Stephen Spruiell dissects Obamacare and gives us ten reasons to oppose the bill, warning that:

Wherever government fiat replaces private contracting as a method for setting prices, basic problems of supply and demand crop up, and with health care, the problem is almost always too little supply. When third parties pay the bill, consumers lose the incentive to consume rationally and providers lose the incentive to provide efficiently. Supporters of Obamacare have identified the problem as one of greed and stupidity, but their solution would entrench the third-party-payer system that rewards greed and stupidity. To swim against this tide of incentives will require coercion on a massive scale and — yes — rationing.

What should be in Obamacare? Kevin Williamson has a vision of what real reform would look like:

A meaningful body of reforms would do three things: 1) establish a real market for health-care services and health insurance, one that is fiercely competitive and driven by consumers who are not beholden to their employers, the government, or any concern other than their own needs; 2) take intelligent steps to reduce the expense of health care and health insurance, and the bureaucracy attached to them; 3) offer intelligently designed support for the poor, the sick, and other vulnerable participants in the market.

Mark Hemingway on Sen. Jay Rockefeller’s war against private health insurance for poor kids:

Despite the fact that he’s forcing kids into a health-care ghetto so the government can collect more taxes, Senator Rockefeller argued that he was doing children a favor. “I don’t believe that we can force vulnerable kids into private coverage. That’s what we’d be doing. They’d lose that special kind of defined benefit that comes under Medicaid,” he said during committee hearings, adding that under private insurance children would be “at the mercy of people that will have them for lunch.” Since when does being two to three times as likely to die from cancer constitute a “special kind of defined benefit”?

Kathryn Jean Lopez on abortion in the Baucus bill:

The White House and its allies are hiding behind the Hyde Amendment, named after a late Republican congressman from Illinois who’s considered a legislative hero by much of the pro-life movement. But the Obama administration does so disingenuously.
If the so-called “public option” plan or “affordability credits” (which are premium subsidies) come to pass, abortion funding will be very much on the table, and possibly part of the law. In fact, in an amendment added to the predominant House bill, federal funding for abortion is explicitly required in the credits scenario.

And don’t miss Yuval Levin on why the Baucus bill will provide fewer options at a higher cost, or Ramesh Ponnuru on whether the Baucus bill represents an economic diet for the budget, or Rich Lowry on the new strategy of lowering the cost of Baucuscare by hiding the costs in other bills.