And if they’re not “must reads,” then they’re at least “worthy reads.” Both from today’s NYT.

Up first: David Leonhardt, who riffs on “real choice” (i.e., the lack thereof) among health insurance options. From his conclusion:

… the defenders of the employer system have some legitimate arguments. An insurance exchange may end up having some of the same pitfalls as 401(k) plans, in which some workers make poor choices. Having employers navigate the complex landscape of insurance, the defenders say, may be better for employees.

Here’s what I would ask those defenders, however: Given all the problems with health care — the high costs and decidedly mixed results — how comfortable are you defending the status quo? Why force people into a system you think is better for them?

Batting second: Jon Gabel, who writes that the integrity of the CBO is “beyond questioning.” But its cost-estimating methodologies (especially on health care reform) … not so much. From his conclusion:

… the record shows that [the CBO] has substantially overestimated the cost of health care reform three times out of three. As Congress now works on its greatest push for reform in generations, the budget office needs to revise the methods it uses to make predictions about costs.