George Will puts the "SMACK DOWN" on single-payer...

"Pushing dependence on single-payer care"
George Will
Washington Post syndication

To dissect today's healthcare debate, the crux of which concerns a "public option" use the mind's equivalent of a surgeons scalpel. It's called Occam's razor, a principle of intellectual parsimony: In solving a puzzle, start with the simplest explanatory theory.

The puzzle is: Why does the president, who says that if America were "starting from scratch," he would favor a "single-payer," government-run system and insist that healthcare reform include a government insurance plan that competes with private insurers?

The simplest answer is that such a plan will lead to a single-payer system.

Conservatives say that a government program will have the intended consequences of crowding private insurers out of the market, encouraging employers to stop providing coverage and luring employees from private insurance to the cheaper government option.

The Lewin Group estimates that 70 percent of the 172 million people privately covered might be drawn, or pushed to the government plan. A significant portion of the children who have enrolled in the State Children's Health Insurance Program since eligibility requirements were relaxed in February had private insurance.

Assurances that the government plan would play by the rules that private insurers play by are implausible. Government is incapable of behaving like market-disciplined private insurers.

The president says competition from a government plan is necessary to keep private insurers "honest." Presumably, being "honest" means not colluding to set prices, and evidently he thinks that, absent competition from government, there will not be a competitive market for insurance. This ignores two facts:

There are 1300 competing providers of health insurance. And Roll Call's Morton Kondracke notes that the 2003 medicare prescription-drug entitlement, relying on competition among private insurers enjoys 87 percent approval partly because competition has made premiums less expensive than had been projected. The programs estimated cost from 2007 to 2016 has been reduced 43 percent.

Some advocates of a public option say health coverage is so complex that consumers will be befuddled by choices. But consumers of many complicated products, from auto insurance to computers, have navigated the competition among providers, who have increased quality while lowering prices.

Although 70 percent of insured Americans rate their health-care arrangements good or excellent, radical reform of health care is supposedly necessary because there are 45.7 million uninsured. That number is, however, a "snapshot" of a nation in which more than 20 million working Americans change jobs every year. Many of them are briefly uninsured between jobs.

Almost 39 percent of the uninsured are in five states-Arizona, California, Florida, New Mexico and Texas - all of which are entry points for immigrants. About 21 percent, 9.7 million, of the uninsured are not citizens. Up to 14 million are eligible for existing government programs ( Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, veterans benefits, etc.) but have not enrolled. And 9.1 million have household incomes of at least $75,000 and could purchase insurance.

Insuring the perhaps 20 million people who are protractedly uninsured because they cannot afford insurance is conceptually simple. Give them money: (refundable) tax credits or debit cards (which have replaced food stamps) loaded with a particular value. This would produce people who are more empowered than dependent.

Unfortunately, advocates of a government option consider that a defect. Which is why the simple idea of the dependency agenda cuts like a razor through the complexities of this debate.

Although 70 percent of insured Americans rate their health-care arrangements good or excellent, radical reform of health care is supposedly necessary because there are 45.7 million uninsured. That number is, however, a "snapshot" of a nation in which more than 20 million working Americans change jobs every year. Many of them are briefly uninsured between jobs.

Almost 39 percent of the uninsured are in five states-Arizona, California, Florida, New Mexico and Texas - all of which are entry points for immigrants.

Assurances that the government plan would play by the rules that private insurers play by are implausible. Government is incapable of behaving like market-disciplined private insurers.

39%
21%
14 million
9.1 million
70%

Some advocates of a public option say health coverage is so complex that consumers will be befuddled by choices.

Insuring the perhaps 20 million people who are protractedly uninsured because they cannot afford insurance is conceptually simple. Give them money: (refundable) tax credits or debit cards (which have replaced food stamps) loaded with a particular value. This would produce people who are more empowered than dependent.

Unfortunately, advocates of a government option consider that a defect. Which is why the simple idea of the dependency agenda cuts like a razor through the complexities of this debate.