A level playing field between private and public insurance is not a legitimate public policy goal, better more effective health of the people is.
Just to try to fathom, for a moment, the minds of those who say they want a level playing field: As I see it, "efficient allocation of resources" is a legitimate public policy goal. If one finds a way to structurally favor the public plan, _despite_ the fact that it allocates resources inefficiently, then there would be legitimate complaints against that. For example, if the public plan was tax-subsidized, I would see "uneven playing field" as the following legitimate complaint: the public plan could be _worse_, by all available measures, than any private plan, and yet might still outcompete them due if it had heavy subsidies. This would be a negative outcome for everyone, and I think this is the outcome envisioned by those who complain about the evenness of playing fields.
So to me, the right answer to "uneven playing field" is "show me where resources would be allocated inefficiently". An uneven playing field which can't pass that test is potentially bad; one which can is potentially good.
Mind you, I _also_ suspect that most of the people who complain about level playing fields are under the misimpression that the public option WOULD BE subsidized. So if you don't directly attack that point, you may not get through to many.
(BTW, I am arguing here entirely under the hypothetical view that subsidized public healthcare would be bad. This is not because I hold that belief; I just want to point out what people who DO hold that belief are probably intending to argue about.)
no subject
Just to try to fathom, for a moment, the minds of those who say they want a level playing field: As I see it, "efficient allocation of resources" is a legitimate public policy goal. If one finds a way to structurally favor the public plan, _despite_ the fact that it allocates resources inefficiently, then there would be legitimate complaints against that. For example, if the public plan was tax-subsidized, I would see "uneven playing field" as the following legitimate complaint: the public plan could be _worse_, by all available measures, than any private plan, and yet might still outcompete them due if it had heavy subsidies. This would be a negative outcome for everyone, and I think this is the outcome envisioned by those who complain about the evenness of playing fields.
So to me, the right answer to "uneven playing field" is "show me where resources would be allocated inefficiently". An uneven playing field which can't pass that test is potentially bad; one which can is potentially good.
Mind you, I _also_ suspect that most of the people who complain about level playing fields are under the misimpression that the public option WOULD BE subsidized. So if you don't directly attack that point, you may not get through to many.
(BTW, I am arguing here entirely under the hypothetical view that subsidized public healthcare would be bad. This is not because I hold that belief; I just want to point out what people who DO hold that belief are probably intending to argue about.)