NYT editorial: 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.

Here are some of the basic issues to consider, and the current legislative state of play:

WHO COULD ENROLL? While critics rail against a government takeover of health care, the reality is that the vast majority of Americans — those who have access to health insurance offered by large employers — would not be eligible to enroll in a public plan.

If Congress approves a public plan, it would be sold only on new insurance exchanges to people who now buy their policies directly from private insurers, work for small companies or are uninsured, often because they cannot afford to pay the high premiums charged for people without group coverage.

People eligible to use the exchanges could choose from a menu of private plans and, we hope, a cheaper public plan as well. Subsidies would be provided to help low- and moderate-income people pay their premiums.

(Continued here.)