During the health care debates last year, there had been much talk and support on the Left for the concept of a “public option” in the bill. The rationale behind this, according to the federal government, was that there is not a sufficient free market for health insurance in some parts of our country.
Accordingly, they deemed it their job to get consumers the best coverage at the best price, by offering a competing a public option, seemingly on par with private insurers.
I believe the promulgation of the public option was deceitful. There was never going to be an equal footing, as the Government would severely limit the range of allowable insurance and then use its financial and political muscle to gain customers, as acknowleged by Senator Chuck Schume, among others. Nevertheless, it had so much support that it was included in most of the drafts of the health care bill.
Reflecting on the merits of the public option argument as we debate how to reign in our excessive government spending, my question is this: if this “public option” was viewed as a necessity in terms of competition and cost, why should there not be a “private option” in every area that the Government – federal, state, local – has staked out an unnecessary monopoly for itself?
Other than National Defense and the Criminal Court Systems, there appears to be no reason – other than creation of a power base to enable the bloated government salaries that we see today – that the private sector should not be given an opportunity to compete on a level playing field.
Based on the government’s rationale, there should be a “private option” in virtually every area of public service.