To protect the health insurance companies and their business model of denying people care for profit, the Democrats built "firewalls" around the "public option." McClatchy:

Under the main Democratic health bills that are being debated in Congress, many people with job-based insurance could find it difficult to impossible to switch to health plans on a new insurance exchange, even if those plans were cheaper or offered better coverage. The restrictions would extend to any government-run plan.

The provisions could change, and there are a few exceptions: Workers would be allowed to buy insurance through the exchange if their job-based coverage gobbled up too much of their incomes or was too skimpy. Also, under the proposal by Democrats in the House of Representatives, people could get insurance through the exchange if they paid their entire premiums, a cost that would be prohibitive for many.

Jonathan Oberlander, an associate professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said, "The rhetoric is that Americans will gain new alternatives, but the reality is that they are putting up firewalls that are going to restrict the access of people with employer-sponsored insurance to the exchange."

One result, he said, is that any public plan would be substantially smaller and less powerful than many backers are envisioning.

James Capretta, a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a conservative research center in Washington, said that the government was "essentially telling people you have to take your employer-based plan. . . . I think that's a huge issue."

Most individuals would have to carry insurance or pay fines under the congressional proposals.

At a "town hall" meeting on health care July 1, Obama said that any overhaul must "fix what's broken about the system, and that means permanently bringing down costs and giving more choice for everyone."

Well, so much for that.

[T]hose who might get better deals on the exchange would have trouble transferring if they already have employer-sponsored insurance. Under one leading Senate bill, individuals who are offered employer-sponsored coverage could switch to the exchange only if their shares of the premiums exceeded 12.5 percent of their incomes or their plans didn't meet minimum coverage standards.

Under the House Democrats' legislation, workers who are eligible for job-based insurance could go on the exchange only if their costs were more than 11 percent of their incomes.

Lawmakers and some health care analysts say that legislation has to create barriers around the exchange to protect the stability of the employer-provided insurance market.

Translation: Preserve the business model of private insurance companies that profit from denying care.

Without them, younger and healthier employees, they say, might find cheaper options on the exchange, leaving older and sicker workers in their employers' plans — and driving up their costs. ....

Jacob Hacker, a Yale University professor of political science, said the debate reflected "a delicate dance" in which lawmakers were trying to give some people access to the exchange while preserving the employer-based insurance system.

"To my mind," he added, the House bill "errs too far on the side of making it hard for workers to obtain coverage through the exchange."

Translation: Preserve the business model of private insurance companies that profit from denying care.

Richard Curtis, the president of the Institute for Health Policy Solutions, a nonprofit research group, said that some lower-income workers with employer-sponsored coverage could wind up paying bigger chunks of their incomes for coverage than those with the same incomes who weren't offered job-based insurance. The reason: The latter group would be able to get subsidized coverage through the exchange.

That sends an unfortunate signal, he said, to people who are struggling to pay for employer-sponsored insurance. "So the message to them is, 'Congratulations . . . so now you get to continue paying several times as much as your next-door neighbor who has access to highly subsidized coverage in the exchange,' " he said. "On its face, it's just not fair."

That's why single payer "everybody in, nobody out" is the only fair solution.

Of course, that's also why the Dems took it off the table.