"Why Obamacare is Wrong for America" Advertises on the Heritage Foundation's Web Site, but...

There is a new book coming out called Why Obamacare is Wrong for America. It appears the Heritage Foundation may be behind the book--at least they are accepting advertising dollars to promote this book on their Web site.

Isn't this a bit hypocritical of the Heritage Foundation?

You see, the Heritage Foundation didn't think Obamacare was wrong for America when they wrote most of the legislation along with the Republican party in 1994 as an alternative to Hillarycare--federal mandate and all. They thought their solution was worthy enough for debate in Congress.

In a nutshell, Heritage proposes that consumers be able to choose from among a host of health-care options ranging from traditional insurers to health maintenance organizations (HMOs). Using refundable tax credits that decrease as income grows, Heritage would empower families to choose plans on the basis of coverage, service, and price. As part of the “healthcare social contract” thus formed, Butler says, heads of households would be required by law to buy basic health-care coverage “to protect society from citizens who would try to exploit the good nature of ordinary Americans” by free-riding on the system.

The tax deduction for employer-provided health insurance would be phased out, in favor of the family-based tax credit. Families could still choose to join group plans. But by helping people buy insurance directly, rather than relying on employers to provide it, Heritage would solve the “portability” problem, in which employees are trapped in undesirable jobs because they’re afraid of losing health coverage.

Butler and health-care analyst Edmund Haislmaier introduced the key elements of the Heritage plan in a 1989 book, A National Health System for America. In 1992, Heritage began to tout the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) as a model for how a national consumer-choice system in health insurance might function. Robert Moffit, deputy director of domestic policy studies at Heritage and a former manager of FEHBP, became one of the foundation’s key spokesmen on the issue.

Heritage’s embrace of FEHBP–a regulated and flawed government program, according to some critics–nevertheless provided a great “hook” that may well have enhanced the foundation’s overall sales pitch on health-care reform. As voter disaffection with elected leaders soared, Heritage could say, “What is available for Congress and its employees should be made available to every American family.” This message resonated with the public.


But here's the kicker:

Solutions from the Pauly and Heritage plans soon found their way into Republican- and Democrat-sponsored health bills-including the individual mandate that was vital to both.

And what happens when the Heritage Foundation and Republican's 194 alternative to Hillarycare is put in place? Well we have Mitt Romney's plan in Massachusetts based on the Heritage plan to show us.

The New York Post reports:

In fact, we have already seen the start of this process in Massachusetts, where Mitt Romney’s health care reforms were nearly identical to President Obama’s. Romney’s reforms increased the demand for health care but did nothing to expand the supply of physicians. In fact, by cracking down on insurance premiums, Massachusetts pushed insurers to reduce their payments to providers, making it less worthwhile for doctors to expand their practices. As a result, the average wait to get an appointment with a doctor grew from 33 days to over 55 days.