In a otherwise fair July 6th article on Health co-ops, the New York Times Kevin Sack reports:

As Congress and the White House debate a national health care overhaul, many in Washington agree that one reason health premiums have grown at four times the rate of inflation this decade is a dearth of competition. In 40 of 42 states studied by the American Medical Association last year, the two largest health insurers claimed at least half of all enrollment.

Sack then goes on to explain how some Democrats believe government funded co-ops could provide needed competition. But Sack never explains why more government intervention into the market is the only possible solution. Why do 40 of 42 states studied by the AMA have health insurance monopolies? Is the same true of other industries like car and life insurance, eggs, or bread? No. We have national markets in those industries. But not in health insurance.

Among the 50 states, insurance providers are subject to at least 1,824 mandates for medical services, treatments, procedures, and providers. Twenty-nine states require coverage for contraceptives, and 15 states mandate expensive in-vitro fertilization (IVF) coverage.

Instead of creating the next generation of Fannie Maes and Freddie Macs, Congress could simply allow Americans to buy health insurance from any state in the United States. Then you wouldn’t have 40 small monopolies, you would have one large competitive health care market. You think New York Times readers would be sophisticated enough to want to hear about this policy option.