The public option was a good idea, as long as we're talking about the "weak" version, which had to be funded 100% by premiums and which would have ceased to exist had it failed financially. Competition between public and private sector is good. A rigged game though, in which the taxpayers backstop the public option in case of failure, and/or subsidize it(the "strong" public option) would just be a deceitful way to get to single payer.Also, the public option had more than 50 votes, (I think it had 54) it just didn't have the 60 required. Granted that's not a full up single payer system, but it would have allowed people to essentially buy medicare instead of a private insurance.
"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress & the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."
- Abraham Lincoln
Which is the specious equivalent of putting yourself in a coma.nor am I required to buy it (I can opt out of having a car or drive on private roadways).
Listen, it isn't me that made the analogy of mandated auto insurance, Stuart Butler did.
Not only that, but it wouldn't be constitutional at the federal level. State legislatures are bound by their own constitutions and the Bill of Rights. The federal government is bound by the much stricter federal Constitution, which allows Congress to only legislate on those subjects which it is authorized to legislate on.
The interstate commerce clause is the broadest of those, but has limits. Congress cannot create commerce in order to regulate it, nor can it penalize lack of participation in commerce.