Proponents of the public option are continually talking about the merits of competition. Adding this new player, the government to the health insurance field is supposed to lower costs.
What is competition is it two equals vying for dominance or at least victory? Or is it as reformers would have you believe just adding another player.
A couple of analogies to consider. When my son was young he was hospitalized often for asthma. After work I would go and spend time with him. The hospital on the children's floor had video games for the kids to play. My son liked the sports games hockey especially. He would beat me regularly O.K. always. Now why did he beat me, no I didn't let him win. Some of it was that he was better at video games. Mostly though it had to do with incomplete instruction. You see he would tell me just do this and this but would leave out how to pass or go faster. Basically he laid out the game so he couldn't lose.
I like to play basketball in the driveway. When the kids were high school age we would play 2 or 3 on one. This kept the games competitive for the most part. However the one day my son invited a kid from the H.S team over He was 6'7. No matter how we split players this kid destroyed the competitive balance.
So is the public option adding competition or just taking over the game.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Good example. Government has the edge of not needing to make a profit. Oh, we lost money. Tell Treasury to print some more and send it over pronto. That is what people are missing and why the left is not fighting for inclusion of a mandatory public option. Once it goes in effect they will squeeze out competition and by default become a public non-option.
ReplyDelete