A lot of people (yours truly included) lose interest very quickly when presented with the health care debate. It's not a sexy topic - thinking about sick and injured people isn't fun at the best of times, and when you throw budgets, cost analysis, regulatory reform, and complicated acronyms that they don't recognize or understand, it's hard to keep from wondering whether the Braves won last night or what Jon and Kate have been up to lately. But there's a good, practical comparison you can make that many people will easily understand: public transit.
Public transit has been around for ages in this country. It's a network of systems that provide transportation for millions upon millions of people. Everyone has ridden a bus, most of us have been aboard a subway or light rail train before, and we all have at least a passing familiarity with how effective public transit can be at getting us from point A to point B. We also know that if public transit isn't sufficient for our transportation needs, we have plenty of other options.
One of the commonly cited fears by opponents of the public option is that "Government bureaucrats will be in charge of making your health care decisions for you." Public transit planners are in charge of making transportation decisions for you. They establish routes that try to maximize the number of riders served and minimize the costs associated with it. The public option would work in a similar fashion - by attempting to maximize the number of people who benefit from the services it provides. But the beauty of our transportation system is that if you don't want or need to go where public transit is taking you, you can drive yourself or simply take a cab. Sure, it's more expensive, but it's YOUR CHOICE. The same goes for the public health care option. Don't like the services or options it provides? Get private insurance! Nobody is stopping you - that's why it's called the public "option."
Another concern is that there won't be any flexibility in the system. If a transit route or schedule isn't successful or cost-effective enough, it gets modified to better suit the riders. Why would a public health care option be any different?
A lot of people feel that public transit is for those too poor or irresponsible to provide their own transportation. That's a pretty unsympathetic viewpoint, which makes it worth asking: what do you do when your OWN car breaks down? Skip work? Walk everywhere? Wouldn't it be nice to have a robust public transit system as a safety net? To know that when hard luck hits you, you'll have the option of taking that train to work or riding a bus over to the grocery store? Health care should be the same way.
And finally, for those lamenting that private insurance couldn't possibly compete with a government-sponsored plan, let's remember that the government has been providing public transportation for dozens of years - and it certainly hasn't put a dent in the private transportation industry. When was the last time you saw a shortage of cars on the road? When was the last time you saw an oil company file for bankruptcy because people weren't buying enough fuel? Public transit leaves gaps, and there's no way it could work perfectly for everyone, just like a public health insurance option can't possibly work perfectly for every citizen. There's probably some great opportunities for private industry to step in and make some great money filling up these gaps. I wonder if they'd be interested?