Misinterpreting George Will (with a Silver lining)

I'd never read Nate Silver at the FiveThirtyEight blog before, but happened upon his take on a recent George Will column today. Although I think he missed Will's point on this one, I've been missing out by not reading Silver before.

The bad first: Here's the part (a part) of Will's argument against a public option for health insurance that Sliver has a beef with:

Government is incapable of behaving like market-disciplined private insurers. Competition from the public option must be unfair because government does not need to make a profit and has enormous pricing and negotiating powers.

Conservatives nod their heads. Silver does not, and offers this interpretation:

Will's argument is apparently this: The government does not need to make a profit and will have greater leverage with providers; therefore it will deliver the same service for less money. That's unfair!

In fairness to Silver, Will leaves a bit unsaid in his column. Like the difference between price and cost and who will bear what burden. I think most conservatives would (perhaps grudgingly) admit that a public option that truly delivered the same service for less money would be a worthwhile solution to be explored (Constitutionality notwithstanding... that horse has left the barn). However, the problem is that we are skeptical that we will get the same quality and quantity of service, and are certain that "less money" will only be less in terms of what is paid by the recipient of care, not "less money" paid in total, with the difference of course being picked up by taxpayers.

That said, after reading several posts, I found Silver to be a very bright center-left free marketeer who people from all parts of the political spectrum would do well to read. Silver's site was founded for purposes of political predictions (he has a background in making such predictions in another place dear to my heart: Major League Baseball), and does his best to leave ideology at the door.

We need more voices of Silver's demeanor in our collective national dialogue. Civility and honest analysis are all we can ask for, and FiveThirtyEight delivers both. Kudos.