Don't practically all the criticisms against M4All also apply to the public option?

[TexasTowelie]

10. When I was a state employee I actually had several choices.

There were usually four or five options to choose from. One insurance company offered a HMO and a PPO plan. There were also other insurance plans offered so I could choose on factors such as which doctors within the various plans and the premium deducted from each paycheck (which wasn't relevant since the state paid the entire premium for all employee only plans), If I was having difficulty with my health insurance provider I could switch to a different plan each year during the enrollment period.

I only had one health insurance plan available when I was employed in the private sector, so the public option would have been a nice alternative to choose from, particularly if my employer was willing to pay the same premium amount for the public option plan vs. the private insurer plan.

You also asked where the money is going to come from to finance the public option? The obvious answer is that it comes from the customer who pays the premium. The customer has the choices of paying the premium for the employee-sponsored plan, paying the premium for the public-option plan, searching for and paying the premiums for plans that aren't associated with either of the other two options, or go bare without coverage. With the M4A proposal the consumer loses the ability to make those choices, they are taxed (even if they find a provider who is not involved with the M4A program), and they are required to put blind faith into a government program that has an emphasis on controlling costs rather than patient outcomes.

Unfortunately, I haven't seen any mention in the M4A programs that balances the cost control aspect with the patient outcome aspect. Ultimately, a M4A plan could easily morph if a Republican administration returns to power after a M4A proposal is adopted. And we know what the Republican health care plan is--let them die.