I prefer the Freedom Caucus approach. But whatever is decided should be on a clean up-or-down vote.
There are 11 supermajority requirements in the Constitution and the 60-vote filibuster is not one of them.
The filibuster is an un-Constitutional supermajority requirement instituted by Senate rule, not by a legitimate amendment. Yes, the Constitution gives the Senate the right to set it's own rules, but it doesn't give them the right to amend the Constitution by those rules.
It is already impinging on the American Health Care Act. To avoid the filibuster, these provisions must be passed separately at a later date:
...and that's if these provisions aren't successfully filibustered then.
The filibuster didn't stop Obama's One-Man Treaty with his Ayatollah. In fact, it was the filibuster that prevented his Unconditional Pre-Emptive Surrender from being stopped.
The filibuster didn't stop Obamacare, either.
And if Democrats can't get the votes for their extremist positions, they simply write crooked executive orders or have bureaucrats decree them or have their judges legislate them from the bench.
The filibuster is tradition and it does offer some protections to the minority party. But that is far outweighed by the damage to the principle of majority rule and the opportunity for obstruction. It also thwarts accountability for senators by muddling the whole question.
Let your yeas be yeas and your nays be nays, and live with it.