THis is where the subject of polling pisses me off. The lib hacks at Slate now allege a large majority of folks support a "Public Option". In no poll is the term public option defined. Moreover, seeing that the various proposals slithering their way through the House and Senate are only summary proposals, NO ONE, can intelligently comment on any of this.

Here is what is lacking to date: Who will pay; how much will they pay; how will it affect my present coverage? Until we know those answers, how in the hell can you poll intelligently.

It does seem rather odd for journalists to be slinging accusations of lying at each other over public support for an ill-defined and unknown concept such as a 'public option'. What's next? Slate's expose on how the WSJ described Santa Claus incorrectly?

While some details have yet to be hammered out, the contours of the public option are clear. The public health plan will be administered by the government and be supported in a revenue neutral manner by the premiums it collects from the customers who choose to sign up. Like a private carrier, it will negotiate with service providers to get the best deal it can for its customers. It presently appears that premiums will be based on household income and capped at a maximum percentage of gross earnings.

If you are against this, I am going to make two predictions: 1.. You already have health care and 2. Someone else is paying for it, probably your employer.

While some details have yet to be hammered out, the contours of the public option are clear. The public health plan will be administered by the government and be supported in a revenue neutral manner by the premiums it collects from the customers who choose to sign up. Like a private carrier, it will negotiate with service providers to get the best deal it can for its customers. It presently appears that premiums will be based on household income and capped at a maximum percentage of gross earnings.

If you are against this, I am going to make two predictions: 1.. You already have health care and 2. Someone else is paying for it, probably your employer.

How can a plan be revenue neutral when the premiums are based on income level. The higher income participants will be paying much higher premiums than low income subscribers who will obviously make up a large part of the so called " public option". This means that the plan will not be competitive on the high income subscriber side and require government subsidy (that's not revenue nrutral) or they will mandate reimbursement rates for their providers (like Medicare) that are so low no one will want to accept it. The only way a public option can exist is with government subsidy and more public debt.

"The higher income participants will be paying much higher premiums than low income subscribers"

Umm.. ok so which plan are you talking about then? I haven't heard this detail for any of the proposals so far.

"and require government subsidy (that's not revenue nrutral)"

Low income individuals will be receiving subsidies regardless of the insurer they choose. Its a necessary tradeoff to get them into the insurance pool. So the public option will be just as revenue neutral as all the private options.

"The only way a public option can exist is with government subsidy and more public debt."

That sounds like a statement of faith. Why can't a government agency run an insurance company exactly like the private companies, except that it only needs to break even instead of make a profit?

If you really believe what you have in your email then you have swallowed the koolaid. Any public option will jack up the deficits we are enduring. The government never correctly estimates costs.

"THis is where the subject of polling pisses me off. The lib hacks at Slate now allege a large majority of folks support a "Public Option". In no poll is the term public option defined."

If you read the article, which I doubt, Noah gives the exact wording of the questions:

"Would you support or oppose having the government create a new health insurance plan to compete with private health insurance plans?" 57% of respondents said yes.

"Do you favor … [c]reating a government-administered public health insurance option similar to Medicare to compete with private health insurance plans?" 57% of respondents said yes.

Is that too hard for you to understand?