Obama-Speak: Government Health Care Option Will be Inefficient Like the Post Office so It Will Provide Competition for The Private Sector!

Besides implementing policies that are almost certain to cause staggering inflation and (already) astronomical deficits, President Obama recently displayed that his talent for bold tactics and "change" also extends into the arena of communication and logical thinking. The following is a transcript of his spontaneous talk at a high school. A student raised a question about the government's provision of health services and its impact on private services. He replied.....

"How can a private company compete against the government? My answer is that if the private insurance companies are providing a good bargain, and if the public option has to be self-sustaining, meaning that taxpayers aren't subsidizing it, but it has to run on charging premiums and providing good services, and a good network of doctors, just like private insurers do, then I think private insurers should be able to compete.

They do it all the time. If you think about it, UPS and Fed-Ex are doing just fine. It's the post office that's always having problems … there is nothing inevitable about this somehow destroying the private marketplace. As long as it is not set up where the government is being subsidized by the taxpayers so that even if they are providing a good deal, we keep having to pony up more and more money."

OK. I admit it, I'm kind of an "old school" guy and obsessively cling to dogma like "if A is B and B is C then A is C". I probably am just not progressive enough to appreciate an argument where Obama contradicts and destroys his first talking point with his second.

He basically says that to provide competition for the private sector we need to have an inefficient, poorly run Government option. Gee, who could compete with that? But perhaps this is not the case. Perhaps the inefficiency will be covered up and subsidized by the people's taxes.

Maybe he just thinks his audience is stupid and isn't following his rhetoric. Nah, that's not possible. Is it? Or maybe HE really doesn't understand what he is talking about. Maybe?

Let's analyze Obama's statement some more. First he says:

"How can a private company compete against the government? My answer is that if the private insurance companies are providing a good bargain, and if the public option has to be self-sustaining, meaning that taxpayers aren't subsidizing it, but it has to run on charging premiums and providing good services, and a good network of doctors, just like private insurers do, then I think private insurers should be able to compete"

Obama seems to be saying that private health insurance firms should have no problem competing against a Government Option "if it is run just like private insurers". Duh? Private insurers ALREADY compete against 1300 other private insurers that are run "just like private insurers". Having 1300 + 1 competitors that all operate on the same rules will make no difference. Can that possibly be what he means? I think not.

But perhaps the Government option WILL NOT operate by the same rules as the private firms. Perhaps he is not painting the picture correctly when he says the "public option has to be self-sustaining, meaning that taxpayers aren't subsidizing it, but it has to run on charging premiums and providing good services, and a good network of doctors, just like private insurers do..." Can you name ANY government program that is self-sustaining, isn't subsidized, provides good service and has to run a profit or even break even like private firms do? Hmmmm......I can't. First of all, by its very existence a Government program is subsidized by the taxpayers! It's a Government program - to even come into existence it has to be using public money to hire (more) government bureaucrats, write regulations, monitor policies, etc, etc. And now for the bonus round: Will the Government health program be required to run a profit to "pay back" its "investors" - ie the taxpayers - like private firms have to do? I don't think so. That means it will continue to be subsidized by the taxpayers while it operates with losses and provides (the usual Government) inefficient service.

So on the one hand, Obama is either saying the Government run health care option will be run "just like all the other private firms", in which case it is no different than the 1300 private firms that already compete against each other, or the Government option will be playing by different, unfair rules - subsidies, no need to be profitable, no need to comply with the same regulations, etc - and the private firms won't be able to compete against it, since it will be unfair competition.

Finally, to try and make his point that private firms will be able to compete with the Government healthcare option he cites the example of the Post Office vs Fed Ex and UPS. As he says "If you think about it, UPS and Fed-Ex are doing just fine. It's the post office that's always having problems …" So the great shining example of Government "competition" is the pathetic Post Office - perpetual losses, taxpayer subsidies, declining market share, long lines, poor service, lost mail, unfriendly service people, and the always present"Next Window Please" signs. We can only wait for and expect the corresponding "Next Doctor Please" sign from the highly efficient Government Health Care Program. When the Post office loses your mail it's not the end of the world, but if the Government Health Care option loses your Grandmother, well, that's a little more serious......

So, the great communicator has completely failed in trying to explain how the Government Health Care option makes sense and either provides competition to the private sector and/or provides a more efficient option than private firms.

On second thought, maybe he DID succeed in explaining what the Government Option is all about.

A is A after all.