Is it logical to hold 1) that the “public option” will be extraordinarily inefficient, and 2) that this inefficient “public option” will destroy the private insurance industry? Contrary to the left’s fantasies, holding these positions is perfectly consistent. The error in the left’s understanding is rooted in their belief that the government will be a fair competitor.

First, the government makes and enforces the rules, giving it an unfair advantage. The government will always be inclined to steer the rules to benefit their programs. Example —Fannie May and Freddie Mac—the rules were “adjusted” and the institutions abused to carry out political and social agendas, all to the detriment of the country (warning—the left is doing precisely the same thing with FHA today).

Second, when the “public option” is in financial meltdown, the government will inevitably bail it out with taxpayer money. Look at the track record—Social Security, Medicaid, USPS, Fannie May, Freddie Mac—the list of financial disasters is long. Even Medicare, the left’s “model of efficiency,” is a fiscal nightmare. The left readily admits that there is $500 billion in “waste and fraud.” When Medicare was created in 1966 its estimated 1990 cost was $12 billion. The actual 1990 cost was $107 billion. Efficiency? I think not.

The “public option” will be a fiscal disaster propped up by government regulation and taxpayer dollars making it impossible for private companies to compete. Real reform starts with creating a truly competitive marketplace, but the left has no interest in that. The left’s ultimate fantasy is “single payer” (AKA socialized health care), the “public option” is just their first step.

David Messersmith