Who Competes with the Government? And Wins?

"I fought the law and the law won." -Sonny Curtis and the Crickets

I read in the New York Times over the weekend that President Obama is getting a little bit fed up with the rate at which health care legislation is getting taken care of, and even more concerned that some of the things he would prefer to be in the legislation might get left out.

One note toward the beginning stuck out in my mind. The article states that one of the primary notes Obama is concerned with making certain is in the bill is the government-option insurance plan that would compete with private companies.

During an interview several weeks ago with Blanche Lincoln, who has given many lines of press releases on the matter of health care in this session, said she would be in favor of such a government option. Basically, the program would give every one the same benefits as a Federal Employee, which everyone knows are just grand. But it would be an option if they so chose; If they've got a better plan, they'd be more than welcome to choose that.

In a lot of ways, it makes sense. Think of the United States Post Office, slugging it out with the likes of FedEx, UPS, DHS, a friend of mine proffered. There is a service that needs to be rendered, in this care, health insurance. In order to keep the other companies honest and not gouge, the government would directly compete with them in order to insure that the prices were fair and affordable.

It's basic economics. There's a demand. Competition is the backbone of free market functionality. If insurance companies are going to run their affairs like cartels, who minds the government being a thorn in their side, keeping them honest?

Still...

It'd be like playing against the home team. In a stadium they built. In a state they run in a country they regulate. The rules are all theirs, and can change any rule at any time for any advantage, with a simple vote by 600 people who work for that team.

Plus, I'm pretty sure the goal of business competition is to put the other guy out of business, which I hope isn't the goal of the U.S., unless that business is an illegal one.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist. We landed on the moon, the Holocaust happened, and Barack Obama is a legal U.S. Citizen and a Christian to boot. But giving the government free reign to compete against another business sounds trickier than the fruits might be worth.

I wrote awhile back about my slight aversion toward the new seat belt restrictions that passed through the Arkansas Legislature this year. My aversion was not that police officers are inherently racist and therefore it should be assumed they are going to pull over every African-American they see on the road. My hesitancy is that there will already be that suspicion, and rather than wind it further down the road, always having it assailed, it might be better to find another avenue.

Health care might be an issue that needs resolving post haste, I don't think there's anyone who believes the contrary, and that everything is a-okay right now. But I'm not sure that the possibility of the government under-cutting one business and then perhaps moving on to another is going to sit well with people.

Since I already spoke to one of them about it, I look forward to hearing about possible pros, cons, and maybe even alternatives from our delegates.