"The so called "public" option has no competition, no profit incentive, and therefore, no incentive to be *efficient*. Ergo, its cost to run will keep escalating, as demand escalates, and all the while the actual supply side of the healthcare economic equation remains stagnant, further compounding prices. To offset the problem, government will throw more money at it, causing higher taxes and another recession, which will be offset by printing more money, thus weakening the dollar and losing more foreign investment in the US. Better solution: stimulate growth and competition in healthcare supply markets (i.e. supplies, equipment, services) and limit "public option" participation to those who can prove they don't make enough to become insured on their own."
While in principle, the profit and competition motive should drive better services like computers, cars, and more, it's not working with health care. As I understand it, profit-driven health care is the problem, not the solution. Where the profit motive in other industries drives innovation, the motive here is to deny service at the time of greatest need, as that means the greatest profit.
Thus, a public option seems more viable and the analysis is whether this waste is an acceptable failure level to justify the public good. This could be compared to the publicly funded police and education systems: they are wasteful, but necessary to maintain the peace and keep America competitive. When family members get sick without treatment, that doesn't maintain the peace or make us more competitive.
Note: some of these ideas come from an essay by Bill Maher touching on the public option.