While I’ve found the media coverage of the health care debate to be overly sensational thus far, in a way I don’t really see any other way of covering it, primarily because of the passions it engenders on people from either side of the aisle.

For those who believe the government shouldn’t take on too much power or sway in a person’s life, it’s easy to see how the looming trillion dollar price tag on updating our health care system could seem frightening. And for those who believe the government owes it to its constituency to look after its citizens in a responsible, fair, and decent way, it’s not hard to see why such passion exists for change.

And now we’re beginning to hear news of an alternative option, the public health plan, adding a new wrinkle to the already contentious debate. Though it will drive down premiums due to increased competition, a co-op plan is much harder to define – the details will probably be left up to state governments in terms of how to implement treatment and organize costs – and as a result it has gotten much less coverage, further complicating matters in the eyes of the public.

The New York Times has an excellent piece covering the specifics, but it remains unclear whether this will be a viable option once Congress finishes its recess. But I think it’s important to note that even if it is still on the table at that point, co-op care will only work if it is funded both publicly and privately, and I am of the mind that without a certain amount of charitable donation, it will be impossible.

In either case, if we have any hope of moving the conversation forward, both the public and the politicians need to have a clear idea of what exactly is at stake.

[image via stevenverlander]