Cats and Dogs Sleeping Together

| Wed Jul. 29, 2009 3:44 PM EDT

Andrew Sullivan responds to my post last night suggesting that in the long run community rating is more important than having a public option in the healthcare reform bill:

But how do you contain costs after you have mandated coverage? The health care industry will make more money if everyone is covered. If you don't make them commit to serious concessions, such as the public plan, this time around, how are you going to do that in the future? The answer, I'm afraid, is: you won't. Onto receivership for the US! But more people will be healthy as the dollar collapses and the economy implodes.

Let me get this straight.  Andrew Sullivan is arguing for greater federal intervention in the healthcare market?  Because that's the only way to hold down costs?

I feel like I'm living in Bizarro world.  But hey — I'm all for a public option.  I suspect it would have only a modest effect on long-term healthcare costs — which is pretty much the way I feel about every other proposal to rein in spending too — but modest is still better than nothing.  In any case, I guess this means Andrew, Mickey, and I are all in agreement on something.  Weird.