Yesterday and today I wrote quite a bit about medical plans. I wrote "Shameless Self-Promotion", "Who Will Decide" and "Can Anyone Make Sense of This?". In them, I argued that universal insurance would inevitably lead to a government monopoly.

Today, an article in Best of the Web seems to support that contention, or, at least, supports the fact that President Obama believes that government insurance will lead to single payer.

I reproduce it here:

Would ObamaCare Lead to an Obamonopoly?
President Obama has been insisting of late that he does not support a government health-insurance monopoly ("single payer"). Here he is two weeks ago in Portsmouth, N.H.:

I have not said that I was a single-payer supporter because, frankly, we historically have had a employer-based system in this country with private insurers, and for us to transition to a system like that I believe would be too disruptive. So what would end up happening would be, a lot of people who currently have employer-based health care would suddenly find themselves dropped, and they would have to go into an entirely new system that had not been fully set up yet. And I would be concerned about the potential destructiveness of that kind of transition.

All right? So I'm not promoting a single-payer plan.

As we noted last week, this contradicts what Obama said in 2003:

I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14% of its gross national product on health care, cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that's what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that's what I'd like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.

Now he says he does see a reason, namely the "destructiveness of that kind of transition." This is his rebuttal to people who say he supports a government insurance monopoly. Tellingly, though, on Jan. 21, 2008, when he was running against Hillarly Clinton, the Web site of his "grass-roots" outfit, Organizing for America, featured an item titled "Fact Check: Obama Consistent in His Position on Single Payer Health Care":

Rhetoric: "Today, he opposes single payer health care, and attacks Sen. Clinton for proposing a plan that covers everyone"

Reality: Obama Has Consistently Said That If We Were Starting From Scratch, He Would Support A Single Payer System, But Now We Need To Build On The System We Have

If Obama Were Starting From Scratch, He Would Support A Single Payer System. The New Yorker wrote, " 'If you're starting from scratch,' he [Obama] says, 'then a single-payer system'-a government-managed system like Canada's, which disconnects health insurance from employment-'would probably make sense. But we've got all these legacy systems in place, and managing the transition, as well as adjusting the culture to a different system, would be difficult to pull off. So we may need a system that's not so disruptive that people feel like suddenly what they've known for most of their lives is thrown by the wayside.' " [New Yorker, 5/7/07]

If Obama Were Starting From Scratch, He Would Support A Single Payer System. "At a roundtable with a handful of invited guests at Lindy's Diner in Keene, Obama said if he were starting from scratch, he would probably propose a single payer health care system, but because of existing infrastructure, he created a proposal to improve the current system." [Concord Monitor, 8/14/07]

If Obama Were Starting From Scratch, He Would Support A Single Payer System. Obama said, "Here's the bottom line. If I were designing a system from scratch I would probably set up a single-payer system...But we're not designing a system from scratch...And when we had a healthcare forum before I set up my healthcare plan here in Iowa there was a lot of resistance to a single-payer system. So what I believe is we should set up a series of choices. . . . Over time it may be that we end up transitioning to such a system. For now, I just want to make sure every American is covered . . . I don't want to wait for that perfect system . . . The one thing you should ask about the candidates though is who's gonna have the capacity to actually deliver on the change? . . . I believe I've got a better capacity to break the gridlock and attract both Independents and Republicans to work together."

And indeed Obama's position in 2008 is consistent with his position in 2009--but back then, it was a rebuttal to those who said he opposed a government insurance monopoly. Given that so many pro-monopoly politicians and commentators have enthusiastically endorsed the so-called public option, it seems to us there is ample reason to believe that Obama was more honest about his intentions in 2008 and 2003 than he is in 2009.

Of course this is not conclusive proof, but it certainly does lend some credibility to my argument that the greatest proponent of government insurance is also an ardent supporter of single-payer.

POSTSCRIPT

Though they seem unrelated, my weekend writing on education ("Never Ascribe To Evil, A Discussion of Education","Why Vouchers are not the Answer") has a lot of overlap with my writing about health care. In both fields we are dealing with a hybrid government-private system which produces substandard results. It is interesting that in the case of education many people do recognize the problem being the result of government intervention, yet in both the public seems unable to conceive of a system without considerable government involvement.

It may be informative to write on the connection between the two. That may be my topic later tonight or tomorrow.

It is also interesting to read one other post form this weekend "Cash For Clunkers Revisited", as it makes obvious that I had government intervention on my mind all weekend. The only other post "Insufficient Skepticism", seems to be the one post which has nothing to do, at least not directly, with government intervention.