Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
Obamacare Reset: A Free Market Vision for Health Care Reform
Obamacare Reset: A Free Market Vision for Health Care Reform
Aug 3, 2026 4:25 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 Effects of Federal Unionism
According to figures recently released by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, federal workers receive on average about double what private sector workers make: $106,579 vs. $53,289. These numbers are based on pensation. A study done by the Cato Institute (PDF here of 2004 figures), under the direction of Chris Edwards, shows that for 2005, “If you consider wages without benefits, the average federal civilian worker earned $71,114, 62 percent more than the average private-sector worker, who made $43,917.” In...
Use GoodSearch, Advance Freedom and Virtue
Don’t forget, you can use GoodSearch to direct funds to the Acton Institute. Simply visit and type in “Acton Institute” in the “I’m supporting” field. When you click the “Verify” button, all of your searches conducted with GoodSearch will raise $0.01 for the support of freedom and virtue. You may also click on the banner below (or here), and the Acton Institute will automatically be designated as your recipient. GoodSearch offers a handy Firefox search bar plugin feature as well,...
The Minimum Wage: A Denial of Freedom and Duty
In this week’s Acton Commentary, “The Minimum Wage: A Denial of Freedom and Duty,” I look at the concept of minimum wage legislation from the perspective of the employer/employee relationship. In his second epistle to the Thessalonians, the apostle Paul sets down a moral principle: “If a man will not work, he shall not eat.” But Paul’s words seem also to imply the opposite positive principle, something like, “If you will work, you should eat.” Even so, I argue, it...
GM Bacteria and Malaria
“Scientists have discovered a way to help stop the spread of malaria by genetically altering a bacterium that infects about 80 percent of the world’s insects. Malaria is primarily transmitted through mosquito bites and kills more than a million people every year.” Source: “Genetically Altered Bacteria Could Block Malaria Transmission,” by Lisa Pickoff-White, The National Academies, Science in the Headlines, August 2, 2006. HT: Zondervan “To the Point” For more on the fight against malaria, visit Acton’s Impact campaign page....
‘The poor people’s God, the sinner’s God’
I’m reading John W. de Gruchy’s Confessions of a Christian Humanist, and despite some rather disagreeable elements to his theology, he does have quite a few valuable insights. Here’s what he says in the context of Nietzsche’s derision of Jesus Christ contained in The Anti-Christ: Christians should not disparage the body, human strength and bravery, or the aesthetic dimensions of life. But Nietzsche is right, if not wholly so. The Christian God is the ‘poor people’s God, the sinner’s God’....
Chimera Nomenclature
Another round of stories are out about the possibility of creating a modern-day wooly mammoth, Jurassic Park-style. The process would include injecting frozen wooly mammoth sperm into an egg of a closely related species. In this case, an elephant would be the logical choice. And in case you were wondering what you would call such a thing, I’ve already explored the possibilities in a previous post on chimera nomenclature: it would be called a “mammophant,” with the full taxonomy being...
‘Beyond Petroleum’ or ‘Big Problem’? UPDATED
NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams is asking, “Was the BP pipeline problem preventable?” It seems that BP has allegedly been giving required maintenance to the pipeline short shrift: “Allegations about BP’s maintenance practices have been so persistent that a criminal investigation now is under way into whether BP has for years deliberately shortchanged maintenance and falsified records to cover it up.” BP shut down the Prudhoe Bay oil field earlier this week, after a “spill” resulting from “unexpected corrosion.”...
The Acton PowerBlog Audience
Want to see where other readers of the Acton Institute PowerBlog are from? Check out the PowerBlog Frappr! map. Join the list of PowerBlog friends today. If the GetReligionistas can do it, so can we! ...
Local Help on the Street
We’re working through the meaning of the tenth anniversary of welfare reform, debating important ‘next phase’ issues like marriage and fatherhood and what those mean to helping people leave poverty…permanently. That debate about government’s appropriate role in addressing social need is important. At least equally important is the work or private citizens at the local level, ‘on the street’–figuratively and literally. In February, a blog post featured A Way Out Victim Assistance program in Memphis, one of Acton’s Samaritan Award...
Our Changing Environmental Perspective
Seth Godin, a marketing guru, passes along this nugget: One mistake marketers make is a little like the goldfish that never notices the water in his tank. Our environment is changing. Always. Incrementally. Too slowly to notice, sometimes. But it changes. What we care about and talk about and react to changes every day. Starbucks couldn’t have launched in 1970. We weren’t ready. Of course, sometimes the reason that our perspective on an issue changes is because the thing itself...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2026 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved