Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
Obamacare Reset: A Free Market Vision for Health Care Reform
Obamacare Reset: A Free Market Vision for Health Care Reform
Jul 11, 2026 1:08 PM

“We are now three years into health care ‘reform’ and it is crystal clear that what we have is no reform at all,” says Dr. Nick Pandelidis in this week’s Acton Commentary. “As we are seeing, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as is typical of so many government program names, will result in just the opposite e. PPACA is unaffordable, it will harm patients, and it will do incalculable damage to human dignity.” The full text of his essay follows. Subscribe to the free, weekly Acton News & Commentary and other publications here.

Obamacare Reset: A Free Market Vision for Health Care Reform

byNick Pandelidis

We are now three years into health care “reform” and it is crystal clear that what we have is no reform at all. As we are seeing, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as is typical of so many government program names, will result in just the opposite e. PPACA is unaffordable, it will harm patients, and it will do incalculable damage to human dignity.

It is helpful to remind ourselves why there has been such a broad, bipartisan push for health care reform in recent years. Largely that consensus was built on two factors: Access and uncontrolled health care cost growth. Of the two, access for the uninsured and those with pre-existing conditions has been the more emotionally charged, politicized, and demagogued issue.

Access for the uninsured and those with pre-existing conditions must be addressed but the magnitude of the problem is smaller and more manageable than the political rhetoric would lead us to believe. It is also subordinate to the primary issue of unaffordable healthcare and health insurance. Lowering the cost of health care and health insurance would go a long way to lowering the numbers of the uninsured.

Despite all the rhetoric and acrimony of the health care debate, there is still much confusion about the nature of the two main opposing visions for reform: One is based in central government control and the other on individual freedom.

President Obama’s health care “reform” is built on bureaucratic medical decision making and massive deficit spending. In stark contrast, a market-based health care reform approach would be based on individual freedom and personal responsibility. This market-based, or free market approach, would be financially viable, would lower costs, and would improve quality of and access to health care. It’s not too late to “reset” reform and craft a real, workable approach to solving healthcare access and funding problems.

Reform Must Go Forward

What are the principles underlying this free market health care reform? First, the status quo is not acceptable. Health care cost growth is unsustainable and threatens the financial well-being of individuals and families, small and large businesses and our government at all levels. Further, the poor and many with pre-existing conditions have inadequate access to health care insurance. But it must be recognized that lowering costs and a strong economy would go a long way toward improving access.

Second, there is no such thing as free health care. Everything has a cost. Like all resources, health care is limited. The real question is how to efficiently allocate limited health care resources. Economic experience has repeatedly demonstrated that limited resource allocation in a context of economic freedom, based in individual choice and personal responsibility, results in more of a particular resource for more people. That same experience has demonstrated that centralized government planning and decision making is inefficient and results in less output of a particular resource.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we have an obligation informed by justice and our faith traditions to provide health care for those who truly cannot afford to pay for these services. Our daily witness to our faith is largely lived out inkoinonia, munity, with fellow human beings in whom the faithful Christian perceives the person of Jesus Christ.

Inherent in this market-based approach are three objectives. The first is to assure that the program results in its stated e – accessible high quality health care for the recipients. The second is to assure that the money devoted to the program is not spent wastefully. Medicare mostly meets the first criterion but not the second. Medicaid fails to meet either criterion. Third, we must ensure that the program is affordable. If the program is not financially sustainable, the program’s proclaimed benefit is an empty promise.

Getting Specific

ponents of the free market vision of health care reform would look like this:

Coverage for those with pre-existing conditions:The great majority of persons with pre-existing conditions have adequate access to affordable health insurance because most have employer provided insurance. Employer-based insurance already has safeguards preventing denial of coverage or excessive premiums for those with pre-existing conditions who have maintained continuous coverage as they move from job to job. Free market reform will no longer allow panies to deny coverage to those persons who must get coverage in the individual market. This reform will also establish appropriately funded high risk pools for those who cannot afford the higher premium costs for pre-existing expensive medical conditions.

Coverage for the poor: Free market reform will provide all individuals and families with a refundable tax credit to buy health insurance. With this tax credit, the poor can buy quality health insurance, and will no longer be relegated to a second-rate Medicaid system.

Individual ownership of health insurance: Free market reform will make health care insurance refundable tax credits available to all individuals and families. Now all persons who buy insurance will have the same tax benefit as those who currently have employer-provided insurance. Further, they will no longer lose their coverage if they change or lose their job. Perhaps most importantly, this health care tax reform will greatly encourage insurance petition.

Individuals in charge of their own health care, and incentives for cost-effective health care spending: Free market reform, by promoting health care savings accounts in conjunction with catastrophic coverage, will put the money spent on health care in the hands of the consumer who actually uses the health care. This financial control restores the individual’s freedom to make their own health care decisions. Third party payers will no longer infringe on patient-physician decision making. Direct control of health care spending will also encourage individuals to utilize health care services and spend money more wisely than if someone else were paying the bills.

Transparent medical service charges: Free market reform will promote transparency of medical costs and es. Transparency will help individuals make smarter health care spending choices, and petition among providers of health care services.

petition and choice in the insurance market: Freer markets and petition will result in lower costs, more choices, and improved quality and service for the entire health insurance market. In addition to the previously discussed federal tax policy reforms and promotion of transparency, free market reform will decrease the number of mandated services so individuals can get the coverages they need and can afford. Finally, this reform will also open insurance sales across state lines.

Personal responsibility in health lifestyles: This reform will allow the young, healthy individuals and families, and those who make healthy life style choices to buy lower cost insurance that reflects their health status and lifestyle choices. Conversely, individuals who make unhealthy lifestyle choices will pay more for their health care coverage – just as drivers who have repeated accidents pay more for auto insurance than safe drivers.

Keeping the health care security promise made to our seniors: The Medicare program is projected to be insolvent within 12 years. The current defined health care benefit effectively creates unlimited demand and promotes excessive spending. Free market reform will put Medicare on sustainable financial footing by gradually transforming it from an unsustainable defined benefit program to a defined contribution plan and thereby keep the health care promise made to our seniors. Individuals of or near Medicare age would see no change in their coverage while those who are 10 years or more from Medicare enrollment would participate in the new fiscally solvent Medicare program.

Medical malpractice lawsuit abuse reform: Free market reform will further decrease health care expenditure by decreasing “defensive medicine” and unnecessary testing

Health care reform founded in the principles of individual freedom and personal responsibility will provide effective and viable remedies for unsustainable health care costs and for inadequate access for the poor and for those with pre-existing conditions. President Obama’s health care law puts our medical care into the hands of Washington bureaucrats. It’s funded by typical Washington accounting tricks and, ultimately, massive deficit entitlement spending. Free market health care reform will lower health care costs for individuals, families, small and large businesses, and government at all levels. True reform will strengthen the economy, increase employment, lower our national debt and unfunded liabilities, and restore our children’s opportunity to live in freedom and prosperity.

Dr. Nick Pandelidis practices medicine in York, Pa. He serves on the Board of Trustees of St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary in Crestwood, N.Y.

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
The Rise of Free-Market Alternatives to Obamacare
Referring to the Affordable Care Act, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Max Baucus (D-Mont.) stated earlier this year, “Unless we implement this properly, it’s going to be a train wreck.” And indeed, from looking at the Obamacare implementation timeline alone, the law seems to have gotten off to a shaky start. The implementation of the so-called employer mandate, which would require businesses with more than 50 workers to offer insurance to all full-time employees, or else pay a fine...
Bradley Cited in News Roundup on Millenials Leaving Church
Last week, Rachel Held Evans wrote an article discussing millennials leaving the church. This piece quickly went viral prompting responses from mentators, debating “why those belonging to the millennial generation are leaving the church and what should be done about it.” Research fellow at Acton, Anthony Bradley, discusses Evans’ piece in “United Methodists Wearing A Millennial Evangelical Face.” Jeff Schapiro, at the Christian Post, discusses this debate and summarizes mentators’ opinions, including Bradley’s: Anthony Bradley, associate professor of Theology and...
Do the Poor Vote for More Welfare?
A popular saying (often misattributed to Alexis de Tocqueville) states that a democracy can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. If this is always the case then we should expect the poor to vote themselves even more welfare payments. However, as Dwight R. Lee explains, the desire for transfers that others will pay for has almost no effect on people’s voting behavior: This argument that a significant financial gain from...
Spirit-and-Body Economics
Over at the Kern Pastors Network, Greg Forster points to Rev. Robert Sirico’s speech from this year’s Acton University, drawing particularly on Sirico’s emphasis on Christian anthropology.“One may not say that we are spirits inside of flesh,” Sirico said, “but that we are spirits and flesh.” Forster summarizes: Christianity teaches that the human person is, in Sirico’s words, both corporeal and transcendent. We cannot make sense of ourselves if we are only bodies. How could a strictly material body think...
For America’s Elites, Religious Freedom is a Non-Issue
America’s Founding Fathers considered religious liberty to be our “first freedom.” But as Ken Blackwell notes, that view is no longer shared by our media and foreign policy elites: All such understandings of the religious freedom foundation of American civil liberty and foreign policy seem long forgotten by the elites of today. The media cares little about religious freedom. The famous Rothman-Lichter study of 1981 surveyed 240 journalists from the prestige press. Of course, 80 percent of them voted one...
What Distributists Get Wrong
Last week, we took a look at what distributists get right in terms of economics, through the eyes of David Deavel at Intercollegiate Review. Now, Deavel discusses where distributism goes off the rails in that same series. It is a rather long list, but here are the highlights. First, Deavel says that simple economics escapes distributists. Despite the fact that economics teaches that actions in the real world have real world consequences, distributists tend to ignore this fact. They scoff...
Dispersing Poor People And Crime
Emily Badger at The Atlantic Wire posts mon sense story regarding the debate about whether or not the dispersing of poor people out of inner-city housing projects into suburban neighborhoods, through government housing voucher programs, increases crime rates. The article reflects recent research by Michael Lens, an assistant professor of urban planning at UCLA. A growing stack of research now supports [the] hypothesis that housing vouchers do not in fact lead to crime. Lens has just added another study to...
Was Gordon Gekko Catholic?
Is greed really good? Does self-interest equal sin? Samuel Gregg takes on these questions at Aleteia.org, in an excerpt from his new book, Tea Party Catholic: the Catholic Case for Limited Government, a Free Economy and Human Flourishing. In many ways, the free economy does rely upon people pursuing their self-interest rather than being immediately focused upon promoting the wellbeing of others. One response to this challenge is to recognize that fallen humanity cannot realize perfect justice in this world....
Lord Acton and America’s Moral Absolutes Concerning Liberty
Lord Acton once said of the American revolution: “No people was so free as the insurgents, no government less oppressive than the government which they overthrew.” It was America’s high view of liberty and its ideas that cultivated this unprecedented freedom ripe for flourishing. Colonists railed over 1 and 2 percent tax rates and were willing to take up arms in a protracted and bloody conflict to secure independence and self-government. In a chapter on Lord Acton in The Moral...
Disability and Discipleship: God Don’t Make No Junk
In this week’s Acton Commentary, “Disability, Service, and Stewardship,” I write, “Our service of others may or may not be recognized by the marketplace as something valuable or worth paying for. But each one of us has something to offer someone else. All of us have ministries of one kind or another. Our very existence itself must be seen as a blessing from God.” During a sermon a couple weeks ago at my church, the preacher made an important point...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2026 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved