Government shouldn’t interfere

It was surprising to read your April 29 editorial praising the law allowing the government to require a private company to spend a certain amount on its product or return a portion of what is paid for that product to the consumer (health insurers must spend 80 percent of premiums on medical care rather than other business expenses).

You praised that government intrusion in private enterprise, saying it encouraged “efficiency” and would have a “sentinel effect” likely to produce more savings for consumers.

Perhaps the government could interfere in other business ventures so we as consumers could pay less for their products. For example, our life insurance, car insurance and other similar type policies could be less expensive. Oil companies could be told they would have to spend less on salaries of their managers and directors so the price of gas could be lower. A monopolistic energy company could be required to lower the cost of a product within a certain time after the wholesale price to the company drops.

This idea could extend to other companies making products like groceries and newspapers cheaper.

How can government interference into private companies be good when the government cannot run itself well?

Don Brockett

Spokane