My Mephetic Life
“Every resident of the U.S. must, by law, be enrolled in an adequate health care plan to cover major health care costs. This requirement would imply a compact between the U.S. government and its citizens: in return for the goverment’s accepting an obligation to devise a market-based system guaranteeing access to care and protecting all families from financial distress due to the cost of an illness, each individual must agree to obtain a minimum level of protection.”The Heritage Foundation: A National Health System for America (PDF)
Now, of course, the Heritage Foundation writes of the mandate:

It Is an Unconstitutional Violation of Personal Liberty and Strikes at the Heart of American Federalism

Heritage is clearly envisioning a national system—so it doesn’t seem concerned about implications for either personal liberty or federalism. How do we reconcile Heritage’s vehement opposition to its own idea?
It’s not so hard. The 1989 piece was written for the purpose of offering an “alternative” to rumblings about a proper single-payer system. It wasn’t an an idea that was actually supposed to happen. And it definitely wasn’t an idea that democrats were supposed to get credit for.
Now that their idea has become a reality, Heritage wants a new alternative.
In case you didn’t learn the first time: Beware of Conservatives Bearing Alternatives.

Every resident of the U.S. must, by law, be enrolled in an adequate health care plan to cover major health care costs. This requirement would imply a compact between the U.S. government and its citizens: in return for the goverment’s accepting an obligation to devise a market-based system guaranteeing access to care and protecting all families from financial distress due to the cost of an illness, each individual must agree to obtain a minimum level of protection.”

The Heritage Foundation: A National Health System for America (PDF)

Now, of course, the Heritage Foundation writes of the mandate:

It Is an Unconstitutional Violation of Personal Liberty and Strikes at the Heart of American Federalism

Heritage is clearly envisioning a national system—so it doesn’t seem concerned about implications for either personal liberty or federalism. How do we reconcile Heritage’s vehement opposition to its own idea?

It’s not so hard. The 1989 piece was written for the purpose of offering an “alternative” to rumblings about a proper single-payer system. It wasn’t an an idea that was actually supposed to happen. And it definitely wasn’t an idea that democrats were supposed to get credit for.

Now that their idea has become a reality, Heritage wants a new alternative.

In case you didn’t learn the first time: Beware of Conservatives Bearing Alternatives.