Senate Finance Committee Says a Public Option is One Option Too Many

Senator Charles Grassley explained the principal argument against offering the public the option of opting for the public option:

Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the senior Republican on the committee, said a government insurance plan would have inherent advantages over private insurers. “Government is not a fair competitor,” Mr. Grassley said. “It’s a predator.” He predicted that “a government plan will ultimately force private insurers out of business,” reducing choices for consumers. NYTimes

So, if the public had the option of the public option, the public would surely opt for the public option, which would drive other options out of business. Therefore, the public must not have the option that they would prefer so they can continue choosing between the options that they don't like.

In fact,

Republicans on the committee unanimously opposed the public option, saying it was, in the words of Senator Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, “a Trojan horse for a single-payer system” in which the government would eventually control most health care. NYTimes

So, if the public were offered the public choice that exists in Canada, France, Germany, Brazil and other civilized countries, then the public would discover that the public option is better. That's why America must never give consumers the choice in the first place. It's not that public option won't work. It's that, like an electric drill, it will work much better than a manual drill does, and manual drills will become a thing of the past. It is that from which Republican senators, and Democratic Party ones as well, are protecting us.