Question ...

If a public option led to a single payer system, wouldn't that mean the public option was overwhelmingly the best choice? Health Care is a virtually mandatory commodity (which is why price distortion occurs - "opening up state lines" and "free markets" cannot solve it because it isn't a normal market. Kenneth Arrow demonstrated this a long time ago, a neoclassical economist no less!). Do you honestly believe that if someone can afford their current health care they are going to buy into the public option even if it's cheaper (and the pricing scheme in the bill isn't significantly less BTW) when the coverage would entail so-called rationing and terrible care? Of course not. For a necessary commodity the consumer will always spend more than they are comfortably able to, in order to ensure the quality of that commodity (several econometric studies have been done demonstrating this by people like Vernon Smith). So, if the public option is so terrible - nobody is going to buy into it; hence, de facto single payer would never occur.

Considering conservatives and republicans are so confident the public option would provide rationing and sub-prime care - they should be willing to go along with it, since it will see no enrollment because of how terrible it is.

Unless, Republicans are actually afraid it might work?

I think my father might have enjoyed a public option when he was forced to declare bankruptcy so he could provide me with chemotherapy when I was 12-14 because our insurance company decided that it wasn't covered under my plan because the tumor had been removed via surgery thus no coverage for it since I didn't "need it". I kid you not, that was basically their reasoning. My care was rejected through government programs like Medicaid, apparently we weren't eligible. This is the great coverage provided by our current government and a private insurer through my fathers employer. I say, let's continue to let the free market insurers, who give bonuses to their employees for dropping people like me from their coverage roll, and continue the great tradition of capitalism.

I believe in entirely free markets (with oversight and proper regulations) on just about everything. But while I may not need a new car - I would appreciate it if my family wasn't bankrupted because my insurer decided "hey, let's not cover them anymore."

You have to understand health care isn't a free market because of the mandatory purchase of the commodity (really, you decide if you want to get that bypass?) significantly limiting a great deal of incentive to reduce price. Think why similar flat screen were priced at similar levels and then they all started dropping in cost rapidly, pricing reduction was driven primarily by providing incentive to the consumer to purchase. That doesn't exist in health care. You have insurance companies who suffer from asymmetric information engaging in adverse selection, driving up prices - oh and they drop people who are dying for profit! We have the whole societal notion "let's not let people die", and so pricing is distorted because of government programs like SCHIP / Medicaid / Medicare. It's not a normal market so free markets don't work - hence why a public option would help balance this.