I don't understand how health care gets reformed without a public option. Of course, lacking a definition of what the public option is, still leaves the whole reform idea a bit vague. Yet without some type of public option, how is there any incentive for the existing private insurance companies to do anything differently from how they do it now? It seems like the only way private insurance companies are going to change is with a "public option" that provides the same product for less money or more product for the same money as the privates presently charge.

If one version of a public option is to form a massive consumer pool that will comprise a "group" program like the FEHB, that should be a good thing. I have FEHB, and numerous insurers compete to offer plans to obtain gov't. employees' business. It ain't cheap, and it ain't the cradle to grave complete coverage that some folks think all gov't. employees have, but it gives every gov't. employee a shot at competitively priced health insurance programs.

As an aside, I was surprised to read during all this health care debate that members of Congress have exactly the same health insurance options that I do. I had long succumbed to the popular, but wrong, belief that Senators and Congressmen had given themselves total health care 100% paid for by taxpayers. I actually have slightly more respect for them knowing that they don't.

An alternative public option would be one that makes the federal gov't. the "insurance company." That really seems to bother a lot of people, since it's common to believe that the gov't. can't do anything efficiently or competitively. However, if that is the case, than the public option won't be chosen by anyone, because the private insurers would be offering better plans for less money. Seems like insurance companies don't have anything to worry about - - - unless we're all wrong about the gov'ts. ability to provide a more cost competitive health insurance plan.

Sg