The issue of whether a public plan would be more successful at bringing costs under control is harder to evaluate. As a prototype for government-run health care, Medicare has failed to control costs and makes little effort to restrict care.This a complete and total lie. Medicare has done a much better job controlling cost than private insurance. The Congressional Budget Office determined that Medicare Advantage, which is insurance for the elderly run by private insurance companies, almost always cost the government more than traditional Medicare. The cost of Medicare has increased at a much slower rate than the private market. A study by health policy expert Jacob Hacker shows that from 1997-2006 the private health insurance annual growth rate was 7.3% per enrollee, while for the same time period the Medicare growth rate was only 4.6%.
Almost all experts agree that a Medicare like public plan would be cheaper than private insurance. The Lewin Group, The Urban Institute, The Commonweath Fund, and the Congressional Budget Office all agree that a public plan structured like the one in the House bill would be cheaper than private insurance.
The reason the health insurance industry is so viciously fighting a public option is because they know it will be able to offer insurance at a lower price. Supporters and opponents of the public plan all agree that a public option would be cheaper than private insurance. To claim it is hard to evaluate if a public plan would control cost is untrue.