[s1artibartfast]

thats the option that I have always preferred, provided the opt in Medicare/medicaid option is provided at cost to the general public.

If set up this way, I dont see why anyone would reject it. At worst, it would be another option amongst many.

The poison pill would be if opt-in medicare was funded from taxes on the general public who were paying concurrently for their private insurance. Medicaid funding would continue to support the poor.

However, this would only be a start. The real problem with US healthcare is a lack of spending controls. European socialized healthcare refuses to purchase treatment if the cost/Quality of life improvement is too low.

[tptacek]

There are two broad concerns with public-option M4A:

* The resulting customer shifts will result in private insurance becoming more expensive or, worse, exiting some markets, which violates the requirement people have that, in the worst case, their current insurance remain accessible to them.

* The resulting customer shifts will drastically increase the cost of Medicare, threatening the existing program with benefit cuts.

[s1artibartfast]

I agree that those are the public concerns. regarding the second bullet, this is why I suggest a separate pool offered at cost.

Regarding the first, I dont think that this is a forgone conclusion, at least immediately, but admit I haven't thought through how the transition would work. With any public option gaining members, there are bound to be insures that lose them.