In his post on the differences over energy policy between the (conservative) Heritage Foundation and the (libertarian) Cato Institute, Jerry Taylor mentions that the two Washington think tanks also have differences regarding health care. For those who are curious, here's where I see the biggest differences between Cato scholars and Heritage scholars on health policy:
The Heritage Foundation's health policy team generally supports having the government force people to buy health insurance. Cato scholars generally do not. A couple of weeks ago, Heritage's director of health policy studies Bob Moffit wrote in the San Diego Union-Tribune:
[M]y Heritage Foundation colleagues and I support the “personal responsibility principle.” It's a simple idea: All adults have a responsibility to buy their own health insurance, pay their own health care bills, and not shift those costs to others....
People who can reasonably afford it have a responsibility to buy health insurance to protect themselves and their families against the financial devastation of catastrophic illness....
People who do not wish to buy health insurance for whatever reason should be free to do so. But, in exchange, they must demonstrate in some tangible way that they are really going to pay their own hospital bills.
My Cato colleagues and I generally differ, for a number of reasons: such "individual mandates" are impractical, ineffective, and expand government power beyond its legitimate scope. Government should and does require people to pay their debts, meaning that patients already are legally responsible for their medical bills. The Heritage "personal responsibility principle," on the other hand, would hold a Christian Scientist responsible for debts that he will never incur.
In addition, Heritage scholars embrace the idea that government should pursue "universal coverage." Meanwhile, I do things like start the Anti-Universal Coverage Club (whose membership is growing).
There are many areas where Cato and Heritage scholars agree. I personally respect every member of their health policy team. Why, just yesterday Cato hosted Heritage's Ed Haislmaier at a forum where we released a study critical of the Heritage-backed Massachusetts health plan.
Where we disagree, we criticize. But I consider such criticism a form of praise. The only reason we bother to criticize is because what Heritage scholars say matters. A lot.
This Cato-Heritage disagreement over health care goes back more than a decade. It contributes to the free-market movement's lack of direction on health care reform. The movement cannot move on in a unified manner until that disagreement is resolved.