US senate on health care reform

The Los Angeles Times reported the result of a vote by the US Senate with the headline

Key Senate panel votes down 'public option' for healthcare.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-healthcare30-2009sep30,0,2490541.story

The crux of the issue seems to be "Republicans, however, argue that the government program soon would turn from an option into a dominant force. As Grassley put it, "The government is not a competitor. It is a predator.""

I wonder who the prey is. I suspect the reference is made to an issue of predatory pricing, where the public purse is believed intrinsically incapable of avoiding unfair competition so would use predatory pricing to kill its competitors, the private insurance companies.

I'm not sure that it's fair to refer to any government agency as a predator, but it is possible that private insurers could not compete with a public insurer because they cannot be as effective.

What's the point of the human endeavour known as healthcare? It it to help people live longer, better, more productive lives with a more desirable quality of life? If that's the point, then that's the measure of effectiveness.

If the point is to make sure legitimate businesses remain viable and offer reward to their owners, employees and customers, then perhaps the public option is not so effective.

I think that's the issue to be decided. What do people in society want? What delivery mechanism is most effective at achieving that?

Sounds simple doesn't it? Asking what delivery mechanism is most effective at delivering that is where the trouble begins. Do we focus on the health of people in the immediate, one person at a time? Do we focus on the health of people beyond a person's lifetime, one society at a time?

I'm of the opinion that going beyond one person and one person's lifetime is irrelevant to human health.

I wish the Senators well. They have hard work ahead of them.

Mike