Either of the two extremes he presented would be better than what Robamacare delivered, which was the worst of both worlds: All the ills of private-only health insurance (not least being the absence of any price regulation, or even incentives to reduce cost increases) with the compulsory participation of a public system. Rather than national health "insurance" it is a national health REQUIREMENT insuring no one care. The only thing "ensured" is a trillion tax dollars for already quite profitable insurance companies, plus whatever they get from uninsured people required to purchase coverage but ineligible for federal subsidies. Robamacare did the seemingly impossible: It actually managed to WORSEN the existing laissez-faire system.

That is without even touching the issue of requiring people pay for medical treatment they morally oppose. That covers far more than the infamous case of Catholic schools/hospitals and birth control, hence Sen. Roy Blunts amendment to exempt ALL employers from paying for ANY insurance they find morally objectionable (or claim they do.) Considering things like Jehovahs Witnesses objecting to blood transfusions and some fundamentalists objecting to ALL insurance on the grounds it is a form of gambling, that is a significant problem, and a public system is the only solution I see, because the First Amendment still prevents Congress restricting the free exercise of religion (which requiring people pay for things their religious views forbid certainly does.)

Realistically, where we go next is nowhere; we go back to the laissez-faire system we had, which is still awful, but better than Robamacare. Health insurance is even more toxic with the public now than in the wake of Hillarycare 15 years ago. Costs will continue skyrocketing because no politician with any sense will commit political suicide by touching the new third rail of US politics. When (not if) it gets bad enough we will hopefully institute some sort of public healthcare system, but the deficit makes that unlikely any time soon. Ironically, rising healthcare costs threatening to bankrupt Medicare is a popular argument against any public system, though that is just a symptom of our screwed up healthcare system rather than any problems with Medicare (where costs are rising more slowly than those of private insurance, thanks to the benefits of the single payer approach.)

It is a great time to be an insurance company, because you win whatever the SCOTUS does; everyone else LOSES no matter what. The problem is not going away, but it is likely to be effectively illegal to sue a doctor for crippling you (or killing your loved ones,) because tort reform is the only aspect of the problem most Republicans, who seem to feel it is the WHOLE of the problem, are willing to address. Meanwhile, healthcare costs will continue rising and insurance companies will continue getting rich providing insurance to only those who can afford whatever they charge, and tort reform probably will not involve repealing laws requiring doctors to buy malpractice insurance to remain licensed.

Robamacare has only hurt the case for public healthcare without expanding access to healthcare at all. There was significant public support for a public option; there is a real question whether Obama was elected despite or because Republicans kept accusing him of socialism, and had bothered even trying to make that accusation plausible his re-election chances would be better now. Oh, well; the corollary to "yes we can" is apparently "but will not."

EDIT: To be clear, it should be obvious by now that a public system maintaining access to basic essential care alongside a private system providing elective care, as well as more comfortable basic care, is the only realistic way to go. There is a reason every other modern nation long ago did so, and it is not "pervasive perfidious communism." Unfortunately, it increasingly seems no lesser motive than the present systems total (and imminent) collapse will make that a reality.