Health Care Public Option

Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo makes the case that opposition to a "public option" in health care reform in the name of a "free-market" approach may actually be about preventing competition.

This won't come as the slightest surprise to those versed in health care policy issues. But I fear it's only barely permeated the health care reform debate in the country, certainly in Washington. And that's this: the opposition to a so-called 'public option' comes almost entirely from insurance companies who have developed monopolies or near monopolies in particular geographic areas. And they don't want competition.

Note, I'm not saying more competition. I'm saying any competition at all. As Zack Roth explains in this new piece 94% of the health care insurance market is now under monopoly or near-monopoly conditions -- the official term of art is 'highly concentrated'. In other words, there's no mystery why insurance costs keep going up even as the suck quotient rises precipitously. Because in most areas there's little or no actual competition.

The Roth post referred to by Marshall points out that the "highly concentrated" markets are in largely rural states like Alabama, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Alaska, Vermont, Maine, Montana, Wyoming, Arkansas and Iowa in which a single insurer owns over 80% of the market.

--Ballard Burgher