Kaiser Health news reports that Senate Democrats and Republicans may end up choosing among three approaches to health-care legislation, distinguished by their scope and price tag.

The most flabby option, it seems, is the $900 billion package that Sen. Max Baucus is championing:

The measure also would expand Medicaid coverage to 133 percent of the federal poverty level, provide tax credits for people with incomes up to 300 percent of poverty and establish a series of health insurance exchanges to help individuals find affordable coverage.
The proposal also would create health care insurance cooperatives rather than the government-run public health insurance option that many Democrats favor. The plan also may place a tax on high-cost health insurance policies as a way to raise revenue and insurers would be prohibited from denying coverage based on pre-existing medical conditions.

If that doesn’t fly, a second option would be a $500 billion–$700 billion plan would expand Medicaid, create subsidies for those above Medicaid eligibility, and still impose massive new federal regulations of private insurance. The “bare bones” option, costing $200 billion–$300 billion over ten years, would focus mostly on broadening Medicaid and facilitating state insurance exchanges.

Conservatives shouldn’t be against any and all federal actions. Some crucial reforms, such as equalizing the tax treatment of medical expenditures, have to happen in Washington. But conservatives should be against any bill that expands Medicaid, already a bloated program that presents both state governments and consumers with faulty incentives. More Medicaid inherently means higher taxes, both at the federal and state levels. So if the choice is between obese, chubby, and boney, it will be best not to sit down at the table in the first place.