There's been a lot of hyperbole about the public option for health insurance. So I made a list of services that have thriving private industries that compete with a basic option offered by the government. And in these cases it seems that by the government offering or sponsoring a similar service it is allowing private companies to focus on their core competencies rather than driving private industries out of business.
- the post office competes with UPS, FedEx, DHL, etc.
- Social Security competes with all of the other retirement savings plans
- private mercenaries take jobs from the U.S. Military
- electricity in the first half of the Twentieth Century (See: How FDR Enacted his “Public Option”)
- telephone service in rural areas (See: History of Rural Telecommunications)
- Amtrak competes with other commuting and traveling options
- roads are paid for with taxes yet there are still private roads
- School. This may be the biggest one of all. Almost everyone sends their kids to public school (a public option). Use private school and you're elitist; home school and you're a little odd yet earnest. And education is very much in your hands. Like health... how you take care of yourself influences how healthy you are. A government paid insurance plan would still allow people to get their own private insurance but you could still take care of yourself at home if you choose.
So my question for people is: if you're against the "public option" does that mean you avoid all of the public options?
And what is interesting is in reading the history of these various policies all of the arguments were made then as we're hearing now regarding health insurance. Namely, government has no role in providing education/electricity/phone service and that private companies cannot compete with a public sponsored service. It really is like they all work from the same template. Or mad lib.
