But CBO assumes that the insurance companies are so dishonest that they will game the system to continue to deny coverage due to pre-exsisting conditions and recission - thus dumping the high risk pool on the public option.

But the difference after health reform is enacted from the current scene is that these cherry picking practices will be illegal. The risk averse insurance companies would be flirting with a big legal liability. One well placed lawsuit could put them in deep doo-doo.

CBO's cynical assumption is questionable.

What bothers me is the glib assumption that there is such a thing as a "typical" insurance cost, across the entire range of need from childhood to Medicare. Is it anything more than a statistical artifact if a public plan, unable to exclude the sick and stuck insuring the indigent, found itself with a technically higher average rate? I'm just curious, but how much real significance does this statistic have? Noah seems to be panicked by it, but is it enough to bother anyone else?