What commentators are saying about the Senate's public plan option

Inclusion of a public insurance option in the Senate health system reform bill has helped revive the controversy over whether a public option should be part of health reform. Newspaper editorial writers and a columnist weigh in on the value of a government-run health insurance option.

Public option comes back from the dead

Government-run health care is back where it should be -- on the table. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid put it there Monday [Oct. 26] when he said health care legislation headed to the Senate floor will include a public option. It's unclear whether he will have the 60 votes needed to thwart a Republican filibuster, but there's no denying that it will be a better bill if it includes a program in which the government competes with private insurers. Without such competition, the overhauled health care system would seem destined to perpetuate this country's soaring insurance premiums. Oregonian (Portland), Oct. 26

Baucus plan comes up shy on coverage

Getting rid of the public option was a condition for the vote of Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, the lone Republican to support the reform plan in committee. She opposes enlarging the federal government, which is also a valid concern. It seems to us, though, that the public option is a more streamlined way to achieve reform's goals than a new bureaucracy to police 50 state insurance markets to be sure that insurers aren't illegally denying coverage and cherry-picking customers. A self-supporting public option would keep insurers honest by injecting real competition into the market. This would help make universal coverage affordable, while insurers would profit from an influx of millions of new customers. Lexington (Ky.) Herald-Leader, Oct. 18

The unhealthy "public option"

A "public option" might duplicate one of Medicare's means of saving money: limiting reimbursements to doctors and hospitals to far less than what private insurers pay. But 19 health care organizations that support reform explained the flaw in that approach. "Under the current Medicare system, a majority of doctors and hospitals that care for Medicare patients are paid substantially less than it costs to treat them," they said in an open letter to Congress. "Many providers are therefore already approaching a point where they cannot afford to see Medicare patients." Last year, the government's Medicare Payment Advisory Commission reported that 29% of recipients who were looking for a primary care physician had trouble finding one. Skimpy reimbursements lower Medicare's costs. But if a new government-run plan tries the same trick, it will have trouble attracting providers and therefore patients. If it pays the same rates as private insurers, it will lose that big competitive edge. Chicago Tribune, Oct. 29, Op-ed by Steve Chapman, a Tribune editorial board member

Real battle starts now

If health "reform" in its current form eventually dies in Congress this year, that would hardly be a tragedy. It would be an opportunity to rethink the system, recognize that the problem is not too little government involvement but too much, and develop proposals that might actually reduce health care costs. Northwest Florida Daily News, Oct. 20

The public plan, continued

In the debate over health care reform, no issue has produced more fury and sound bites than the question of whether to include a government-run insurance plan. It is not indispensable, and its role would be limited. Even so, we strongly support inclusion of a public option -- the bigger and stronger the better. That is the best way to give consumers more choices, inject more competition into insurance markets, hold down the cost of insurance policies and save money for the federal budget. New York Times, Oct. 17