Rather than speculate about the competitive effects of a public option or likely costs of federal intervention, we should examine an analogous and recent reference point: American car companies.

Of the three major U.S. automobile manufacturers, Chrysler, General Motors and Ford, only Ford refused government assistance. Chrysler and GM, on the other hand, dipped deep into Uncle Sam's pocket on multiple occasions, claiming that a bankruptcy filing would be catastrophic and that they had new plans for viability that would eventually save the public money. Of course, public assistance did not prevent bankruptcy filings by Chrysler, GM and GM's auto financing arm, GMAC ( GJM - news - people )--the Fannie Mae ( FNM - news - people ) of cars.

To date, the Treasury has poured $13.5 billion into Chrysler, $52.9 billion into GM and $12.5 billion into GMAC, which provides cheap financing for GM and Chrysler purchases and is expected to receive approximately $2 billion in additional financing in the near future. Some policy makers try to sell us on the fanciful notion that these funds are not lost; they are an "investment," just like health care reform would be.

How has that investment turned out thus far? A recent National Taxpayers Union study authored by Rochester Institute of Technology economics professor Thomas D. Hopkins reveals that the $78.9 billion in public funds committed to Chrysler, GM and GMAC equals a $12,200 subsidy for each GM car and a $7,600 subsidy for each Chrysler sold since the bailout.

Isn't it a bit ironic that the Dems answer to competition is to create a government monopoly?

Wouldn't it create more competition to take the monoply powers away from the insurance companies, allow insurance companies to sell policies across state lines and allow people to create pools of insurance?