The Heritage Foundation is trying to distance itself from a long held position they have had for years, the idea that exchanges are a good way to lower costs and promote competition, this only after President Obama in a recent interview reference the think tank as the source for his inclusion in his HCR plan (which is now the law of the land).
You can certainly say this people will go to any lengths to not give any credit to President Obama for implementing some of their ideas into actual law, the idea that they will support repealing the same ideas they pushed for so many years just goes to show that they HATE the messenger so much that even if the message is one they like they will see it as a threat to their survival, it's kinda like burning your own house just cause you didn't like the color its painted.
From an article by Jon Walker @ FDL
Heritage Foundation plan from the 90’s
The new health care law championed by Obama is strikingly similar to the Republican alternative Clinton’s health care plan put forward by Sen. John Chafee (R-RI) and has basically the same structure as the Heritage Foundation plan from the same time. Does this description of it in Reason sound familiar:
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.
An individual mandate forcing people to buy private insurance on an exchange with a sliding scale of tax credits and the program is paid for by phasing out the tax deduction for employer provided insurance. Sound familiar?