• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Critics Are Wrong: Conservatives Have a Plan for Health Reform

    Following last week’s Supreme Court arguments, supporters of the President’s health care law are once again criticizing opponents of the law for failing to offer their own alternative. They are wrong.

    The Heritage Foundation, for example, has outlined a detailed and comprehensive approach to reforming health care in Saving the American Dream. There are four core elements of this conservative alternative.

    1. Repealing Obamacare

    Patient-centered, market-based health care is incompatible with the fundamental construct of Obamacare. Obamacare is based on turning more power over health care dollars and decisions to Washington. In sharp contrast, the Heritage plan is based on turning more power over health care dollars and decisions to individuals and families.

    2. Reforming Health Care Entitlements

    Medicare and Medicaid are in need of reform. Obamacare cuts roughly $500 billion out of Medicare—but not to extend Medicare’s solvency. Instead, savings are used to pay for other health care spending under the law. On Medicaid, Obamacare offers no reform and instead dumps over 16 million new people onto an already broken government program.

    In sharp contrast, the Heritage plan would transform Medicare and Medicaid into premium-support systems where seniors and low-income families can choose the health plans that best suit their personal needs. It also restores Medicaid as a true safety net to care for those with disabilities.

    3. Restructuring the Tax Treatment of Health Insurance

    The tax code discriminates against those who want to buy and own their health insurance, and it provides unlimited tax breaks to those who get their health insurance through their place of work. Obamacare ignores this distortion and simply adds more complexity on top of this flawed structure.

    Under the Heritage plan, taxpaying Americans would get a federal tax credit to help them buy health insurance for themselves and their families. Like life, home, and car insurance, individuals would own their health insurance policies and would no longer be at risk of losing their health coverage just because they change or lose a job. Moreover, if they don’t like their health insurers, they can fire them.

    4. Advancing Practical Insurance Market Reforms

    The current insurance market is a patchwork system where some people slip through the cracks. The insurance changes under Obamacare, however, create a new set of problems by imposing a heavy regulatory regime that turns private health insurance into a public utility.

    The Heritage plan structures its insurance market reforms on a consumer-driven model, not a government-controlled model. Changes are made to complement and enhance a real consumer-based marketplace for health insurance, where insurers and providers are compelled to compete based on quality and price.

    Conservatives looking for an alternative should start with these principles when formulating their proposals. For more detailed information on how to fix the debt, cut spending, and restore prosperity, read Saving the American Dream.

    Posted in Featured, Obamacare [slideshow_deploy]

    39 Responses to Critics Are Wrong: Conservatives Have a Plan for Health Reform

    1. John H Kennedy says:

      What happens to the individuals who are still unable to afford health care? Or the insurance companies when healthy people choose not to purchase insurance and the burden of the sick becomes too much to bear? Or those with pre-existing conditions who cannot get care? Or young adults who are going to college that are no longer covered by their parents plans?

      This plan seems to rest too heavily on the good behavior of insurance companies offering a service that everyone needs at some point, and who have no choice but the purchase what is available when they need it.

      Addressing the rising costs of healthcare is essential if American cities are going to survive the Baby Boomers. A number of these reforms are worthwhile, but they fail to address the big picture of healthcare and seem overly optimistic about the free market lowering the cost of insurance premiums. We need comprehensive healthcare reforms that address all of the above, and if ObamaCare is not the answer you must do better than this sham.

      • Stirling says:

        Insurance is NOT a right, in case you have not read the Conistution. We have healthcare, and anyone can get treated. You inference is offensive since you assume that everyone has to be covered, when in fact a large portion of people choose not to be covered.

        Your "Rising Cost of Healthcare" is due to the government subsidizing the Entitlements, which raise the cost of healthcare service. (because the government pays pennies on the dollar for services, which raises the costs to providers and insurance companies to make a one-size fits all, rather then tailor fit for individual needs).

        The arguement really falls down to whether or not Government can provide everything for Everyone (which is the liberal stance), the Unsustainable National Debt is the answer to that question..

        • Pragmatic says:

          I respectfully disagree, I think the evidence suggests that the rising cost of healthcare is due to a number of factors and the one you mentioned isn't one of seen (not to say there aren't arguments suggesting that, I just haven't seen them).

          However, two I find particularly convincing are 1) that the uninsured who do seek out healthcare and can't pay creates liabilities for providers which they then pass on to insurance providers and other users, and 2) that insurance and medicare have poor incentives that lead to insuredj people over-consuming healthcare in the form of unnecessary tests (also, medical malpractice lawsuits don't help this either).

          Also, the liberal stance isn't that government can provide everything to everyone and they are not solely responsible for the national debt. That is is the result of years of the democrats creating new entitlements without funding them AND republicans reducing taxes without spending cuts. But that discussion if for another time.

      • Bobbie says:

        Mr. Kennedy and Mr. H, how have you gotten to where you are today? Medical conditions/treatments, necessities are very expensive that the government has a history of promising to bring down the cost which history shows only on some generic medicines while all others of life's survival have tripled! Advantage taken! Government failure!

        Members behind this agenda posed the idea that 30 million people didn't have access to health care which could only be made true if 30 million people weren't looking for it! Distortion!! Misleading!! Trick!!

        Look at all the surprises of impracticalities and irrationalities found after obma's care was coerced to pass!! So what's to trust?? Why should costs be expensed to people that don't have the illness where tax dollars allow the government authority to control? Free market would naturally reduce costs and keep people in control, responsible and accountable to their own!

        The government makes promises during election years but easily neglected when government can incriminate areas government control caused like the insurance industry and out of control costs.

        I would rather the government stayed constitutionally confined when it comes to the privacy and control of my personal health where my bills are paid one way or the other but not by money from your paychecks giving government authority to mandate my lifestyle by their health rules and regulations leading to rationing and unfortunately in position to manipulate health care without accountability and who all knows what? Giving government this power gives them endless control to oppress!

        Thank you for your concern but neither of you are any help and your socialized medicine controlled by the outsource of government, is a threat to individual livelihoods! Your socialized health care has already TRIPLED my costs! It would only make sense to rid obama's preposterous, impractical, over regulated, costly care to reduce costs in the open market. Obama's care is unconstitutional and dangerous! The Heritage foundation saves the American dream by encouraging the self reliance it takes to live the American dream and that to me is living free and independent.

        • Pragmatic says:

          No. I don't understand how consistently misinformed you are although I do admire your passion.

          1) History does show that government can bring down prices. All you need to do is look at any other medical system in the world and realize that they have much lower costs. In particular, look at Germany, Switzerland, etc. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/busi

          2) There are people in that 30 million who do not have insurance because they are denied coverage for pre-existing conditions. I like to believe that americans aren't so darwinistic that we would allow these people to be denied coverage because of something beyond their control (like colon polyps). http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/p

          3) The free market doesn't necessarily reduce costs. Also, the whole idea of insurance is that healthy people subsidize sick people as needed – it's called risk pooling and is the only way that insurance works. When people don't contribute to the risk-pool, they create increased costs for the rest of us when they consume from that pool. This is what happens when uninsured people don't pay for services and providers make up for it by charging insured people more.

          • Bobbie says:

            1.) I know government can bring down the prices but they won't until they're in full control as I tried to imply in my comment.

            2.) make that 299,999,999. I 'm not saying it's easy or reasonably priced or indiscriminating. I'm reasonable when it comes to my health conditions and I wasn't denied. If anyone is denied coverage it has to do with other factors like falsifying information or those applying denying the coverage themselves for preferential or whatever the case. Otherwise 30 million people with what you call "pre-existing conditions" weren't looking to find insurance coverage.

            All costs to diseases of physical need can be reasonably priced if those behind it priced it that way. I mean, come on! DUH! But it's become too tempting to take advantage of people who can't survive without medications that keep them alive. With government not "overseeing" this by the neglect of their duty to do so and taking over control of it when they can manipulate anything within their control is gravely concerning and I mean gravely! Frightening.

            3.) Competition reduces costs. I understand the whole idea of insurance that's why it works when properly implemented and THAT'S when an outside entity of the conflict of authority isn't involved. When people don't insure themselves is when there's no initiative and they don't have the initiative when they've been getting health care free through government means! No one should get anything for free with whoever causes the expense accountable to pay it. There are ways people can help themselves to carry their cost responsibility through personal resources all people have in family, friends, charities, church…

            It sounds good on the surface Pragmatic, but it's a set-up into socialism with the opportunity for government rule to deplete the population in a subtle, sort of subliminal way! Can't put anything past these weak kneed, cry for me, it's not my fault, American leaders and why it's important to keep government far away from your personal control and self governing livelihoods!

    2. steve h says:

      So basically you are reiterating, conservatives have no ideas for reforming health. You merely shift costs to seniors with premium support (when their vouchers continue to lose value) and to states by block granting Medicaid. By your plan, the fed govt stops increasing its spending, but it does nothing to slow rising cost of health care, it just passes on the costs to Americans.

      You let the private insurers continue to run rampant with their abuses. How about a detailed plan…with soem legislative language…instead of this puffery the conservatives continue to offer.

      • JOhn Kotchian says:

        It is not the government's job to provide health insurance for everyone. Rather it should open up the market with lots more freedom and a safety net such as Medicaid for those too sick and indigent to buy policies. If the government would get out of the way of the private companies, competition for business would drive down the cost of insurance very quickly. Conservatives have excellent ideas; they just have never been tried. It would be relatively easy and inexpensive to guarantee coverage for those truly uninsurable and it wouldn't require surrendering all our freedoms to Big Brother. Obamacare makes a bad situation much much worse. Let's go in a better direction.

      • Stirling says:

        Government is not the answer Steve.. Look at the wasteful spending, corruption, abuse, and lack of accountablity. Do you really want your healthcare fate determined by an unelected bearucrat? and worse yet, should you need to sue, being told the government won't allow you to do so?

      • LevinFan says:

        It's amazing how people can respond in English even though they apparently can't read it. The author of this post, a Director of Health Policy Studies, said that the comprehensive plan is available for your reading pleasure online: http://www.savingthedream.org/what-it-covers/medi

        Nothing puffery about it. Obamacare is the pill that has caused health care costs to rise at an even greater rate: http://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/2011/10/10

      • O_Henry says:

        Greetings steve h,

        Some things are so simple they are easily over looked. The answer to your question about rising costs associated with health care is very nicely covered by the conservative formula. Competition. By removing the health care industry from government control to market control from provision and delivery through consumption all the way to the very OWNING of individual health insurance; costs will be driven down. This is the result of a free market and not a command economy such as a government controlled healthcare industry. I hope this gives you some peace of mind about the best way to address costs. The “market” is both effective and efficient.

        • Pragmatic says:

          It's a dangerous assumption that "the 'market' is both effective and efficient". It definitely isn't true and that's also based on the assumption that any possible externalities are accounted for. Further, for that to truly work we'd need to get away from the employer-based model (which didn't develop under a free market).

          • Bobbie says:

            it's more dangerous to think government is either of both of those things, Prago! What country did you come from? "definitely?" where do you come up with that? Have you been dependent on the government all your life? You believe in government over the freedoms of your own and your fellow Americans? That's a real bummer, Pragmatic!!!!!

            • Pragmatic says:

              I grew up in the US. And, I'm definitely correct that the market is not always "effective and efficient". As I stated above, an efficient and effective market (i.e., perfect market) assume that externalities either do not exist or are internalized. They also rely on perfect information. As soon as you allow for the existence of asymmetric information or acknowledge the existence of externalities (both exist in healthcare) then the market is necessarily effective or efficient.

              One problem with the conservative rhetoric is that it leads people to believe that markets are the solution to everything (emphasis on 'everything') and this certainly isn't the case.

              Also, it's also quite the jump in logic to think that someone who doesn't believe that markets are always efficient believes government should do everything.

            • Bobbie says:

              Yes you are "definitely" correct on that!

              People of America believe all matters constitutional is the accountability of those accountable without government involvement!

              NOTHING runs perfect when speculation drives the market. You're always promoting government (subsidies) so what is to be believed? You imply government is effective and efficient or implying the government should step in when someone loses their business because of their lack of effect or efficiency or integrity? all freedom of the peoples' choice and if the business can't make it because the people lost interest freely, then so be it! To have government force us to keep businesses going when businesses aren't running efficiently within the businesses own governing, is adolescent. Accountability, Pragmatic! Real men stand to be held without hiding behind outside government not within their control! Government has a clear record of inefficiency and ineffectiveness so why add government and their added and irrational costs to the mix?

    3. Richardgpw says:

      "Conservatives" and/or so-called Re-pudiators will never understand that Healthcare isn't a commodity and the American people WILL FIGHT to keep it accessible to all of our fellow Neighbors/Citizens of this country……Stop bashing Healthcare RE-Form and join with the rest of this country…just because most can't afford it doesn't mean it's not what the Christian-Evangelical-Right-Wing Whacko part of your 'Neo-CON-serve-it-tude' party would want? Oh, but your Insurance-company goon-lobbyists don't want it, now do they? God Bless :)

      • Steve, OH says:

        commodities are the heart and soul of commerce, so if you Statists insist that you can regulate healthcare based on the commerce clause of the Constitution, then it absolutely IS a commodity that would best be left alone to the natural laws of economics to allow prices to come back into line with reality. So, which is it, lefty??? You can't have it both ways, even though you and your ilk continue to try…….

      • Stirling says:

        "accessible" – well please just go down to your hospital and get help, you wont be turned away last I checked.. Your language has degraded to calling names rather then debating the issue, which unfortunately is what happens to most liberals when confronted with the facts. RE-Form is Socialist healthcare (i.e Canada, Britian, France.) it's not the change that we were promised, or can live with.

    4. Tomas Jefferson says:

      Healthcare will never be affordable or reformed until there is massive tort reform. Bush did it in Texas, and insurance rates went down 25% in the first year. Last 2 decades democrat politicians have squeezed doctors dry with insane frivolous lawsuits and puny pay from medicare. Time to squeeze sleazy democrat junk lawsuit attorneys dry, by establishing small pain and suffering payouts, and loser pays laws. Will it ever happen? No. Attorneys vote 90% democrat, and are their second largest campaign contributors.

    5. akleinjw says:

      Did you guys even read the full plan Saving the American Dream? Whats here is just a summery. Tom coburn had a bill in congress on health care reform, it got buried.

    6. teripeters says:

      How about the most important facet of free market principals, opening up the purchase of health insurance across state lines. That alone would resolve many of the cost issues. This is a terribly written piece apparently written to market a book? None of this would resolve the high costs of health insurance.

    7. Pragmatic says:

      By not taking care of the uninsured and those with pre-existing conditions you're not really advocating any meaningful healthcare reform. Also, it doesn't seem like your plan does anything to stop the runaway costs in this country. So, I think the liberals are right on this one even though I am not a supporter of the Affordable Care Act.

      Maybe you guys should talk to this guy, he's been advocating for meaningful market based reform for a long time and was way ahead of the game on social security and medicare's unfunded liabilities.

      • Bobbie says:

        gee pragmatic, I wasn't insured until I was without holding your hand or tugging on the skirts of government. Why does anyone think everyone should "be taken care of" as if everyone is mentally deficient? Lots of our income goes into health costs in regard to debilitating illnesses endured, I've been fighting to have costs reduced for years. But it's because of the involvement of government that protects the overly price costs. Without government and their direction, competition would ensue w/fair pricing.

        Behind the backs of Americans, the government has incriminated every area essential to the freedom and liberties (in America, undefined by government as always should be) of our lives, limiting the social mindset to comply with necessary government control everywhere. What's free in freedom? socialism? that's perverted thinking! Please understand, we with our conditions want full control of our livelihoods to find ourselves, people of sincerity in the fields that sustain our lives, without government force in between.

    8. Rimrock says:

      Whether it is health care or some other issue, our government (congress) plays it like a shell game. Cut government spending? Sure so that the more "ear marks" can go unnoticed but our national debt rises (maybe slower) but in the meantime the average citizen is no better off. Being 75 yrs old I can remember the high interest times (republicans in office) and the low interest times (democrats in office).

      People who run the Heritage Foundation and are associated with it need to get real jobs where they are contributing something to our country not writing about how bad it is.

      • Stirling says:

        The "High Intrest" times were due to Jimmy Carter's 1 Term in Office (who was the last democrat to push us into a financial abyss.) Reagan had to fix the mess and the same will hapen in 2013, to get us out of the current low intrest debt farse the Fed is involved in, the problem this time is that taxes are due to explode in 2013 thanks to expiring breaks on everyone. Thank this administration for thinking of you in 2013 when your taxes go up.

      • Bobbie says:

        that's too bad some would rather be deaf, dumb and blind to what is happening. How about you getting a real job so you don't have time on your hands to be bothered by truth!

    9. Boy, you guys at the heritage foundation need better mods. It looks as though the Reds are taking over your boards.

      But these ideas will push healthcare in the right direction. We need downward pressure on Health Insurance products. One way to do this is to force people to rethink what health Insurance is. You don't pay for your gasoline with your car insurance do you? If you did, then your car insurance would be through the roof as well. You don't pay light bulbs, building supplies or other day -to-day items for your house with your house insurance do you? If you did, your house insurance would be through the roof. Health insurance should "insure" you if you get in a catastrophic accident or contract a deadly or life-threatening disease. Making it a catch-all for every possible health concern is one of the reason why the cost always goes up.

      • kverdeck says:

        So in your eyes, the job of the mods here at Heritage is to filter out any and all opinions contrary to the conservative viewpoint? That's a little.. fascist, don'tcha think? I'm one of those horrible, misguided leftists and I come here because I think being stuck in one particular echo chamber and getting just one side of the discussion is a Bad Thing. If more people felt the same, perhaps we'd have more meaningful discourse, more compromise, and less meaningless back-patting and divisive mudslinging.

      • Pragmatic says:

        I partly agree with what you're saying, but I would argue that the opposite is more optimal for both patients and insurance companies. If insurance completely covered preventative care, then people would be more likely to consume which would lead to fewer serious complications down the road which are the truly expensive procedures and healthcare costs. Your suggestion would accomplish the opposite, people, especially the poor or liquidity constrained, would most likely delay care until it was serious which would drive overall costs up. The exact opposite of what we want.

        This is just my logic, can't cite any source. Feel free to refute (but please refrain from calling me a socialist or talking about the tyranny of the government).

    10. Bullswin says:

      I agree somewhat, put healthcare decisions back in the hands of the consumer. By eliminating health insurance as a benifit of employment and make it a cost of living, consumers will make better decisions. They will inquire about cost and quality. Healthcare providers will respond by offering competitive products and services as they compete for the healthcare $. Continue the HSA and not a tax credit. I personally would buy real insurance, high deductable hospitalization and pay for routine care out of pocket. When more healthcare consumers pay out of pocket then providers will offer lower cost services.

    11. kverdeck says:

      Does no one here remember that the core of Obamacare–the individual mandate about which the right is now up in arms–was lifted from the plan Romneycare implemented in Massachusetts? And where did Romney get it? Well I'll be darned, from the Heritage Foundation! Short memories indeed.

      I am one of those who are opposed to Obamacare not because of the individual mandate, but because it failed to include the option of a single-payer system. In its initial drafts it did include a Medicare-for-all option, and the health insurance industry was up in arms. Once their lobbyists got that piece killed, they settled down, and that was when I knew we had a largely meaningless reform on our hands.

      The NEW Heritage health reform plan is more of the same, a handout to the insurance industry of not just the premiums we currently pay, but also those currently handled by the Medicare and Medicaid systems as well, by means of the vouchers Paul Ryan and his ilk are so fond of. The vouchers that aren't tied to the actual cost of health care and remove the benefit of Medicare's negotiating power, which will in turn result in higher out-of-pocket expenses for seniors.

      We're the wealthiest first-world country, and yet we're the last without a single-payer health system alternative. We're still convinced we have the best health system in the world–yet other nations routinely report better outcomes with far lower costs, and the rate of increase of our medical spending is simply unsustainable. The fact that our health coverage is tied so closely to employment is also unusual and detrimental, and flies in the face of the support for small business that conservatives claim. No conservative reform plan I've yet seen addresses any of those issues.

      • Bobbie says:

        that's because you don't recognize self reliance and won't accept your own freedom so you and your redundancy should be happy in a socialist country of your choosing. This isn't the "wealthiest first-world country" from 51% of Americans living off 49%! That's the wealthiest first-world country falling fast into third world government (luxuries, they fool you into thinking!)

        • kverdeck says:

          Bobbie, the very definition of a third-world country is the absence of a robust middle class–essentially, when you have a country where the vast majority are in poverty, with a powerful and wealthy elite at the top, that's a third-world country. That is exactly the sort of country the conservatives have blindly been trying to turn this one into fro the past 30 years, and so far it's working marvelously. Take a look at the Ryan budget, which proposes more and more tax cuts for the wealthy, at the cost of the social services the rest of us depend on (or should be able to if we need to), and without a shred of the deficit reduction they claim is so crucial. The real wonder to me is how the GOP manage to get so many of the middle-class people they're hurting to keep voting for them, merely on the basis of meaningless social wedge issues and by putting up a facade of religiosity and patriotism. Are there any good conservative ideas? Sure there are, just as there are good liberal ideas. But the middle ground that used to steer this country has been erased by a corporate media that divides us over nonsense, for the benefit of the moneychangers running the temples of government.

          • Bobbie says:

            I'm sorry kverdeck, but I do disagree. People want freedom in America which doesn't mean everything is "free" as irrational thinkers imply. It is however, living free from government control! That means Americans responsible for our individual own and the responsibilities our individual freedom of choices takes on and all costs that go with it! America stands for this!!!!

            As far as the middle class? We used to be there until the growth and costs of government helped themselves off our backs at all levels of government unfairly and ruthlessly and specifically in the last 8 years. It's like this "oh well, because you're responsible and these people aren't but still make the same wage as you less the tax expense, need these social programs at the cost of those responsible? It's government trying to fit in EVERYWHERE it's unconstitutional and at everyone elses costs and disdain.

            The President has been transparent on who the elite are under his protection using our stolen money. I don't want government involved. the social programs are endless and weren't needed at one time so cuts to them is essential! I'd prefer America show the strength of the people, not the strength of the unconstitutionality of egregious government!

            As far as tax cuts anywhere, what's wrong with the government gaining discipline, integrity and self control within a reasonable amount of revenue and the people determining that reasonable amount? Rich people are an incentive. The real concern is the opportunity lost while everybody is so convinced they're hurt by the rich, tattling to government to have the rich demonized when they could utilize their time productively, using their own minds thinking, gaining their own wealth and independence!

    12. O2BMe says:

      the problem is the government cannot run anything. Look at the businesses they have their nose in already. countries that have National run health plans are all in financial trouble. People who need elective surgeries wait forever to get scheduled. People wait months for doctor visits and many things are rationed. It might help bring cost down by tort reform and no state limits on where you can purchase your insurance. Health care is heavily regulated and can hardly be called a free market system. In many cases people without health insurance could pay something if a sliding scale was used based on their income instead of writing tho whole bill of on to Medicaid. It is sad when your doctor who tries to extend your life makes less than your elected politician in DC who can give his/herself a raise every year and work part time.

    13. howe says:

      Obamacare is not about healthcare, because medicaid will get even more scarce or non-existant for poor people. Medicare willl go bankrupt in a few years and the same thing applies to scarcity of treatment for the simple reason that doctors will not accept 16 dollars for medicare and medicaid patients for an average office visit. Doctors have to pay overhead, nurses, medical equipment to do in office visits etc. The healthcare bill enpowers unions specifically the SEIU to unionize all medical workers, it creates a 6000 person civilian ready reserve army that is better trained and better equipped than the military and creates 156 new offices of govt and hires 16,000 IRS agents to monitor business and taxpayers to insure everyone pays for healthcare or pays a penalty. Obamacare is a sham to get votes and power.

    14. jess says:

      The escalating cost for health can be traced to over regulation, legal over reach and defensive mediicine. I am a senior with diabetes who is "required" to see my endocrinologist every 90 days or be threatened with cutting off health coverage. Additionally, if I see the doctor at 89 days Medicare will not cover it. If I see the doctor in 91 days it likewise will be cause for cutting off medical supplies. I'm required to have a colonoscopy every 10 years, but if a polyp is found and removed during the process then that is not covered. Each and everyone of Medicare's regulations and rules increases the total cost of health care by at least double or triple. Medicare is its own worst enemy in controlling costs.

    15. CJH says:

      Government never, ever, ever does anything efficiently. Name anything government has made better. Why would anyone think, then, that putting the controls of healthcare in the hands of government bureaucracy would work. It won't. The solution has to be free market based. Tort reform, and elimination of existing government intrusion is the solution. Hospitals have gone from being independent to be largely controlled by government and the result has been higher costs, less efficiency, and a poorer outcome. Get rid of the government involvement. Why can't insurance be sold across state lines? Government regs is why. Nearly everything wrong with healthcare can be traced to existing government involvement. We need LESS of that, not more.

    16. Spot on with this write-up, I honestly feel this website

      needs far more attention. I’ll probably be returning to read more, thanks for the info!

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.