So we've gone from health care reform to health insurance reform and now, though the public option is supposedly not necessary, the language has suddenly ramped up to indicate that it absolutely is. As usual, the language doesn't match what the English translation would suggest. Now it is being implied on radio and television that the public option is necessary to break up the monopoly of the health insurance industry. Wait....health insurance companies competing against each other is a monopoly?
Let's go ahead and assume for a second that the premise is correct, that consolidation of health insurance companies has led to monopolies in some markets. Let's even pretend that I'm not positive that markets are defined in these studies in such a way as to create the illusion of monopolies. What does government do about monopolies? Well, let's see, when the Justice Department took on Microsoft for bundling Internet Explorer with its operating system software, we created a government program which produced competitive cheap operating software with its own independent browser technology. Wait, we didn't do that? Well, surely back in the 1980's when AT&T was the telephone company monopoly, the solution was to create a government-run telephone company to compete with AT&T. Wait, you mean that didn't happen either?
OF COURSE NOT. The argument is pure idiocy. If government identifies a monopoly, it utilizes the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, or in the case of tying (bundling) arrangements, the Clayton Act and breaks up the company or agreement. The government fined Microsoft for its business practices. The government broke up AT&T into the individual Bell regional companies. The answer to monopolies is not to create a competing government, the purpose is to set the market back to a fair playing ground.
I am so sick of the blatant lies that come out of Washington, D.C. Most of these jackasses are lawyers who know that what I have said here is correct. They assume the rest of the country just isn't paying attention or is willing to let it slip over their heads rather than turning to a source that will explain or educate them. Maybe we should just send a big email to everyone in D.C. that says "I'm not stupid and I'm watching." Maybe that would scare them into telling the truth every now and then and not trying to fool people.
Let's go ahead and assume for a second that the premise is correct, that consolidation of health insurance companies has led to monopolies in some markets. Let's even pretend that I'm not positive that markets are defined in these studies in such a way as to create the illusion of monopolies. What does government do about monopolies? Well, let's see, when the Justice Department took on Microsoft for bundling Internet Explorer with its operating system software, we created a government program which produced competitive cheap operating software with its own independent browser technology. Wait, we didn't do that? Well, surely back in the 1980's when AT&T was the telephone company monopoly, the solution was to create a government-run telephone company to compete with AT&T. Wait, you mean that didn't happen either?
OF COURSE NOT. The argument is pure idiocy. If government identifies a monopoly, it utilizes the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, or in the case of tying (bundling) arrangements, the Clayton Act and breaks up the company or agreement. The government fined Microsoft for its business practices. The government broke up AT&T into the individual Bell regional companies. The answer to monopolies is not to create a competing government, the purpose is to set the market back to a fair playing ground.
I am so sick of the blatant lies that come out of Washington, D.C. Most of these jackasses are lawyers who know that what I have said here is correct. They assume the rest of the country just isn't paying attention or is willing to let it slip over their heads rather than turning to a source that will explain or educate them. Maybe we should just send a big email to everyone in D.C. that says "I'm not stupid and I'm watching." Maybe that would scare them into telling the truth every now and then and not trying to fool people.
No comments:
Post a Comment