WEDNESDAY SEPTEMBER 9, 2009Government CompetitionThe healthcare debate continues and President Obama will speak before Congress this evening on the subject. Much has been made of the need for a government or public option. One prominent congressman stated the public option was necessary to provide price competition for insurance companies. In theory, the presence of the public option would keep those evil, profit seeking insurance companies honest and drive the cost of health insurance lower. But wait, isn’t the government (Medicare, Medicaid, Schip, VA) roughly 50% of healthcare already? One would think such a large “competitive” presence would have fostered the elusive cost savings a long time ago. Regardless of where one sits on the healthcare debate, the idea that government must be a market competitor to maintain price discovery should scare everyone. Healthcare today. What industry tomorrow? Any profitable industry will be at risk of the “need” for a government presence to drive down costs. As a consumer, the price of everything is too high! Bring on the competition! As an investor, this is not such a promising concept. Conceptually, every industry would “benefit” (read: less profit and lower stock prices) from government competition. But as the saying goes, “be careful of what you ask for!” After all, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were government sponsored entities established to “compete” in the mortgage market and drive down the cost of homeownership. How did that work out?
POSTED AT 1899-12-30 15:15:00.0 |
KEN ENTENMANN, CFA
|
The opinions expressed here do not represent the views of Alliance Financial Corporation and Alliance Bank, N.A. This communication is not an offer or solicitation for the purchase or sale of any security, is for general informational purposes only and does not provide personalized investment advice. When making personal investment decisions you should consult your investment adviser or rely on your own research. Copyright 2008.