July 27, 2009 10:18AM 

# Why a “Public Option” Is Hazardous to Your Health 

By Cato Editors 

---

<a class="js-popover-trigger cursor-pointer popover-trigger" data-bs-placement="bottom" data-bs-trigger="click" id="popover-trigger"> 

SHARE 

</a> 

President Obama and other leading Democrats have proposed creating a new government health insurance program as an “option” for Americans under the age of 65. In [a new study](https://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10382), Cato scholar [Michael F. Cannon](https://www.cato.org/people/michael-cannon) shows that government programs cost more and deliver lower-quality care than private insurance. “If Congress wants to make health care more efficient and increase competition in health insurance markets, there are far better options,” argues Cannon.

[Fannie Med? Why a “Public Option” Is Hazardous to Your Health, Cato Policy Analysis No. 642](https://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10382)

##### Related Tags 

[Health Care](https://www.cato.org/health-care) 

[![Creative Commons License](/build/cato_2020/images/creative-commons.svg)](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/) 
This work is licensed under a [Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/).