"It was always clear that imposing an individual mandate would have to be done delicately, lest it provoke a rebellion among voters."

If the voters clearly don't want what is being proposed...what should a legislator do? My, my...let me think! Should he/she tell voters whatever they want to hear while the real bill is assembled behind closed doors where the voters cannot see it and passed quickly before they can read it? Or does something else come to mind?

"Taken together, these reasons don't argue that health reform needs to be tweaked. They argue it needs to be abandoned altogether."

Or do we just need a fresh start?

"Now that the AHIP has us worrying about spiraling health insurance premiums, how might we keep this rising cost in check?"

Does tort reform (limits on windfall awards for pain and suffering and punitive awards) come to mind? The CBO says it will save $54 Billion. (Probably more, in my opinion, since the CBO did not include all of the expensive defensive medicine.) The Republicans would swallow a live toad and a public option to bring about tort reform; put it in the health reform package and there will be bipartisan support.