A short article from The Economist declares that "Unfortunately, a government-run insurance policy is on the table again". A relevant quote from the article, with numbered brackets for my response below:
"A public plan is likely to damage competition. A government insurer has some big advantages over a private one; its financing costs would be lower because the government can borrow cheaply; it would not have to worry too much about future liabilities since it could never go bust; and its economies of scale would be larger than those of the competition."
1. Competition is already extremely low in the industry.
2. Isn't this a good argument as to why we should want a government option?
3. As the financial crisis showed, the government isn't going to let big private insurance companies go bust either.
4. Isn't this the best argument one could make for a public option?
So, I'm not saying that a public option is a fantastic idea. I just haven't, up till now, really had it articulated to me strongly as to why it's not. I figured The Economist could step up to that plate if anyone could, but this article in the October 31st issue really falls short.
Oh, and a final quote from the article:
"And finally, by resurrecting the idea of a public plan, the Democrats are serving notice that what little chance there was of a bipartisan effort on health care is gone."
Please. It is quite obvious at this point that the GOP has but one objective: do everything in their power to make sure the President of the United States fails.