As for the last question, you must know the answer.

Nate Silver had an interesting write-up of the polling on the 'public option': in order for a poll to accurately measure it's support, the pollster has to make clear that: 1) it's government run ("public" is too vague) 2) it's an insurance plan, not government doctors or anything like that, 3) it would be a choice, and 4)it cannot be compared to medicare, since it's not entirely comparable, at least in most of the legislation, and using the word 'medicare' tends to inflate the numbers.

So the AARP poll passes the test for the most part.  But I'm curious about the "those who cannot afford private plans" part.  Is that just inexact phrasing, or is anyone thinking of means testing the public option, i.e, making it federal medicaid?

So why, again, are supporters of a public option finding such difficulty in Congress?

Bucauus[sic!] you know who is bought and paid for along with Kent Conrad and Ben Nelson. I am only naming the worst of the worsts.

The polls can't actually measure support for a public plan...I thought the 30-40 point swing depending on the phrasing of the question makes that pretty clear.  The polls indicate low information, not firm attachment to any particular set of plan characteristics.  The difference between suggesting a public plan would "compete with private insurers" and give people a plan to choose "if they couldn't afford" one from a private insurer is pretty slim.

Americans are optimistic about reform, but they are uneasy about private insurance not being able to competete with the public issurance. The early polling about Health care reform was more reflecting anxiety more than discontent.

At anyrate, the GOP are just bluffing, they are using this to gain advantage in the midterm elections and using it at a wedge issue.

The Barack plan is almost the same plan or similar to the plan that Mitt Romney passed in MA and I'm sure if he was president, than McCain he would of used it as well.

Is there a link to this data? A link to the poll?

Please.

Why in the world would I or anyone be "worried" about whether or not the private insurance companys can compete effectively with a public plan? Why is it the job of our govt. to do that? This reform is supposed to be for the good of the people, not to assure the profiteers that they can keep on abusing us with no end in site.

The rightwing nutjobs have a bunch of arguments against the public option, but most are nonsensical or misinformed.

I think the legitimate concern with the "public option" is that it will undercut private insurers, not by greater efficiency or ability to negotiate better economic terms from providers and drug companies, but instead by using taxpayer subsidies to charge prices that don't reflect the true cost.

If a public option can beat private insurers at their own game, then great, but if the only way it can compete is by operating at a loss, then I can at least understand the argument.

You have changed the origin of the study, and still left out the LINK!!

Coulkd you please provide a link