I am vehemently opposed to the Senate health care bill for reasons that I cannot even begin to describe in a brief blog post. Nevertheless, I now find myself in the weird position of defending one aspect of the bill against a ”progressive” critic, New York Times columnist Bob Herbert.

Don’t get me wrong. I heartily welcome Herbert’s opposition to the bill. I am sympathetic to his argument that the bill ”would impose a confiscatory 40 percent excise tax on so-called Cadillac health plans . . . [impacting] millions of middle-class policyholders, forcing them to scale back their access to medical care . . .  which is exactly what the tax is designed to do . . . if policyholders have to pay more out of their own pockets, they will be more careful — that is to say, more reluctant — to access health services.” It is a big step for Herbert to admit that taxes can be confiscatory and that Democrats might not be the middle class champions they claim to be. Moreover, I agree that the tax is a sham dressed up as a market-friendly reform.

Unfortunately, Herbert’s critique is premised on an anti-market mentality:

We all remember learning in school about the suspension of disbelief. This part of the Senate’s health benefits taxation scheme requires a monumental suspension of disbelief. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, less than 18 percent of the revenue will come from the tax itself. The rest of the $150 billion, more than 82 percent of it, will come from the income taxes paid by workers who have been given pay raises by employers who will have voluntarily handed over the money they saved by offering their employees less valuable health insurance plans.

Can you believe it?

I asked Richard Trumka, president of the A.F.L.-C.I.O., about this. (Labor unions are outraged at the very thought of a health benefits tax.) I had to wait for him to stop laughing to get his answer. “If you believe that,” he said, “I have some oceanfront property in southwestern Pennsylvania that I will sell you at a great price.”

A survey of business executives by Mercer, a human resources consulting firm, found that only 16 percent of respondents said they would convert the savings from a reduction in health benefits into higher wages for employees. Yet proponents of the tax are holding steadfast to the belief that nearly all would do so.

“In the real world, companies cut costs and they pocket the money,” said Larry Cohen, president of the Communications Workers of America and a leader of the opposition to the tax. “Executives tell the shareholders: ‘Hey, higher profits without any revenue growth. Great!’ ”

Let’s see, Bob Herbert went looking for input on a question pertaining to economics. Instead of talking to an economist, he dialed up two union reps. Then, he spoke to an HR consulting firm that had conducted one attitudinal survey of business executives during a major recession. Case closed, says the reality-based columnist.

Ugh, Bob . . . sure, companies could choose to “pocket the money,” thereby significantly reducing their employees’ total compensation packages. Over time, these companies could then also “choose” to watch as much of their more talented and hard working employees left for other firms that were willing to pay true market value for their services. Heck, a basic understanding of this principle might be the ONLY coherent thing in the entire Senate bill and yet Bob Herbert thinks that is the most absurd part of the bill?