If the public plan gets into financial trouble, it should simply raise its premiums or close.

When it says this:

Both bills would create new insurance exchanges, with an array of plans to choose from, for a limited number of Americans -- those who lack group coverage and must buy policies directly from insurers and those who work for small employers, about 30 million people within a few years. With millions of potential new clients, all major insurers are expected to participate. And Congress willing, a new public plan would also be available.

it makes no mention of when the public plan would be available, or how many years it will be before these "30 million people" would be able to participate.

But, wait: there is a little nugget of info almost at the end:

As a result, the current weaker versions could find it difficult to compete with well-entrenched private insurers. The Congressional Budget Office believes public plan premiums would actually end up higher than the average private plan premium. This is partly because the public plan would probably attract the sickest patients, whose bills are highest, and who might fear that private plans would find some way to jettison them.

All told, the C.B.O. estimates that the House bill's public plan would attract only six million enrollees. The Senate version, which would allow states to opt out, might attract only three million to four million.

Would I want to help even three to four million people who need help?  Of course, I would.  But where in the glib assessment of the NYT that if the public plan gets into trouble it can just raise its premiums or fold, is the concern for the millions of people who needed it in the first place?  Then what do those people do?  The Times is remarkably and willfully silent on that one.

Democrats would be wise to stand with the people they represent, vote no... and get to what matters most to Americans now:

If Congress makes history and puts a bill on President Barack Obama's desk by Christmas, how long before the uninsured get medical coverage?

If you said three years or more, you'd be right. Yet many people don't realize that to keep costs down, lawmakers made compromises that might not appeal to consumers.

"There's going to be a long period of great expectations and very modest deliveries," said economist Robert Reischauer, president of the Urban Institute public policy center. That's assuming Democrats prevail.

And then what?

France has a simple system.
Everyone is covered with a basic policy by the government.
It's cost is minimal and is based on the individual or family income.

An insured person is able to purchase additional insurance from private insurers - often offered by banks - if they so desire. This cost is also relatively minimal.

But absolutely everyone has basic protection and access to services.