Opposition against Healthcare reform in the media revolves around two axis:

One: Adding a public option will "croud out" the private insurers.

Two: a single payer system (or even a public option) will lead to a very large bureaucracy that will be expensive and of inferior quallity.

I will use the simple but by the media often ignored art of logic to show you that those two arguments negate eachother. For a public option to "croud out" private insurance by the laws of economics it needs to suply a better product for the same amount of money or an equal product for the same amount of money. So how does that leave us on the second argument? In this argument it is claimed that any goverment run option will be worse and more expensive, but then the private insurers need not worry since if they are cheaper and/or better they will never be crouded out!

So far so good, but the insurers will not go down without a fight and might somehow get the administration to drop the public option in some sort of "bipartisan compromise". Using flawed logic will not be something insurers will shy away from.  So why not be the first to offer a compromise?

The "public option" compromise:

Instead of a public option a publicly mandated coverage pakage with a maximum price and universal acces regardless of preexisting conditions.This is exactly how the Netherlands keep healtcare afordable the insures can offer this pakage, run it, manage it, provit from it, but must do so to anyone who wishes to buy it. The goverment decides a maximum price, subsidises people who cannot pay that price (unemployed and their children of "underemployed" for example), and mandates what is and isnt covered (yes dental coverage, no cosmetic procedures unless for reconstruction.).  Docters deside the needs of a patient and give  him any treatment he may need.  Private insurers may extend coverage to include private hospital rooms, better food, regular MRI or CT scans to be included in checkups,  extended coverage for sub clinical problems/extra-psychotherapy and pregnancy plus packages (think parental training/extra checks) in lavish private packages. To prevent people to ask for more care then they need there is even a "no claim" system which means you get a small discount if you visit the docter only ones or twice a year. This system works in the netherlands keeps everybody covered (coverage is mandatory), and keeps the insurers in bussiness whille never  in a position where they can ever profit by  refusing treatment, hell they dont even have the right to refuse.

The only incentive their is for insurers in holland (and everywere basically) is to keep their pool of insured as healty as possible. They cannot do this by dropping unhrealty patients but they can help people lose weight stop smoking, drink less reducing their cost. This is why my insurer paid for my nicotine gum and even send me a letter asking if i was intrested to attend a  "eat and live healty" course. Taking away their right to refuse people made commercial insurers in the Netherlands focus on prevention because its their best option left!

Ofcourse US insurers will not like this option much more than a public option, hell their entire business model is based on keeping their clients healty by not accepting unhealty clients in the first place. Refusing or fighting tooth and nail an alternative that doesnt include a public option ( but has the same benevits) might not be politically posible for the medical lobby.