The status quo in American health care is unacceptable. As a physician for more than two decades, I understand fully that our health care delivery system keeps too many patients from quality health care. Yet as we move forward with reform that will have such an enormous impact on all our lives, Americans must have a full understanding of the issues being proposed.

There is talk from congressional Democrats about mandates, tax hikes and government-anointed quality boards. All are concerning, but perhaps the most underappreciated and dangerously impactful idea being debated is the creation of a “public option,” or government-run health care plan.

Supporters present this “public option” as a vehicle to provide coverage for the uninsured and a way to compete with private insurers. But there should be no misunderstanding: a government-run plan is simply a backdoor path to a government takeover of health care.

No informed person can credibly suggest that the government would compete with private insurers on a level playing field. Since a government-run plan would be subsidized through higher taxes, private insurers would be priced out of the market in short order.

The president has said, “If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period.” While that may sound great, it’s a departure from reality that the administration has had to clarify in recent weeks. Now this promise is being coupled with a qualifier that the government will not dictate that you have to give up your personal coverage. Make no mistake; any honest evaluation will conclude that a public option will result in millions of Americans losing the personal, private health care they currently enjoy.

In fact, it is estimated that a government-run plan would result in 119 million Americans being crowded out of their current personal plans and enrolled in a bureaucratic, government-run program. After all, when the government enters the ring as both competitor and referee, the other guy always gets knocked out.

With Washington in control of the delivery of medicine, the quality of care for patients becomes secondary. Since the government views care in terms of dollars and cents rather than patients and their doctors, medical decisions are always made with a focus on the bottom line, rather than the patient’s best interest. I know. I have seen first-hand how government-run programs ration, delay and deny care.

But don’t take my word. Ask the veteran waiting endlessly for needed surgery because the VA surgical unit has already met its quota. Ask the 65-year-old, who cannot find a doctor still able to accept new Medicare patients. Ask those who utilize the Indian Health Service if they receive robust medical choices. And ask the Medicaid mom if the system facilitates her family’s needs.

Those are the four health systems Washington currently controls. None of them rely on the principles of quality health care upon which we should focus — accessibility, affordability, quality, responsiveness, innovation and choices. Fortunately, there exist positive solutions that improve each of these principles. We can provide access to affordable, quality health care for all Americans through greater patient control.

Patient-centered reform starts with giving Americans ownership of their health care coverage. Our current third-party system creates a situation in which insurers are accountable to human resource departments and the government. Instead, by empowering individuals with control, insurers will be focused again on those about whom health care should be centered — patients. Secondly, we must make it affordable for patients to purchase coverage. Targeted use of tax credits and deductions, pooling mechanisms and the ability to use pretax dollars to purchase personal care will do just that. When it makes financial sense for all Americans to be covered, the uninsured will disappear.

Shouldn’t our goal be to maximize affordable, quality health care options for all Americans? A “public option,” however, would simply make government the only option. The sacrifice in quality care that would result is one cost Americans cannot afford.