But perhaps we could add a provision that would prohibit the companies from charging individuals more than say 15% above what their least expensive group rates are? That would cut out a lot of the price discrimination between individual rates and group rates, but it would not place an explicit limit on what they can charge.

“Actually the wording was quite explicit – “Would you favor or oppose the government offering everyone a government administered health insurance plan – something like the Medicare coverage that people over 65 get – that would compete with private insurance plans?”

If that doesn’t say “public option”, I don’t know what does.

And 66% said they’d favor such a plan.”

in reply to my:

Very well-taken. But the wording of the survey makes no mention of “public option,” but only a “Medicare-like” plan. Since most people have only a vague understanding of the details of the distinction between the PO and “Medicare for All,” I suspect the 66% approval figure doesn’t refer to simply a PO, but to some combination of various PO types and Medicare support. Surveys like this one, rarely take the trouble to define their terms before they ask questions. For that reason it’s very tricky to infer conclusions about what they favor from the data.”

So the issue is not whether the wording says PO to you or to I, or to someone who knows what a PO is, but whether the wording actually says:

“Would you favor or oppose a public option, by which we mean the government offering everyone a government administered health insurance plan – something like the Medicare coverage that people over 65 get – that would compete with private insurance plans?”

My point was that the PO was not defined in the survey, therefore the claim that 66% favored the PO requires an inference not supported by the survey; specifically the inference that people associate the term PO with:

“. . . the government offering everyone a government administered health insurance plan – something like the Medicare coverage that people over 65 get – that would compete with private insurance plans?”

If you need proof that people don’t associate PO with than unambiguously consider that HR 3200 and the Senate HELP bill are both referred to as public option bills but neither one has the government “. . . offering everyone. . .” a government administered health insurance plan. Do they?

In brief the term “PO” is now incredibly vague, so to say that the survey in question has 66% of the people favoring the PO is a distortion. The result is that that 66% of the people favor a very specific form of PO that is not on the table right now. Moreover, that survey says “favor,” it does not say “favor over x, y, or z.” So the survey doesn’t address the question of how many favor that type of PO over other types of PO or over “Medicare for All.”

If that doesn’t say “public option”, I don’t know what does.

And 66% said they’d favor such a plan.