Losing the public option means losing savings -- and competition?

Rockefeller's public option is the "strong" public option. It attaches itself to Medicare's payment rates and provider network. The CBO estimates that it would save the government $125 billion over 10 years, and it would save even more for consumers and businesses. But that money would come out of the health-care industry's pocket. The plan's superior pricing power would take customers from private insurance. Rural senators already feel that Medicare shortchanges their hospitals, and fear that this would only further depress reimbursements. Ezra Klein in WaPo

Saving the government $125 billion sounds pretty good to me. Taking away excessive profits from insurance companies in return for full or nearly full access to good health care seems like a good deal.  The Medicare/hospital relationship can be reworked, can't it?  Or do we just chuck the public option?  But the Rockefeller amendment lost. 

Later, Schumer's public option-inclusive amendment also lost.