Friday, August 21, 2009

Fair Competition

All of the major sports leagues in America have a commissioner to ensure fair competition between the various teams in each sports league. These commissioners make decisions based on what is best for the long term interests of each league. For the most part, each commissioner remains neutral as to which teams succeed or fail.

Government in America works best when those in positions of government authority act as commissioners; ensuring fair competition between individuals, businesses, and industries. When government remains neutral and makes decisions in the interest of all citizens, individuals and entities prosper or fail by competition. Those with the best ideas, best products, best services, and best prices win while those who are inferior lose.

Would anyone in their right mind ever claim the commissioner of a league should also own a team in the league in order to keep the competitors honest? Of course not; the job of the commissioner is to arbitrate and the job of the competitors is to compete.

Likewise, only a knucklehead would claim government should create an enterprise to compete with the private sector.

If government would do a better job of ensuring fair competition between health insurers and health care providers, perhaps our glorious leaders could get back to doing something important like investigating steroids in professional sports.


Derek Simmons said...

At this point of your exposition I can agree with the intent of your Commissioner analogy, but I must withold comment on its effect until you expand on how it might work in the context of government sponsored/ owned/subsidized/controlled/etc healthcare. As you know,HE is not my doctor. And I don't want his fingers anywhere near the rubber gloves that touch me.
However, in the sports world, the commissioners are chosen by the owners who will have their capital and labor controlled by the commissioner. Individually and collectively they have a direct stake in the evenhandedness of their choice if not his fairness. In your analogy, who are the "owners" and how would they choose their "commissioner"?

David M. Smith said...

Hi Derek,

Government sponsoring, owning, or subsidizing healthcare would be no different than a commissioner owning one of the teams in the league. Just as the commissioner would have a conflict of interest, so would government. Perhaps government should control healthcare to some extent, but mostly government should just act as an arbitrator ensuring fair competition between all providers and insurance companies.

The major problem with healthcare delivery nowadays is the lack of a competitive model. Patients, the customers of healthcare, only play a very minor role in the allocation of health care dollars because insurance is chosen by employers, and providers charge the insurance companies. The best way to restore the fair market would be to allow patients to control how the health care dollars are spent.

We don’t need to change the way we choose our representatives to government, but we sure need to get better at who we choose.

Anonymous said...

Hey, David:

Put another way, what business does government have in any of this? Any response had better have its support from the Constitution or it is no response at all. Conservatives have been suckered into arguing from mere pragmatism with little regard for principle.

I don't care what's in this bill - even if it is beneficial to me. If the Constitution gives no authority to the government (It does not!)in these matters, then such legislation is illegal from the outset. Period!

David M. Smith said...

Hi Anonymous,

I agree with you and I agree with me. Our views are not mutually exclusive. I was just trying to point out the silliness of government competing with the private sector.

Additionally, I like our Constitution the way it was written and the way it was intended to be interpreted, not he way it has been interpreted by so-called progressives.

Anonymous said...

Yep, we agree! As I said, I was just looking at it from an all too neglected angle.

BTW, I forgot to sign off properly on that last one . . .

Dave Smith

David M. Smith said...

Hi Dave,

I (almost) knew it was you. : - )

Good to hear from you.

Buz said...

David opined, "Likewise, only a knucklehead would claim government should create an enterprise to compete with the private sector."

I desperately want to say something clever about those in the govt. who want to do so, but I am at a loss to come up with a better term than "knucklehead".


Buz said...

By the way, I have started writing again ... "One man's point of view"