Government Competition To Grow Economy?
Posted by Daniel Moran
Government control of all industry is communism. Government control of certain industries but government regulation of others is socialism (I personally adhere to this). Government control of little to no industries is capitalism. Instead of any of these where the government controls, or doesn’t, industries for the benefit of the people/consumer/worker/etc., what about the government being involved in these industries as a form of competition to spur growth and innovation?
Something similar to this was proposed with the public option, where those who could not afford private insurance could opt to have government subsidised health insurance. During the debate surrounding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as “Obamacare,” the public option was scrapped in place of an individual mandate that required all Americans to have a form or private insurance or face a penalty.
The argument made in favour of the individual mandate, which was proposed by Republicans in place of the public option (I cannot stress that enough), was that private insurers would not be able to compete with a form of insurance that was built to be non-profit. All, if not most, of their clients would go for cheaper healthcare and still get similar results.
So? What is so bad about that?
If Republicans and conservatives think that competition is good, would it not be best to have such harsh competition so that private health insurers have to cut the costs of their plans and improve benefits, thereby benefiting the consumer? Why not have government competition from the auto industry and computers and everything else in between? Government competition will make private industries have to constantly do better than their competition, spurring technological and economical growth and innovation.
Let’s say General Motors all of a sudden becomes Government Motors (some have actually called it that since the auto bailouts), which is now basically a department of the federal government, and begins researching, designing (with tax-payer money), and eventually putting out cars that are cheap, extremely fuel-efficient (if not hybrids or electric), and built to last; all of which is not profit driven, similar to the public option. That would drive companies like Ford, Toyota, Honda, etc. to make better cars than GM.
The same can be said of any industry. Government starts making computers better than Apple or HP or anyone. Internet service which is faster and more reliable. Food which is organically and ethically grown. Medicine. Furniture. Television. Houses and apartments. Mortgages and loans. Whatever else is out there. This is not to make someone rich. This is to legitimately benefit the people who cannot afford certain things or have a hard time doing it.
These are just ideas that have sprung up from talking to people. What are your thoughts? Should the government get involved in certain industries, not to turn a profit, but to provide goods and services to the people in cost-effective ways so as to improve the quality of life for everyone, not just those who can afford it?
About Daniel MoranDaniel Moran is the Texas Volunteer Network Coordinator for the Secular Student Alliance, Social Media Director for the North Texas Secular Convention, and President of the Secular Student Alliance at the University of North Texas.
Posted on July 17, 2012, in Politics and tagged affordable care act, auto industry, competition, free market, general motors, government competition, government competition to grow economy, government motors, healthcare, obamacare, socialism. Bookmark the permalink. Leave a Comment.