360 Degrees: Health Care

I don't know how closely people are following the health care debate, but it seems that Congress will probably begin voting on bills relatively soon. The most controversial (and in my opinion, most important) part of the debate is about the public option, a government run insurance plan that would compete with the private insurance companies.
Supporters of the public option argue that in America's current system, insurance companies overcharge for coverage and cherry-pick the healthiest customers, making it impossible for the poor or ill to get coverage. We pay the most in the world for health care, yet our life expectancy is lower than many other countries and the World Health Organization ranked our system 37th in the world. The government can insure these people for less, negotiate for lower prices, set standards for high-quality care and force private insurers to measure up.
Opponents have raised a number of objections. They argue that Americans do get the best care--by some measures, such as cancer survival rates, we really do lead the world. Many object that nobody can compete with a company that writes the rules, funds itself with its competitors' taxes and has no obligation to make a profit. Government attempts at cost control, they say, will inevitably lead to reduced quality and rationing of care.
Personally, I am opposed to a public option, a position I like to think I arrived at after weighing all the information carefully. I'm sure some others in Academy have strong opinions about this. I'm interested to know what everyone else thinks.