The Health Affairs Blog recently hosted a roundtable discussion on the issue of whether Americans should be offered the option of choosing a public health insurance option alongside private plans. Frankly, we haven't seen a roundtable this good since our last trip to Medieval Times (Free admission for Mom on Mother's Day weekend!!).

All sides of the issue were well-represented with the noble trio of Stuart Butler from the Heritage Foundation, Jacob Hacker from UC Berkeley, and Len Nichols from New America providing a thorough survey of the policy landscape that touched on things like:

• What exactly is a public health insurance plan?
• How would a public plan control costs?  
• Under what conditions would a public plan shift costs to providers and private players?
• Can rules and regulations be constructed to ensure fair competition on a level playing field between public and private plans?

These questions set the table for the provocative and productive discussion and they're the kinds of questions that should drive the policymaking process. Unfortunately, at times early in this health care debate, that has not been the case. Yet, as Hacker noted at the conclusion of the roundtable:

I know we all agree on the pressing need for reform. I certainly hope, as does Len, that the issue of the public plan can be dealt with in a civil way that reflects the concerns expressed on both sides of the debate.

Health Affairs has the summary of the highlights of the debate, as well as a complete transcript of the roundtable. For more on how a public health insurance option might be structured to compete with private plans on a level playing field check out New America's policy paper: A Modest Proposal for a Competing Public Health Plan.