[cbd1984]

> I think the parent is asking/claiming that public options are almost universally less desirable than the product of self-interest in the presence of competition, so their main effect is just to ensure that the private would-be monopolies need to actually provide a good service.

Well, actually, I'm claiming that a Free Market alternative should be able to win even if the Free Market includes the government.

Nobody is guaranteed to win, and I don't think a public option would necessarily be odious, but if someone's so gung-ho about competition, they shouldn't be scared of competing with a government.

Edit: OK, yes, I was mocking the Free Market Fundamentalists in my post. Fair's fair, they mock the government and the moderates, often using japes invented by Ronald Reagan (peace be upon him).

[dsrguru]

Right. Free market alternative should be able to beat government, so in cases where the free market isn't producing acceptable results, rather than forcing them to change through legislation, government can just compete with them until they beat the government.