As you pointed out, most Americans support the general idea of a public option. However, much of that support evaporates when specifics are provided. If the public option is modeled after Medicare, then much of the administrative costs will be borne by the federal government, provided a huge, hidden, subsidy to the public option. Medicare does not collect the premiums (Medicare taxes), it does not pay for the buildings and office space it occupies, it does not pay the salaries of the senior administrators, it does not pay the costs of fraud investigations, etc. These costs are borne by other federal agencies, masking the true cost of Medicare.

A public option similarly structured would have two major adverse consequences. First, these hidden subsidies would have to be paid for, leading to higher taxes. The greater the enrollments in the public option, the greater these costs and the higher taxes will have to be raised. Second, because of the subsidies enjoyed by the public option, it would be able to offer lower premiums than private plans. Consequently, private insurance companies would not be able to compete and would be driven out of business.

Would you support a bill in which private insurers would lower their premiums in return for the federal government collecting their premiums, paying their top executives, paying for their office space, paying for their fraud investigations, etc? If not, why is it appropriate to levy such subsidies on a government run insurance company?

To be clear, the bills in congress do not spell out the details of the "public option." Given the cronyism detailed in this piece and the one with Marcy Kaptur and Simon Johnson, I for one do find the idea of a government run insurance program competing against private companies comforting.

BILL MOYERS JOURNAL | Bill Moyers Essay: The Health Care Lobby | PBS A Bill Moyers essay on the health industry lobby.From:PBSViews:0 0ratingsTime:05:44More inNews & Politics