He made an interesting observation about free market capitalism and the government's involvement. He said that the government's role should be like that of a referee in the free market. They should truly be governing and watching over what's going on. Making sure that everyone is playing by the rules and that they are playing fairly. However, the government is not a player in the game. Problems arise when the government decides it's time to join the game and become a player. But they do not cease to be the referee. If one of the teams in the game is also the referee who do you think is going to win? Of course, the referee. And what will happen to the other team that is not the referee? They will try very hard to win. But, they will eventually become frustrated because the other team is also the referee and can change the rules at anytime. This frustration can eventually turn into the team just giving up.
Therefore the team/referee takes over the entire game and the quality of the game dwindles and the fans become apathetic to the game and the entire sport becomes devalued.
I don't need to draw this out too much, but I think it paints a good picture of how government control or takeover of things really diminishes the spirit of the "game", the free market. May they be satisfied with being the best referee the world has ever seen and may they not get too emotionally involved in the game to lose their ability to be fair.
(This is not intended to be a politically charged entry, but hopefully puts a little light on governments and free markets.)
The analogy is an interesting one, although I think it breaks down for a couple of reasons. First, non-profit entities (government option) are not playing the same 'game' as for-profit ones (private insurance). A non-profit entity exists to provide a service. A for-profit company exist to, well, make a profit.
ReplyDeleteSecond, a referee's job is to make sure the players are playing fairly with each other, and that's a major breakdown of the analogy because it's not ultimately about which insurance company wins--it's about every American citizen who needs medical care being able to get it without being financially raped and exploited.
Now, the one thing you wrote that I must protest (for a post not intended to be politically charged) is the use of the phrase "government control or takeover," as the phrase is pretty politically charged, rhetoric laden, and misrepresentational of what the public option really is.
This all coming from someone who is actually FOR 'government takeover.' I think the current system of private insurance is so corrupt that I question whether it is reformable (I think I made that word up) and would rather see single payer universal health care. :-)
Hi Lori, Thanks for the comments. Just so you know, this is not specifically about health care, but rather about one's philosophy on the role of government. Of course then one's philosophy affects one's view on health care, but also their view on the banking industry, the automobile industry, education, taxes, etc.
ReplyDeleteI really do appreciate your writing and I am glad you read the blog. You are a super person and I look forward to seeing you next time you are in the area. Talk to you soon.