re:  Preferred option:  Public option should be part of health care reform — with no opt-out by states

I was disappointed (though not surprised) to see the Chronicle editorial board endorse the so-called "public option" — a government-run health insurance program, based on mandates and prohibitions, to supposedly provide "meaningful competition" in the health insurance marketplace.  Unfortunately, it isn't freedom in the marketplace that limits competition; rather, government mandates against buying across state lines and against group plans limit the pool of competitors.  If government were to remove those barriers, consumers would instantly have more options in a competitive marketplace.

But the Chronicle goes further beyond the pale when it advocates a "public option" that is modeled on the Medicare system, claiming that it "provides for seniors in an efficient and cost-effective way".  Apparently the Chronicle editorialists haven't read the 2009 Report of the Medicare Trustees (available at www.ssa.gov), which talks about "growing deficits", "financial difficulties" and says that Medicare "again fails our test of short-range financial adequacy" and "continues to fail our long range test of close actuarial balance by a wide margin".  Medicare is a looming financial disaster, neither "cost effective" nor "efficient".

President Obama himself said it best when he pointed out that it is the US Post Office that is consistently having financial and operational difficulties, not FedEx or UPS.  The answer to opening up a competitive marketplace for health insurance isn't more government mandates and prohibitions, it is more power in the hands of consumers.  The "public option" does not help the public.

Sincerely,

Dave Smith
Houston, TX