Public option is the way to go

The various “Medicare for All” proposals share many similarities, but also have significant differences. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., is all in with a single-payer approach. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., who many claim has specific plans in different policy areas like immigration and consumer financial protections, is warily uneasy with respect to answering how her Medicare for All proposal would be funded and operate. She continually dodges questions about whether the middle class would face tax increases and whether she would eliminate private insurance and establish a single-payer system.

The public option idea is one in which individuals will have a choice in electing insurance coverage provided by insurance companies or a government-run plan. Proponents of public option systems suggest healthy competition would exist for coverage of a full range of services. Both the government plan and insurance companies would be required to provide a minimum range of services.

Single-payer is an entirely government-run health care system with a fixed benefit package. It would be paid entirely from taxes.

Both approaches have major cost and funding questions. Warren leans toward single-payer but fails to address tax implications, especially for the middle class.

Notably, Medicare Advantage participants are happy with their government/insurance company partnership.

A recent Kaiser Family Foundation poll found 55% of Democrats and independents favor building on the Affordable Care Act, as opposed to single-payer.

The candidates supporting a public option understand that the greatest problem regarding coverage is the population of uninsured and underinsured. Public-option proposals address that.