Since when has the liberal establishment been concerned about “competition”? Since they got into the business of business. The Speaker is trying to do some cosmetic surgery on the government control of health care. And if anyone knows about plastics, it’s Pelosi.
by Michael Naragon
Many Democrats in the House and Senate have shown concern over the public distaste for a “public option” in health care, with most eyeing their upcoming campaigns in 2010 and the questions that will come their way regarding their support for the government takeover.
To the rescue has come the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, who apparently believes that a change in the terminology will change public opinion. According to a Breitbart story published October 26, Pelosi met with a focus group of senior citizens and used the term “competitive option” instead of “public option.” It appears as though this group of seniors was more receptive to the codeword “competitive,” believing, it would seem, that more government involvement in the health care industry would somehow provide competition.
Does anyone truly believe that the government will compete fairly with the private sector? Some do, as evidenced by a few of the callers on conservative talk radio these days. As with many difficulties facing the United States in the waning days of 2009, this bait-and-switch could have been solved with a little education, something that is severely lacking in the government school system. For those who believe the government will “compete,” ask yourself what that means. Insurance companies and doctors charge money for their services, hoping that, if they’re successful at what they do, they’ll make a profit. As their costs go up, their prices rise as well. This is one reason why tort reform–a limit on frivolous lawsuits against doctors and others–is so crucial. The doctor, free from such legal entanglements, can charge less and still make a profit. The insurance company, with government regulations of the industry removed, could also charge less and still make a profit.
What is the federal government’s goal in the health care industry? To make a profit? Obviously not. Instead, the federal government’s goal is control, pure and simple. Governments, historically, seek to enlarge their sphere of influence. This was true in the ancient world, the Middle Ages, and the Renaissance. Only in relatively recent times have people made the conscious decision to reign in government legislatively, contractually. Our restrictions on the federal government have worked for nearly 200 years. Since the 1930s, the brakes have come off the wagon. In 2009, our government has no goal but power.
One could compare the federal government’s strategy in the health care industry with that of the so-called robber barons in the United States around the turn of the century. Men like Rockefeller and Vanderbilt built large enough companies that it became easy for them to squeeze out competitors: they simply operated for a time with no concern for profit, underselling their rivals at a loss. When the competition was bankrupt, the barons added them to the collective and resumed their monopolies. This is how the government will “compete” in the health care business. Because they have no need for profit, and because they have the trillions of taxpayer dollars and newly printed, highly inflated bills at their disposal, they will be able to price out the competition. Regulations and requirements of the private insurance companies will speed this process along. In the end, all Americans will find themselves on the public dole, Harry Reid’s promises of state opt-outs notwithstanding. This is not competition. This is fascism.
As Pelosi makes her push to purloin the debate on health care in an attempt to make the terminology more palatable, remember one thing: plastic surgery only hides the ugly inside. Who knows this better than our dishonorable Speaker?
