While sitting in the doctor's office I took a few minutes to consider how different it might be if Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats are successful in giving the federal government even more power over our health care options.

I paid a reasonable co-pay, was seen without much of a wait, etc. Now, listening to the Democrats, it would seem my experience was unusual. In fact, it's much more the norm: the overwhelming majority of Americans are satisfied with the health care they receive.

The key issue is whether more government involvement of the type the liberals are advocating will make the situation better for those who are uninsured, without making care worse for the vast majority of Americans who carry health insurance and are generally satisfied with their level of care.

Instead of advancing narrowly tailored legislation aimed at expanding health insurance coverage opportunities and lowering costs by expanding competition, the health care "crisis" is instead being taken as an excuse for a massive expansion of the federal government's involvement in our health.

The so-called "public option" is the most obvious abuse of this excuse. Liberals argue having the government compete directly with private insurers is important to driving down costs and increasing competition. What a misguided assessment. In fact, there is plenty of competition among private insurers today, and the easiest way to expand that competition without a big new federal bureaucracy would be to allow private insurers to compete across state lines, something the Democrats refuse to allow.

Some tort reform would also help bring down the cost of "defensive medicine," but the Democrats are reluctant to take on their masters in the trial bar.

Instead, they want the feds to offer the same kind of insurance policies to citizens that private insurers currently offer. Of course, government would then be in the position of both setting the rules, and competing by those rules. This is the equivalent of the Chargers playing the Jets while all the referees are employed by the Jets. Additionally, the federal insurance "company" would have one thing the private insurers do not have: access to the U.S. Treasury for whatever subsidies Congress decides to provide.

Liberals argue that because the government would not take money "out" of the system for "profits," more money would go to providing health care than under private insurers. Right. Let's see how that worked in Germany: Volkswagen takes money "out" for profits, while the East German government took no profits for their "Trabants." Which car would you rather drive?

To be even more practical, take the argument to its logical conclusion: what if the federal government ran the entire health care system, as many liberals want? How would your health care experience change? I kept having images of sitting around a DMV office, or the pleasant experience of the U.S. Post Office, popping into my head while in the doctor's office.

The bottom line is that there are plenty of improvements that can be made to America's health care system, and many of the problems are the result of government involvement in the first place. More competition, more transparency, and more options on a level playing field are the way to get there. Those are some of the solutions Republicans are advocating. Democrats should listen.