"Public option" isn't a suggestion really. It's saying you want a certain kind of suggestion. Insurance is, at it's core, a group of people who are healthy getting together and saying "We all pay into this pool. If anyone gets sick it pays out. That way we're safer." A "public option" implies a government run insurance company. So let's take that as the baseline.

Even if it's a non profit you're going to run into funding issues right quick if you accept all comers (those with pre-existing conditions) because it's just not a sustainable business model. The whole premise of insurance is to... well, insure. Against bad things happening. If you create a place, a single place, where all the sick can go get insurance you'll go bankrupt rapidly. What I think you're saying you'd do is create a government option that does take them AND tries to compete. So let's run with that.

If you become the dumping ground (financially speaking, not speaking to their worth as people) for those with pre-existing conditions you'll actually enrich the insurance companies you want to destroy. They'll take all the healthy people by outcompeting you. They'll offer better plans for people who do have money and all the people who can't afford them will essentially bankrupt you. The only way to compete is to offer a better plan. Let's say you put together plans that are better than theirs to offer and deliver better service. But you don't have the money to do that in your non profit organization because you're paying out to all the sick people nobody else will pay out to...

Unless you tax beyond the initial setup costs. The only way to do it is with taxation to fund your non profit. The estimates for how much this would take are staggering. The country is already in debt in a big way and we need to get rid of that, not bankrupt ourselves. But let's take things to their natural conclusion. And let's be generous and say you find a way to do it purely through taxation, no added debt.

So, you tax. You tax however much it takes. And you tax hard. Let's say you only tax the uber rich. The rich have the money and means to leave and evade your high taxes. If it's an income tax they'll just move somewhere nice unless you keep it competitive on that front. But you can't because this idea is so expensive. If it's something based on stocks the repercussions in terms of our economy would be frightening. Yeah, that might stick a little harder (if you can get it past the bribed Dems and Republicans, both sides have corporate money in spades) but can you imagine how the market will react? If they find loopholes you don't get your funding. If they don't the economy hits the tank. Maybe both if it takes them a while to FIND loopholes.

So the only way to really deal with this is a total rework of our tax laws. Good luck with that. But assuming all things remain equal? These people have big positions at international companies and can just relocate. Or the Republicans AND Democrats (both of whom have this problem) who are bought and paid for stop you from doing it. Either or really. But regardless, it doesn't go through or isn't a sustainable model for long. Pick your poison. Thus you...

Tax the middle class and wealthy but not LOADED wealthy. Because the poor can't pay for it, they're poor. And thus you no longer have a middle class. People say they want to make everyone middle class in that world essentially. And they genuinely do WANT that. But their tactics end up making everyone a baseline level of poor instead.

So what's your suggestion to avoid the pitfalls there?