Writing in the D.C. Examiner about the growing acrimony between the press and the Obama Administration, Chris Stirewalt offers this:

When asked recently about the administration’s endless evasions on the public option, (Press Secretary Robert) Gibbs instead opted to define a monopoly.

“If you had one place to eat lunch before you came to the briefing, do you think it would be cheap?” Gibbs demanded of CNN’s Ed Henry.

Henry should have asked Gibbs to define monopsony: a market in which one buyer is so large that it can control suppliers and ruin competitors. Henry could then explain he’d rather pay too much for the sandwich he wanted than have to eat at a government chow line opened across the street to encourage “competition.”

Not bad. And all too true. But the real problem is that the government chow line would be long. Real long. And the food, while it would start cheaper, wouldn't be in the long run unless they cut down on the portions dramatically.

Look at Medicare. It's reimbursement rates to doctors are lower than for profit insurance company's and yet it's an totally unsustainable, transfer payment Ponzi scheme, due to be bankrupt in just a few years. Unless, of course, the government raises taxes astronomically on younger workers.

The saying "There is no such thing as a free lunch" has never been more apt.