The US Postal Service receives no government money and is not a part of the federal government, yet its actions and operations are overseen by Congress, and its leader appointed by the president, because it enjoys a Congressionally mandated monopoly on the delivery of mail to your mailbox. Neither FedEx nor UPS can place their packages in your curbside or house mailbox or Post Office box. Because of profit pressures, FedEx and UPS cannot deliver a letter for 44 cents, neither are they required by law to service every postal address in the country.

I hope the public option, should it ever come to pass, operates as well and under the same parameters as the Postal Service.

Overall a good piece, but a couple of minor quibbles. First of all, under a single-payer system, the government has no role in providing health care. What it provides, instead, is health insurance. The actual care would still mainly be provided by doctors, hospitals, and clinics in the private sector. Second, and related to this, single-payer (like Medicare, and like what Canada has) is not "socialized medicine." With socialized medicine, the hospitals and clinics themselves are run by the government, and the doctors, nurses, etc., are all government employees. The UK's NHS is socialized medicine, as is the VA here at home. Nobody is proposing "VA for everyone," or anything like it, so socialized medicine is simply not on the table.

There is no 'level playing field' in public option insurance. First of all, Art. 1, Sec. 8 of the Constitution does not allow the Federal Government into the arena of health care. Neither does the Commerce Clause, in the Federalist Papers No. 41, Madison explains that the Federal Government can only ensure free trade and access between or among the states. Neither they nor the states are to charge taxes on imports or exports between or 'among' them. This ties to another function of the Federal Government; establishing roads, bridges and free/easy travel, Art. 1, Sec.8. They cannot intervene into the state's use of any import or export. This is intrastate and is a violation of the Constitution. The Federal option would wipe out the private insurances as legislation affecting the private sector is not imposed upon the Federal Government's health care. Section 221 of the bill is deceptive. It allows the Government to be free of many regulations that would make them dominant in the market place. Private insurances are required to conform to federal and state taxes, premium taxes, and income taxes. The government plan would not have to pay these monies. Nor would the government be subject to the federal and state antitrust laws that regulate the private insurance companies. The government plan would be free from tort litigation that private plans face. Suits against the government plan would be heard in state courts and they would not be liable for punitive damages. The private companies face extensive fees from attorneys, etc. Under section 221(b)(2), private insurance companies have to meet certain requirements that the government does not. The Health Choices Commissioner can collect unlimited and unchecked authority to collect data from plans of individuals, costs, etc. in order to out-bid or unfairly under-cut the costs of private firms. Those with private insurance still dole out taxes that support the government plan in some direct or indirect form. The government plan can have laws requiring reimbursement fees that private companies do not have. Because the government can tax and create fiat paper money, they can make up any differences in order to lower costs to put private companies out of business.

Jeff,

According to Art.1, Sec. 8 of the US Constituton, establishing post offices is one of the functions of the Federal Government.

Too bad for CHG that there is a lot more to the Constitution than that single out of context snippet and his false claims about what it means.

Let's take a look at Article I Section 8:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;"

WHOA, WHAT'S THAT!? Congress can COLLECT TAXES to provide for the GENERAL WELFARE!!!!!1! SOSHULISM!! AIEEEE!

The Modest Bill – Really???

While we can all agree the information offered by our government about ‘‘America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009’’ HR3200 has been spotty at best, articles like The Public Option in the August 27, 2009 edition of the Memphis Flyer do a disservice to the public by presenting a soft-peddle version based on personal opinion rather than facts. The statement that this bill is in any way a modest bill is at best misleading and more likely dishonest. How is it reasonable to characterize a bill that is 1017 pages long and is estimated by the Congressional Budget Office to cost taxpayers nearly one trillion dollars as modest? Those are facts, not opinion. The fact is that HR3200 does subject people, notice I didn’t say citizens, to a government mandated system. Page 102 Section (3) states that ALL Medicaid eligible persons will automatically be enrolled in Medicaid if they elect not to enroll in an “Exchange.” And again, on page 145 Section (4) Employers are required to auto-enroll employees “into the employment-based health benefits plan for individual coverage under the plan option with the lowest applicable employee premium.” While there is a provision allowing the employee to opt-out, what employee with no health insurance coverage would actually opt out of a program providing them benefits mandated by the government at no cost to them? These, again, are facts, not opinion.

Let’s examine the euphemism proffered that this is merely a “pilot program”, “to enhance, not abolish, the system of marketplace competition.” In order to be objective, look at the problem in the abstract, irrespective of the health care industry. The proposal is for “modest venture” by government to establish, for arguments sake, Company A, which will compete with companies B, C, D, & E. Companies B, C, D, & E are already regulated by the government, now the parent company of Company A. Company A benefits from government regulation by forcing individuals and employers into Company A’s plan, and as the writer points out Company A would have an innate competitive advantage over other companies as the government would be subsidizing Company A with taxpayer money. How, in this case, could any company B, C, D or E truly compete? The answer is…they couldn’t. Then what happens? Company A becomes the only “option.” Unless, of course, the government run Company A is so wildly inefficient that it too would fail, but we have never seen that in government run entities have we? Oddly, the writer demonstrates this point exactly in the comparison of the U.S. Postal Service to Federal Express and UPS. Yes, Federal Express and UPS are surviving as private ventures, while the Postal Service is in the process of being privatized because as a government venture they were about to go bankrupt. How can any reasonable person argue that this is an example promoting government involvement in health insurance?

Last, let’s address the town hall meeting mentioned with Congressman Cohen. As an attendee, I concur, that there were some attendees who stood in support of Medicare. However, I think it is disingenuous to say that “a large percentage” of those supporting Medicare were “bellowing anti-government slogans.” This falls in line with the statements made across the country that town hall goers opposing this legislation are somehow un-American, contrived, or angry mobs. These general characterizations are flatly false accusations distracting from any real discussion of the facts involved. Speaking of facts let me point out a couple of false points made by Congressman Cohen at the town hall meeting. One assertion he repeatedly made is that there is nothing in the bill allowing for coverage of illegal aliens. I, respectfully, disagree. Page 50, Section 152 states “all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services.” Either the Congressman hasn’t read the bill as he claimed or hoped that no one would understand that this provision speaks to all people, not just legal citizens. He also asserted that there is nothing in the bill allowing coverage of abortion. While he is technically correct that abortion is not specifically addressed. It is considered by government to be a medical procedure and is thereby covered under medical insurance. If, in fact, the design of this bill was not to include abortion, it would have to be explicitly excluded in the language of the bill. This deceptive omission by Congress is not an excuse to misrepresent the real impact of the legislation which would be to cover abortion procedures with taxpayer money.

I think you would be hard-pressed to find any American that does not support the idea that we have problems in our health insurance industry, and need to pursue more available, affordable health care for all of our citizens. Until we stop spreading false, misleading information and start dealing with the facts at hand, we will never really address the issues that need to be dealt with.

Tseneau,

I can't seem to find your evidence of the claim that I have taken a Constitutional 'snippet' out of context. Try quoting something from the abstract Laws of New England or the Federalist Papers to prove your point if you will. The definitive on 'original intent'

autoegocrat,

The phrase, general welfare' is the general category and the particulars that define this is listed therein. If general welfare meant that the government has a blank-check to act arbitrarily, then why list these particulars in the same context. See Madison in Federalist Papers No. 41, '...nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars...' If 'general welfare' meant hat Congress has authority to be proactive in every affair of civil life, then there would be no reason to add the tenth amendment which gives powers to the states if not explicitly mentioned for the Federal Government.

Jeff,

This is a quote from one of Obama's Town Hall lectures in Portsmouth, NH, Obama: '...and 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 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 any other private insurer would do – then I think private insurers should be able to compete. They do it all the time. I mean, if you think about – if you think about it, UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, right? No, they are. It's the Post Office that's always having problems....'

So you say that the Post Office operates well? It's fascinating how it all comes down to the post office, again and again, in the history of public policy. And so it is in our time, with Obama's admission/gaffe/slip concerning the post office and its analogy to what he wants to do with healthcare. ....Now, these comments are nothing short of incredible. The post office has been on the loser list for many decades.