Healthy Competition

Missouri Representative Roy Blunt recently offered up an intriguing take on the role on everybody’s favorite celebrity couple—the U.S. government and health care:

Look. There’s a bunch of arguments people can make against government involvement in the American health care system. A real bunch. But the idea that introducing a government-provided option into the mix of industry offerings would somehow be anti-competitive is mindless and pandering. In that order.

AND contradictory as well. “A government competitor would drive all the other competitors away,” Blunt comments. It’s understandable that he doesn’t explain on this point, because the mechanics of a single competitor “driving away” all the others—whatever that means—are basically impossible to imagine. Driving them away how? And to where? Illinois?

Yet immediately afterwards, he admits that “like to see many more options instead of fewer options” on the table, most likely as a means to bring the price of health care down. How does he expect this to happen? Newcomers to the American health insurance industry face the same competition as a newcomer to the American car industry. And we’ve seen just how well that worked out.

Is there a possibility that a public product wouldn’t be as good as its private counterparts? Certainly. In fact, we might even bet on it. But would be a good alternative for 1) people who have no healthcare at all or 2) people who feel like they’re paying too much for their current, least-expensive option? Undoubtedly yes. And with a public product, the oligarchs of the industry may actually—incredibly—be forced to compete. Finally.