Am I the only who's noticed that the republicans have two arguments against the public health plan that contradict each other?

On the one hand, they argue it will be inferior to privatization and that people 'don't want government between them and their doctor' (nevermind that insurance companies are already occupying that space to significantly ill effect).

On the other hand, they argue that a public plan will undermine private companies and outcompete them.

So here's the problem: If gov't health care is inferior to private health care, why the hell would it undermine private health care? Shouldn't private health care continue to succeed on the following premises that republicans hold dear: 1.) That private health care is superior and so will be the more desired product on the market and 2.) That capitalism demands the better prodcut win out.

If private health care is truly superior, then there will be people who will pay the premium to get the better health care rather than hop to the government plan.

Essentially it boils down to this: The republicans do not want a government plan, beacuse it will be so terrifyingly effective that there will be no room for profiting off of people's illness. Oh, and god forbid we cover the 40 million who have no insurance.

How their argument is able to fly in congress, the media, or any other comparable forum is beyond me. It's obvious that they are not looking towards anyone's interests...obvious exept to themselves, perhaps?