The first is that I suspect that Ezra and others understate the extent to which even a public plan with limited bargaining power will help hold down overall costs. . . . Second, a public plan would probably provide the only real competition in many markets.
Third — and this is where I am getting a very bad feeling about the idea of throwing in the towel on the public option — is the politics. Remember, to make reform work we have to have an individual mandate. And everything I see says that there will be a major backlash against the idea of forcing people to buy insurance from the existing companies. That backlash was part of what got Obama the nomination! Having the public option offers a defense against that backlash.
. . . Let me add a sort of larger point: aside from the essentially circular political arguments — centrist Democrats insisting that the public option must be dropped to get the votes of centrist Democrats — the argument against the public option boils down to the fact that it’s bad because it is, horrors, a government program. And sooner or later Democrats have to take a stand against Reaganism — against the presumption that if the government does it, it’s bad.
(Emphasis supplied.) Let me add to Krugman's point that I highlighted. The public option is more than just a political safety valve to the mandate. It will be THE vehicle that can be expanded to meet this political demand. More people will want in.
As I wrote earlier, Ezra has defended incrementalism but attacks it with respect to the public option. On policy grounds there simply is no defense for Ezra's hypocrisy. Then it must be politics. My impression is Ezra does not really care about the public option (certainly his right) and does not want it to derail initiatives he considers more important.
This is a perfectly respectable position to hold - but hold it honestly. Do not hold yourself out as a public option "supporter" when you have been arguing for months that it does not matter. Truth in advertising please.
Speaking for me only
