

Third, people who embrace the philosophy that the government that governs least governs best are not thinking things through. One example: only government can really look after the nations highway system. It would be a sad state of affairs if it did not. We all benefit because government does take care of our roads. Yet the government does not tell us where to drive or ration how much we can drive. We are at liberty to traverse any open public road available. It is still a personal choice. There are other examples that come to mind, but I won't mention them here.

I am not married to the idea of a government administered health insurance program. If the objectives of having such a program can be fully met in some other reasonsable way, I am fine with that. But that other way needs to be put on the table and discussed. Meanwhile, lets steer clear of scare tactics and false analogies to demonize the public option.

Unfortunately, it seems most Republicans and some Democrats are more interested in opposing any health care reform that contains a government administered health insurance program instead of offering a viable alternative. That is dead end thinking.

That's Wade's two cents.

Wade Houston
June 19, 2009