David Goldhill's now famous Atlantic piece makes a persuasive case against the public option and for a massive overhall of how healthcare delivery would be structured in the US.  I don't know whether is his a conservative or a liberal but his argument meets the goal of expanded coverage and cost control.  He doesn't scream, mention death panels or call anyone Hitler.  He confronts the perverse incentives that have driven up cost without any improvement in quality and supports mostly abolishing insurance companies.

I think the main reason the Democrat's health plan is failing has little to do with death panels, Hitler references or conservative wing-nuts.  They are small players.  The democratic plan doesn't clearly control costs and where it tries, it uses the government monopoly to reduce costs.  Medicare clearly solved the problem of universal coverage for Americans over 65, but it clearly didn't control costs despite being a monopoly.  Goldhill argues that the government actually increased costs.  I'm not so sure of that, but I do think no healthcare plan (public option or not)  will be popular with independents or people who actually try to understand the issues if cost controls are not clear.  Obama promised expanded access and cost controls.  To get a consensus he will have to deliver on both of those promises.  Goldhill's plan makes a plausible case for both, Obama's does not.
So all of you public option devotees, please make the case against Goldhill.  Oh, and by the way simply saying that the insurance lobby wouldn't allow it isn't enough.  That's the (less interesting) political case.  I'm interested in the philosophical case.  
Please be polite and thank you.