A question of Mandates
If insurance companies can’t profitably live up to the mandates that congress presumes to place on them with Baucus type bills, will it end in a commoner’s bankruptcy or the Royal bankruptcy that divided GM and Chrysler up between the labor unions, the government and the people that were actually owed money?
Put another way, will Blue Cross/ Blue Shield and AARP’s joint ventures into Supplemental Medicaid and SSI insurance become “Too Big To Fail” if they become unable to meet the new and stringent demands of private insurance? Or will we let monopolies like theirs be eroded through increased competition from independent doctors or inter-state insurance providers. The Democrats have crafted an ingenius scenario that makes the decision we have as citizens a choice between a monopoly that they control by regulation and a monopoly they will control through legislation. After all, the only competition the Democratic plan exposes the current insurance monopolies to is competition from a bigger monopoly (the federal government), not competition from independent entrepeneurs below.
Free market competition requires a free market open to lesser as well as greater choices. The quality of the choices may mean that there are winners and losers, but we can never say the competition wasn’t fair if we can say it was open to anyone regardless of anything short of ability. For this reason, a free market can not exist with a mandate for anything other than fair play and fair play in a market starts with open access. Is anyone talking about making it easier to start an insurance company? Is anyone talking about making it easier to become a doctor?
I defy you to name for me one thing that the President or his Democrats have proposed that will open the market to new and or fair competition. I will be delighted if you can.
Cross-posted at Truth vs. The Machine. Comments welcome.
Share this post
