I've offered an option here before, modeled on the Oregon Health Plan. I don't think the Feds have any business whatsoever messing in healthcare, because each state's circumstances are different. A state like Florida, which has a great many retirees, is going to need more resources devoted to the elderly, while states with large numbers of Hispanic immigrants need to focus on preventive care for both adults and children.
The states are in a much better position to decide what their residents need. Which is why Oregon asked for a waiver from the federal government years ago to expand Medicaid and offer lower-cost health plans for those who were too well off to qualify for public assistance---all paid for by our taxes. There was no mandate. There was rationing; a panel made up of doctors, lawyers, laypeople and financial experts made a list of common and uncommon medical conditions, then drew a line between those conditions which would be covered and those that would not be.
Yes, it was arbitrary, but so is the rationing we have now. Bottom line, which would you rather see your tax dollars pay for: treatment for cancer, or breast augmentation?
Of course, this oversimplifies things, but the idea is to avoid the centralization of health care in the federal government and give power to the states to decide what their individual populations need most. Yes, it would likely increase taxes, and no, it does NOT include a mandate, which means some will still be without coverage. But Obamacare won't ensure universal coverage either, because some people will still be unable to afford insurance premiums even with assistance, and others will simply refuse to buy insurance.
That's just my two pence worth. You wanted an alternative to the mandate, here it is.