Single-Payer Could Still Rise From the Grave

Dear Mark: Ding-dong the witch is dead! Based on what some key Democrats said over the weekend, they may be pulling the plug on the "public option" portion of the Democrats' health care reform proposal.

Even Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sabelius said the public option is "not the essential element" in the Obama administration's plan. Democrat Sen. Kent Conrad said there are basically not enough votes in the Senate to pass a proposal that includes the public option. Can we celebrate yet? — Ready to Dance in Denver

Dear Ready: Put away the champagne for now. The contradicting sound bites are flying around like Texas mosquitoes. Sabelius says the public option is not essential, President Obama says it's only a sliver, and press secretary Robert Gibbs claims the administration has never changed its position. But there is plenty of time left on the clock, and when the other team has Obama at quarterback, Nancy Pelosi at halfback, Harry Reid at tight end and Rahm Emanuel calling the plays, anything can happen.

Remember that Obama has repeatedly stated he wants a single-payer health care system, so this game is far from over. If you believe former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, watch for trick plays, such as legislative procedural shenanigans, to get the president's plan passed. Also beware of the misdirection play called "government funded co-ops."

Dear Mark: Aren't conservatives all about competition and choice? President Obama and his administration have repeatedly stated that the Democrat health care reform plan will promote competition among private insurers, thus lowering healthcare costs. Why not support the public option? — Public Option Person in Peoria

Dear Public: First of all, the Congressional Budget Office has determined that the reform plans currently proposed in Congress will raise, not lower, health care costs.

Secondly, do you believe everything politicians promise? Don't be fooled — a better term is the "government option." In economic theory and economic reality, competition in the market place will either improve quality or reduce prices.

In many cases, fair competition does both.

A government subsidized insurance option would artificially lower the price because the government is not concerned about controlling costs or making a profit. If there are cost overruns, which is inevitable in any government program, Congress can always steal more money from the people in the form of taxes. The federal government also has its own printing press to spit out as much worthless cash as long as there is paper.

Private sector insurance companies do not have either of these luxuries and would eventually be forced out of business, thus leaving the government option as Americans' only choice. Badda boom, badda bing, Obama realizes his dream of a single-payer health care system.

If the administration truly wanted competition and choice, Congress could immediately pass legislation to allow insurance companies to bid for business across state lines and give Americans real choice. Unfortunately, something more unconstitutional and sinister is going on with liberals and health care reform.

Dear Mark: I just read about a study presented at the National Meeting of the American Chemical Society in Washington, D.C. The study found that 90 percent of our paper currency contains traces of cocaine. Shouldn't the federal government do something about this? — No Blow in Birmingham

Dear No Blow: I'm not sure what our government can do about this situation, but it does explain why Congress acts so irresponsibly. Our leaders have gotten their grubby little paws on so much of our money that they go around high most of the time.

Dear Mark is a public platform for your entertainment and enlightenment. Please e-mail your questions or comments to marklevy92@aol.com. To find out more about Mark Levy, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS.COM