Reply #13: Honestly, it depends [View All]

Given the plans that Congress is considering, I think a public option is probably necessary. However, you can achieve universal health care without it, theoretically. Both The Netherlands and Switzerland rely on for-profit insurers and an individual mandate, but they heavily regulate their insurers and the government negotiates prices for drugs and procedures. Insurers also have to provide a basic standard package that is priced the same whoever the insurer. The Clintons' 1993 proposals also didn't include a public option but like the Dutch and Swiss systems required a basic minimum package. The Wyden-Bennett bill does the same thing.

My feeling is that the White House has made one big mistake on the public option: they've been way too wishy-washy on it. If "choice and competition" is their line, that should have been their line from the start. And if they favored a public option, then they should have insisted upon it, like they insisted upon other features (the details could have been left to Congress). Instead, by basically promoting the idea, but hinting that it could be dropped they've left everybody confused and guessing their motives, and they've undercut congressional negotiations, in which holdout Dems and the few Republicans (re: Snowe, Collins) who may support it feel free to propose things other than the public plan. They've also encouraged the base and many congressional liberals only to undercut them by hinting the public option could get dropped.