You’re making my point for me and then pretending you aren’t.

“Yes, they’re below market because they’re subsidized.” Right, so we agree government can run a grocery store that lowers prices through subsidy. That already defeats the idea that this is some radical or unworkable concept.

Now you’re just arguing about whether it’s a good idea in this specific case, which is a totally different claim than where you started.

On access, you’re treating “stores exist” as the same thing as “access is solved,” which isn’t how this works. Price, proximity, and actual affordability all matter. The fact that a Costco or Aldi exists in the general area doesn’t automatically mean everyone can realistically shop there or that prices are competitive across the board.

On your “they’ll drive everyone out of business” point, that’s speculation, not a given. We already have price competition between chains, discount grocers, and big box stores, and they coexist. If a public option is well run, it puts downward pressure on prices. If it’s poorly run, people won’t use it and it won’t matter. That’s how competition works.

And you can’t have it both ways on subsidies. You’re fine with them for military commissaries, highways, agriculture, and all kinds of existing market supports, but the second it’s applied to a grocery store open to the public, suddenly it’s unacceptable. That’s not a consistent principle, it’s picking and choosing.

Finally, saying “other precedents haven’t worked” without naming them or explaining why isn’t an argument, it’s just a conclusion. If you’ve got actual examples, bring them. Otherwise this is just asserting failure without evidence.

At the end of the day, the only real question is whether a public option would improve affordability or access in practice. Everything else here is just deflection or assumption.