a) Support, as the CBO says you should, the eradication of the tax exclusion that protects employer-based health-care insurance;
b) Support, as Lewin and Commonwealth say you should, a public insurance option that can bargain at Medicare’s rates;
c) Support, as the Office of Management and Budget and every health-care wonk in town says you should, one of the various policies floating around to give MedPAC authority to continually reform and modernize Medicare;
d) Support some form of aggressive cost-sharing that would make people extremely angry because it will save money by reducing their access to health-care services;
e) Support comparative effectiveness review that can judge not only the effectiveness but also the cost-effectiveness of various treatments, and give the federal government authority to use that data when deciding reimbursement rates.
It’s certainly true that reasonable people can have reasonable critiques of this — or almost any other — attempt at health care reform. But the vast majority of the critiques we’re hearing, from the Showboating Six, for example — are not good faith arguments. They’re simply obstructionist. To prove they’re not, they’re going to have to take some of the actions described above. I doubt we’ll see too many takers.