The other way around would be having public options except where explicitly forbidden. The existence of a public option does not forbid private options. For example the existence of the USPS does not forbid UPS or Fedex or Amazon from operating delivery services, which may be preferable for many customers. But the public option guarantees that a certain level of service is available to anyone and makes it impossible for any private entity to secure a monopoly. It also is very sensible in cases of natural monopoly (power plants, international airports, prisons, wastewater treatment centers) where there's never going to be any meaningful competition that the government should own and operate the monopoly.

Yes, but there's also a lack of freedom inherent in denying people healthcare and other public services because they can't afford them.

Government is fundamental. Business is art.

yeah that probably isn't what they actually meant, obviously

I wonder if who owns it is a red herring, but routing out corruption and bad incentives is the key.

Government runs anything that regulation alone cant make safe.