Timothy Birdnow

This from the Federalist Patriot:

“The recently revived idea of creating a government-run health plan to compete with private insurers may reinforce the impression that President Obama and his allies in Congress are standing tall against those corporate fat cats who delight in denying lifesaving care to children and old ladies. But Obama and the insurers still see eye to eye on a central element of his health care agenda: the requirement that every American obtain medical coverage. It’s obvious why the insurers like this idea. What industry wouldn’t welcome a law that forces everyone to buy its product? But the insurers also argue that a mandate will help control costs, and the president agrees. Judging from the experience in Massachusetts, which imposed its own insurance requirement in 2006, they’re both wrong. … Since 2006, Michael Cannon notes in a recent Cato Institute paper, health insurance premiums in Massachusetts have risen by 8 percent to 12 percent a year, almost double the national average. During the same period, total medical spending has increased by 28 percent. The cost of subsidizing coverage through the state’s Commonwealth Care program is expected to hit $880 million next year, 20 percent more than originally projected. … [W]hen you subsidize something, people tend to consume more of it. Total spending is therefore bound to be higher, whether it’s covered through direct taxes or through the indirect tax of forcing people to pay for insurance they don’t want.”

–columnist Jacob Sullum

A Note from Tim

It’s very simple; when demand rises, supply diminishes, which drives up prices. Government subsidizing healthcare or forcing people to buy it who do not need it reduces supply, making it more expensive. This is a recipe for horrendous inflation of healthcare costs - or severe rationing. Either way, we lose!