Apples, Oranges, ... and Baseballs

I've been meaning to write about this for a while, but have not gotten around to actually doing it. A few weeks ago, a friend of mine on Facebook had the following posted on his (or is it her?) status:

"Libraries didn't put bookstores out of business...Public schools didn't take away a parent's choice to send Junior to a private school...The USPS didn't get in the way of FedEx or UPS...Public transportation doesn't discourage people from buying cars...Why then are people afraid of a public health insurance option? -- If you agree post an pass along."

I saw this and it just frustrated me to no end, because the logic that the author of this statement uses is completely false. It's like comparing apples and oranges, or maybe even apples and baseballs. Further, if you look at the details of pretty much all of these, it supports those who oppose (rather than support) the government issuing health care.

Libraries vs. Book Stores

Libraries rent books, book stores sell them. There is a difference. Imagine a private company wanted to set up a library (without public funds). Do you think they could compete with the library? It would have to charge to survive and would fail. Hence, supporting the argument that the public option would ultimately kill private insurance because it will no doubt receive public funds.

Public Schools vs. Private Schools

This comparison that I have heard several times is extremely faulty. At first, it seems valid, unless you examine how the public school system works. The public school system taxes everyone, whether you use the system or not. If you have no kids, if you send your kids to a private school, if you home-school, you still pay for the service. Hence, you pay for public and private school: double-paying. Thus, if the public option program operated similarly, those who buy their own private insurance would be paying twice. A very good reason to oppose it, if you value your hard earned money. (And if you believe that the public option will pay for itself, I would like to introduce you to two other self-sustaining programs: the bankrupt Social Security program and Medicare).

USPS vs. FedEx or UPS

This is the best argument of all of them, except it still fails. The only way that they compete is with packages, not first class mail. Neither FedEx nor UPS can deliver to your mailbox. That is a government monopoly. Also, anyone hear about USPS needing a bailout because it is broke? If it gets it, like the library, it's receipt of public funds will drown out private business without the ability to stay afloat despite constant losses.

Public Transportation vs. Cars

Like the public schools, who pays for public transportation? Not the riders, that's for sure. So, again, taxpayers pay twice if they own a car and thus again supporting those who feel that the public option will ultimately receive taxpayer funding and drown out private insurance.

In short, people can argue for the public option. But they should do so based on the socialist viewpoints that they hold ("Government should provide all necessities such as health care because we believe governments have that obligation.") Don't try and act like history shows government fiscal success in any other field. Governments do not invest for a economic return, they invest for a political return.