how does private non-profit insurance differ from govt. run non profit insurance?

I'm having difficulties understanding the outrage over the idea of privately run non profit healthcare insurance companies being proposed vs. a government run health insurance option. Is there a reason why it would be worth giving up other progress that can be made on eliminating pre-existing condition coverage risks, expanding veterans benefits, making healthcare more affordable that it would be if nothing was done, etc.?

The insurance industry will have all the incentive in the world to make it as least competitive with private insurance as possible. Not to mention that it will be the insurance industry who will still control who gets insurance, who gets treated for what, and a whole host of other things. It will not be a real competitive alternative to for profit insurance.

As opposed to government controlled non-profit which will have the incentive to keep prices low and provide real competition to the private insurance sector. You and I will have a say in who and what is covered. Not to mention you will have the buying power of the government bringing prices down on all sorts of overhead.

Private non-profit is a joke, a polite fig leaf that will cover up the massive rip of we'll experience if we don't get a real public option.

and what's left would be profit, but the way they probably do the math, there's 0 left in profit. That's what I think it's all about.

I think it would be like some charities, people who run them make a fortune and 10% goes to the charity..

They are the worst. They deny everything and will drop you for any reason after you have been paying for years.
They were originally a co-op (a large and powerful one) and like all health care co-ops, it changed to become a not for profit.

How it reports it's profits and how it pays it's taxes doesn't effect the fact that it treats it's customer's the same way all of the other scam artist insurers do.