I'm not sure I agree, Reg. If the primary concern about a public option is the potential for runaway tax burdens, then the issue of verification of eligibility ought to be automatic. The fact that it's not concerns people and rightly so. It's not a difficult issue to solve, and it's certainly not a reason to not have a public option . . . unless the problem remains unsolved.

I also think you and Pat are talking around one another to some extent. I think that when Pat discusses the US health care system as "best in the world," he's thinking of amazing ligament surgeries, cancer cures, etc. Big profits help fund the research that makes all that possible (and diffuses the learnings into publicly-supported plans elsewhere in the world).

But having said that, we can't get around the cold hard fact that for all the benefits of that great "system," we aren't terribly healthy, so what's the point. Conservatives consistently overlook the reality that the health care burden (cost) to Amerian businesses is way out of line compared to the rest of the world. This, combined with unusually high corporate taxes, is not a recipe for job growth. In theory and I think in practice, greater availablity of basic preventive health care should reduce the cost of the big ticket items that add so much cost to our system. Likewise, competition from a public plan should serve to help keep costs from private insurers down. During the past ten years, typical annual raises have been 3-4% to keep up with inflation, but most peoples' health care premiums have been going up 5-15% each year. This is unsustainable.

I'd like to see the legal resident issue addressed in the bill, but I can't see a reason NOT to implement a public option that covers at least very basic care.