But the proposal would also cost more than $1 trillion over 10 years, according to a preliminary analysis from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.
That price tag has stirred concern among fiscally conservative lawmakers and lobbying groups, and has drawn questions from insurance firms about whether the cost of the proposal is warranted.
Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff, a member of the fiscally conservative Blue Dog Coalition of House Democrats, has expressed some support for the proposal, despite his reservations about its cost.
His stance drew criticism from conservative lobbyists, who questioned why Schiff chose not to sign onto a letter from the coalition expressing concern about the expense of the proposal and the need for a public option.
While Schiff was concerned about the price of the plan, he felt a public program would be important in creating competition and pushing down health-care costs, he said.
“A lot of the health insurance markets are monopolies so health insurance premiums are rising at breakneck speeds, and you have runaway health-care costs because in many markets there’s simply no competition,” he said.
He hoped a public option that offered quality care at low costs would help change that.
Schiff has signed onto other letters expressing reservations about the program’s costs, but said a competitive public program would be a vital part of any attempt at health-care reform.
“I would be very loath to support anything without a public option,” he said.
But a public plan may not be helpful in lowering costs and may actually have adverse effects on the health care system, private insurers say.
