A reasonable call for reforms that don't involve a public insurance plan or co-op subsidies, but not a compelling one. It's refreshing to see someone proposing these alternatives, but the author doesn't offer much data or insight on why they'd work better.

I do not find this article insightful. The author presents his opinions as facts, without offering well-reasoned arguments to support assertions like 'politicians are usually tone-deaf to those who know the most about the issue,' or 'a public option is not the solution' or 'our nation still enjoys the finest health care in the world.' Instead, he presents a laundry list of what he believes to be true, and expects us to agree with him. This opinion seems too black-and-white, with no nuance, no effort to debate opposing views or offer factual evidence to back his points. I cannot recommend this article, which strikes me as largely partisan in nature.

Couple big flaws: the public option is rejected without explanation; No explanation of how 'market forces' are going to be incentivized to focus on long-term, preventative care and patient health when the patient can easily move from one provider to another.

I found this to be an interesting and well wriitten piece containing some clever ideas. However, the "exxchange concept" as I understand it is one of the Public Option concepts under consideration so this was confusing. Also, the article is a bit of Monday Morning Quarterbacking in as much as the 5 Congressional Bills have already been completed.

This does explain some of the republican talking points without a diatribe against Obama. It sidesteps the public option in the health exchanges...disingenuously.

No, it's just another attempt to promote the Republican version of the healthcare bill. Same story, same examples, same trite lines. This doctor's point of view follows the strict party line. Boring at best. Biased and in some places hostile.