We've seen I think no shortage of really bad arguments against health care reform. Arguments against, in my humble opinion, ought to take one of two forms: attack the facts (honestly), or criticize (honestly) the inferences drawn thereupon. Looking around the op-ed pages one finds precious little of that. This is either because the authors don't know how to do this (likely) or they're too lazy or dishonest to try (more likely). Maybe, however, they don't think they'd be successful (maybe likely).
Having said that, I was pleased to read this on a left-leaning blog (Political Animal):
When it comes to reform opponents pushing back against polls showing support for a public option, they have some credible options to choose from.
Conservatives could, for example, argue that there's still some confusion about the policy details, so the poll results should be taken with a grain of salt. That's not unreasonable. They could also argue that the public has simply embraced a bad idea, and that what it popular is not always right. That, too, is a plausible approach.
Simply pretending that the polls don't exist, however, is far more annoying.
See, it's really not very hard to have a meaningful discussion.