// Below is my National Journal Health Experts answer to "Will New 'Public Option' Fare Better?"

It's almost as if they want to give the GOP an excuse to make the election even more about health care than it's already going to be... maybe they really do believe that the bill is going to be a net positive in the eyes of voters.

There was no other provision during the legislative debate that was nearly as divisive, or as enraging to the grassroots, as the government-run "option". Even the Blue Dogs balked at the idea of this one (which uses Medicare rates "plus a little"). We know that a plan like this would make everyone else's health care more expensive, and thus end up being the only plan as people were forced to migrate into it... and once it is the only plan, time for all the problems you see in countries with single-payer (have your pick: waiting lines, government rationing, shortages, etc.).

We have been through all the rotten things about this proposal over and over on this blog. See here, or here, or here. It would be a deficit nightmare, as it becomes a gigantic Medicare program covering all Americans (even if forcing doctors to accept artificially low payments is a good way to game a CBO score).Perhaps this proposal is an attempt to rally the despondent base, but it seems more like a political gaffe. Remember the Kaiser polls that repeatedly showed that when you surround this issue with lovey-dovey rhetoric, people are neutral, but as soon as you mention possible consequences of a government-run health plan, people become vastly opposed?

I think the "Repeal and Replace" caucus is going to owe the Progressive Caucus a nice thank-you note for this one.