Health reform that is accompanied by a public option, a non-profit but self-supporting public insurance plan that competes with private insurance, is a darn good idea. Nonetheless it is in danger.

The Obama administration insists the public option is important, yet inexplicably signals that it will accept a bill without it. So-called moderate Democrats are finding it in their political interest to repeat long-refuted arguments against it. The most common argument is that private insurance companies will not be able to compete.

Will the public plan have some competitive advantages? Sure. It won’t be paying large commissions to salespeople and their chains of managers. It will not support a bureaucracy aimed at deciding who not to insure. It will not be paying multi-million dollar executive salaries.

Its function will be to provide reliable access to quality health care at the most reasonable price it can, rather than to maximize profits. I fail to see how these advantages do not serve the public interest.

The public option does not have to force private health insurers out of business. If they can improve their efficiency to provide quality plans at lower price, people will choose their services over the public plan. If they cannot, there is no reason for the public to protect them. What a strange sense of entitlement, to think their profits must be preserved at the expense of the public’s well-being. Critics falsely claim that a public option will restrict their choices. But if the public plan is lost from the health care legislation, I and millions of others who want it will be denied our choice.