The New York Times is out in front with an early endorsement of a public health insurance option as part of any plan to fix health care:

A new public plan - to offer consumers greater choice, keep the private plans honest and, one can hope, restrain the relentless growth in health care premiums and underlying medical costs - seems worth trying.

The editorial does an excellent job of outlining the savings and benefits that would be accrued for both patients and businesses as a result of a public health insurance option. It would cut down administrative costs, reduce premiums, and improve stability of coverage for consumers.

The article also quells anti-reform groups' arguments that a public health insurance option would end employer-based health insurance as we know it. According to the Times, "[i]nnovative, nimble private plans with well-integrated service systems might outperform any government plan, just as some now outperform Medicare through better coordination of services, stronger preventive care and broader benefits."

There's a general consensus that you can't fix health care with one silver bullet. Real reform requires a smart mix of policies that will address issues of access, quality, and cost. But, as the Times points out, a public health insurance option is an essential ingredient.