Axelrod vs. Blitzer on health care

President Obama time and again has -- correctly -- decried the lack of competition in the health care market, noting states such as Alabama where near monopolies exist. Obama then uses this fact to advocate for the establishment of a "public option" health care insurance plan run by the government, ostensibly to provide genuine competition in the insurance market.

If increased competition, however, is Obama's goal, why not simply allow people in all 50 states to purchase insurance in other states? It would cost the government nothing, and in one fell swoop would drastically expand choice, competition and drive down prices. David Axelrod's appearance on CNN proves there is no good answer to this question:



When asked why Obama simply doesn't expand interstate competition Axelrod hems and haws, never really providing a direct response. I imagine Axelrod's need to dodge and equivocate is necessary because a more accurate reply would go something like this:

Look Wolf, the goal here really isn't to expand competition or drive down prices, it's to increase the role of government in health care and eventually set the stage for a complete takeover. While we can't do that right away, a public option is a great way to get the ball rolling.

The fact that so many advocates of government-run health care bemoan the high price of insurance and lack of competition, while refusing to even entertain the one cost-free measure that would immediately help alleviate both, shows just how ideologically driven this whole exercise is.

(HT: Michael Cannon)