Say Anything Blog

Which really isn’t competing at all.  If you play long enough, the house always wins.

The current debate isn’t over whether private insurers could compete all else being equal, but whether they can actually run a fair game. Obama’s argument is sort of like asking, “Why should a blackjack player fear losing to a casino?” In theory, unlike with a slot machine, there’s no inherent reason why one blackjack player has to have an advantage over another. If a group of friends play blackjack at home against each other, chances are that the most skilled player will win. But things change when that skilled player enters a casino, because the casino sets the rules of the game to give it an edge, and it can outlast any player given the size of its bank account. A player can reduce the casino edge through card counting, but the casino can make it harder to count cards by using more decks and still eject any player it suspects of counting. Casinos, in other words, don’t make a profit on blackjack because they hire dealers who are the most skilled blackjack players around, but because they rig the rules of the game in their favor.

This is why Obama’s argument for a government plan is disingenuous. Private insurers would be going up against government on an exchange run by government and facing rules and regulations set by government. While the government plan would have effectively unlimited access to federal government tax revenues, the private plans would not.

Obama isn’t looking to create more health care options for Americans.  Much like with his campaign promises, those are just words that come out of his mouth.  What Obama really wants to do is create a rigged health care market that will drive Americans on to government health care and private insurance and health care providers out of business.

Because his goal isn’t independent Americans providing for themselves.  The goal is dependent Americans having their medical lives managed for them by the government.