Report: Mitt Romney plan leaves 72M uninsured

[dinar_stud]

Report: Mitt Romney plan leaves 72M uninsured

Mitt Romney’s health care plan wouldn’t just insure fewer people than “Obamacare” — it would make the uninsured problem worse than it would have been if the law had never passed, according to a comparison of the two plans by a research group with a history of pro-“Obamacare” studies.

The analysis by the Commonwealth Fund, a New York-based health care research foundation, found that under Romney’s health care plan, the uninsured population would soar to 72 million by 2022 — 12 million higher than if nothing had been done at all.

By contrast, if President Barack Obama’s health care law is fully implemented — including complete state participation in the now voluntary Medicaid expansion — the number of uninsured people would drop from 47.9 million in 2011 to about 27.1 million people in 2022, the report estimated.

The Commonwealth Fund produces studies that often cast the national health care law in a favorable light, and spotlight the shortcomings of the American health care system compared to other countries.

The number of insured Americans would rise in every age group under the Affordable Care Act and fall in every group under Romney’s plan, Sara Collins, vice president for Commonwealth’s affordable health insurance program, told reporters in a conference call Monday.

The report says most of the difference is due to Romney’s plans for Medicaid, which he would turn into block grants, and the expansion of Medicaid that’s planned under the ACA. The gap between those two proposals accounts for about 80 percent of the difference in their impact on the uninsured, according to the analysis.

The Commonwealth Fund report is based on research by MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, who worked on both the federal and Massachusetts health reform laws, and is the latest dire forecast from ACA sympathizers about health care under a Romney administration.

The Romney campaign said the “flawed report” misstates Romney’s proposals and depicts “a fantasy world where Obamacare has been a success.”

“Under ObamaCare, Americans have seen their insurance premiums increase, small businesses are facing massive tax increases, and seniors will have reduced access to Medicare services,” Ryan Williams, a Romney spokesman, wrote in an email to POLITICO. “The American people did not want this law, our country cannot afford this law, and when Mitt Romney becomes president he will repeal it and replace it with common-sense, patient-centered reforms that strengthen our health care system.”

Last week, a Families USA report, also based on Gruber’s work, found that middle class families in the key battleground states of Florida, Ohio and Virginia, among others, would pay about half as much total for health care if the ACA is fully implemented rather than repealed and replaced with Romney’s plans.

In the Monday conference call, the Commonwealth Fund researchers said that they used “relatively conservative” assumptions to flesh out the barebones of Romney’s Medicaid plan — that the federal block grants would grow with the Consumer Price Index plus 1 percent, that states would lower their contribution to match the federal one, and that they would take half of the savings from providers and half by reducing eligibility.

A Romney campaign aide disputed that characterization, however, arguing that the assumption that all states would enact identical changes is typical of a Washington-based attitude that fostered a failing program.

In total, 26 percent of non-senior Americans would be without health insurance in 2022 under Romney’s plan, compared to 10 percent under the ACA, Commonwealth reports, with a higher concentration of uninsured in the southern and western states.

The report pulls no punches on Romney’s Medicare proposal, either. It says that by repealing the federal health law, his plan would render the Medicare trust fund insolvent in 2017. Under the Affordable Care Act, the trust fund is expected to last until 2024.

Repeal would also stop the ongoing changes to fill in the “doughnut hole” and reinstate cost-sharing for preventive services and annual wellness visits, the report states.

Under what the report terms the Romney-Ryan premium support model for Medicare, “beneficiaries would likely face higher out-of-pocket spending, if the level of premium support failed to keep pace with growth in health care costs.”

The Romney campaign disputed that conclusion, noting that unlike Paul Ryan’s earlier Medicare proposals, Romney’s Medicare plan does not include “a global cap" to put a hard limit on Medicare spending.

This article first appeared on POLITICO Pro at 12:01 a.m. on October 2, 2012.

CORRECTION: This story has been updated to correct the report’s assumption of the growth rate in Romney’s Medicaid block grant proposal, which was described incorrectly in the Commonwealth Fund’s own report. The group’s estimate assumed that the block grants would grow at the rate of the Consumer Price Index plus 1 percent.

politico.com

[MoonRover]

"politico" LMAO liberal/communist news agency...

[Lutie]

Ummmm I think you got that a little confused. Obama care is already destroying business's so they can't afford to insure their employees.

Did you not see that even the Doctors are speaking out on how bad Obama care is.?

[sandstorm]

romneys plan puts individuals in charge of their healthcare. obamacare......the government tells you what you get and what you dont get. and theirs not a dang thing anyone else can do about it. the best doctors will leave or move into private richpeoplecare..and you will end up with mediocre care and eventually facing austerity measures...which causes a reduction in the total services the government can pay for.

[dontlop]

s1955 .. is a republican plan that gives small buisness owners the ability to pool together to buy health care at same affordable rates as big businesses .. all the dems voted against it in 2006 ..they want to give health care away for free on someone elses labor .."dime"

just because obama care is no good doesnt mean everyone will not get health care .... all it means is obama care wont go into effect in 2014 like obama wants .. i like s1955 .. most people never heard of it .. i watched the debates in the senate foir 3 days before every democrat voted against it saying if everyone doesnt get covered no one does .. thats their reason for voting against it ..

the bill would of covered 20 million people in the united states .. and instead of 37 million uninsured .. there would of only been 17 million .. .. but no the democrat couldnt have that .,,

s1955 <<< senate bill 1955 <<<<< S.1955 -- Health Insurance Marketplace Modernization and Affordability Act of 2005 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:2:./temp/~c109YvbYsK:: <<<<< and the democrats say the republicans did nothing on health care .. the truth is .. the democrats filibustered it like they filibustered everything bush did .. and now they complain the republicans wont pass the democrat policies for them so they are a do nothing congress

this bill will come up again if the republicans ever get a super majority in congress and hold the white house .. something ive never seen in my lifetime since 1958 .... they have had a majority .. but only a simple majority .. the democrats have filibustered everything a republican has tried .. some day the republicans will have their way and the democrats will have to get a job

Edited October 2, 2012 by dontlop

[DiveDeepSix]

s1955 .. is a republican plan that gives small buisness owners the ability to pool together to buy health care at same affordable rates as big businesses .. all the dems voted against it in 2006 ..they want to give health care away for free on someone elses labor .."dime"

just because obama care is no good doesnt mean everyone will not get health care .... all it means is obama care wont go into effect in 2014 like obama wants .. i like s1955 .. most people never heard of it .. i watched the debates in the senate foir 3 days before every democrat voted against it saying if everyone doesnt get covered no one does .. thats their reason for voting against it ..

the bill would of covered 20 million people in the united states .. and instead of 37 million uninsured .. there would of only been 17 million .. .. but no the democrat couldnt have that .,,

s1955 <<< senate bill 1955 <<<<< S.1955 -- Health Insurance Marketplace Modernization and Affordability Act of 2005 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:2:./temp/~c109YvbYsK:: <<<<< and the democrats say the republicans did nothing on health care .. the truth is .. the democrats filibustered it like they filibustered everything bush did .. and now they complain the republicans wont pass the democrat policies for them so they are a do nothing congress

this bill will come up again if the republicans ever get a super majority in congress and hold the white house .. something ive never seen in my lifetime since 1958 .... they have had a majority .. but only a simple majority .. the democrats have filibustered everything a republican has tried .. some day the republicans will have their way and the democrats will have to get a job

Great post, let's hope America comes to it's senses and this comes to pass soon (super majority) I mean! Vote for America, vote for your kids & grandkids, vote for Romney/Ryan 2012!

[Francie26]

Great post, let's hope America comes to it's senses and this comes to pass soon (super majority) I mean! Vote for America, vote for your kids & grandkids, vote for Romney/Ryan 2012!

I'd give you about 50 +'s if I could. I sooooo agree with you!!!!!!!!!!!

[bg888]

I realize that this "piece" is attempting to show how mean Romney is and how terrible GOP plans are in general, but I find it funny in the first few paragraphs when the author states by way of comparison, Obama's plan would leave some 27.1 Million Americans without coverage... and I thought that the AFC was rammed down our throats in order to get everyone covered.

[rockfl9]

NO I think this should read 72 Mil choose to not be insured .... We have freedom of choice ...That is the ultimate Democracy....You cant have both freedom or a government dole......

[Tripphood]

If ObamaCare goes into effect then there will be no more employees. There will be 1099's.....they will be responsible for their own health care and their own taxes. It will change everything.....no more benefits. Companies and small businesses will NOT be able to eat all of the cost's caused by the monster that is ObamaCare. Not to mention DEATH PANELS!

[markb57]

I've always been fortunate enough to work for employers that had good coverage. My cost for family coverage was usually half the total cost of the monthly premium. For the coverage I got it was worth it.

Well, I just got notified of the yearly premium change that will occur in January. My cost will literally double for the same coverage. The third party carrier flat out said in the letter that due to the ACA, premiums are doubling.

Thank You Barack!

YES!!!! REPEAL THE ACA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[DiveDeepSix]

I've always been fortunate enough to work for employers that had good coverage. My cost for family coverage was usually half the total cost of the monthly premium. For the coverage I got it was worth it.

Well, I just got notified of the yearly premium change that will occur in January. My cost will literally double for the same coverage. The third party carrier flat out said in the letter that due to the ACA, premiums are doubling.

Thank You Barack!

YES!!!! REPEAL THE ACA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Same here, and my family just got cut from ours because the business could no longer afford it and neither can I, I don't blame them, I blame Obama!!

If ObamaCare goes into effect then there will be no more employees. There will be 1099's.....they will be responsible for their own health care and their own taxes. It will change everything.....no more benefits. Companies and small businesses will NOT be able to eat all of the cost's caused by the monster that is ObamaCare. Not to mention DEATH PANELS!

WOW, nailed it, it's already happening! Great post!

I'd give you about 50 +'s if I could. I sooooo agree with you!!!!!!!!!!!

Thank you my friend!

[dontlop]

If ObamaCare goes into effect then there will be no more employees. There will be 1099's.....they will be responsible for their own health care and their own taxes. It will change everything.....no more benefits. Companies and small businesses will NOT be able to eat all of the cost's caused by the monster that is ObamaCare. Not to mention DEATH PANELS!

i believe your correct .. wages and benifits are ways to entice workers to work for them .. so they offer benifit packages .. some buisnesses dont offer benifit packages .. they offer higher wages so they can buy their own benifits .. now with obama care they can just eliminate health care as a part of their wage compensation for labor .. unless obama thinks hes gonig to run everyones buisness ,, and in that case many buisnesses will shut down .. they dont need the govt prying into their business

is this part of minimum wages now .. 7.25 an hour and health care pagkage .. ?/>>>>that should shut the doors on lots of small businesses ..

[bg888]

If ObamaCare goes into effect then there will be no more employees. There will be 1099's.....they will be responsible for their own health care and their own taxes. It will change everything.....no more benefits. Companies and small businesses will NOT be able to eat all of the cost's caused by the monster that is ObamaCare. Not to mention DEATH PANELS!

I can fully support your hypothesis as this is what my wife and I are attempting to figure out now- how do we make the employees into contractors... unfortunately, it is not as simple as just switching their status... if I remember correctly, I am probably better off (as the employer) in just letting everyone go and starting fresh with new contractors. Our accountant stated something to the effect that the IRS looks at such a move as a way to avoid taxes if I simply switch the current staff status to Sub Contractor. Rock and a hard place...

[dontlop]

obama care means bums can live in emergency rooms across america and you will have to get in line behind them .. or the hospitol will be sued for discrimination ..those bums will have doctor appointments in every office in town every day .. and if they cant get one .. well its time for the emergency room visits ..

preventive care means food shelter clothing . transportation .. yes its all in the name of preventitive medical needs . if you dont buy them shoes they will get foot disease .. no clothes .. hyperthermia .. coats .. shelter all in the name of preventing the bums from getting sick ..

and well if they get all this for free .. why should any one work .. your health care is free ..

my job has always ben my preventive health care .. but now thanks to obuttmas brilliance .. no one needs to work any more .. inlcuding the health care workers and police .. and school teachers . firemen .. // everyone can just pound sand on the whitehouse lawn .. maybe thats why they want obama to win .. its bound to cause riots in the white house front lawn and obuttma will try to explain to everyone how they need to go back to work

nothing could go wrong with you .you got free health care . why work .. just go to see a doctor .. if they decide to work ..

[Treyn]

Report: Mitt Romney plan leaves 72M uninsured

Mitt Romney’s health care plan wouldn’t just insure fewer people than “Obamacare” — it would make the uninsured problem worse than it would have been if the law had never passed, according to a comparison of the two plans by a research group with a history of pro-“Obamacare” studies.

The analysis by the Commonwealth Fund, a New York-based health care research foundation, found that under Romney’s health care plan, the uninsured population would soar to 72 million by 2022 — 12 million higher than if nothing had been done at all.

By contrast, if President Barack Obama’s health care law is fully implemented — including complete state participation in the now voluntary Medicaid expansion — the number of uninsured people would drop from 47.9 million in 2011 to about 27.1 million people in 2022, the report estimated.

The Commonwealth Fund produces studies that often cast the national health care law in a favorable light, and spotlight the shortcomings of the American health care system compared to other countries.

The number of insured Americans would rise in every age group under the Affordable Care Act and fall in every group under Romney’s plan, Sara Collins, vice president for Commonwealth’s affordable health insurance program, told reporters in a conference call Monday.

The report says most of the difference is due to Romney’s plans for Medicaid, which he would turn into block grants, and the expansion of Medicaid that’s planned under the ACA. The gap between those two proposals accounts for about 80 percent of the difference in their impact on the uninsured, according to the analysis.

The Commonwealth Fund report is based on research by MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, who worked on both the federal and Massachusetts health reform laws, and is the latest dire forecast from ACA sympathizers about health care under a Romney administration.

The Romney campaign said the “flawed report” misstates Romney’s proposals and depicts “a fantasy world where Obamacare has been a success.”

“Under ObamaCare, Americans have seen their insurance premiums increase, small businesses are facing massive tax increases, and seniors will have reduced access to Medicare services,” Ryan Williams, a Romney spokesman, wrote in an email to POLITICO. “The American people did not want this law, our country cannot afford this law, and when Mitt Romney becomes president he will repeal it and replace it with common-sense, patient-centered reforms that strengthen our health care system.”

Last week, a Families USA report, also based on Gruber’s work, found that middle class families in the key battleground states of Florida, Ohio and Virginia, among others, would pay about half as much total for health care if the ACA is fully implemented rather than repealed and replaced with Romney’s plans.

In the Monday conference call, the Commonwealth Fund researchers said that they used “relatively conservative” assumptions to flesh out the barebones of Romney’s Medicaid plan — that the federal block grants would grow with the Consumer Price Index plus 1 percent, that states would lower their contribution to match the federal one, and that they would take half of the savings from providers and half by reducing eligibility.

A Romney campaign aide disputed that characterization, however, arguing that the assumption that all states would enact identical changes is typical of a Washington-based attitude that fostered a failing program.

In total, 26 percent of non-senior Americans would be without health insurance in 2022 under Romney’s plan, compared to 10 percent under the ACA, Commonwealth reports, with a higher concentration of uninsured in the southern and western states.

The report pulls no punches on Romney’s Medicare proposal, either. It says that by repealing the federal health law, his plan would render the Medicare trust fund insolvent in 2017. Under the Affordable Care Act, the trust fund is expected to last until 2024.

Repeal would also stop the ongoing changes to fill in the “doughnut hole” and reinstate cost-sharing for preventive services and annual wellness visits, the report states.

Under what the report terms the Romney-Ryan premium support model for Medicare, “beneficiaries would likely face higher out-of-pocket spending, if the level of premium support failed to keep pace with growth in health care costs.”

The Romney campaign disputed that conclusion, noting that unlike Paul Ryan’s earlier Medicare proposals, Romney’s Medicare plan does not include “a global cap" to put a hard limit on Medicare spending.

This article first appeared on POLITICO Pro at 12:01 a.m. on October 2, 2012.

CORRECTION: This story has been updated to correct the report’s assumption of the growth rate in Romney’s Medicaid block grant proposal, which was described incorrectly in the Commonwealth Fund’s own report. The group’s estimate assumed that the block grants would grow at the rate of the Consumer Price Index plus 1 percent.

politico.com

Uninsured or unemployed......... You make the call ! ! !

[Unitedrich]

Don't fret folks,

the Demotards will be out in all of their finest regalia, to prove their point that the last 3.75 years have been total utopia for all of us. Are you buying into it yet?

[PTguy]

If you dont pay for it, nobody owes it to you. Sorry thats the storey of America when it was great, earn your own living and stop taking it from working people.

Socialism stops working when you run out of other peoples money.

[dontlop]

i just hope we can all insist on having a specialist do our surgerys too ..

hey if not we can just sue the hospitols for discrimination .. and if obamas little girls happen to get hurt they can get in line behind the bums and surly all the specialists will be booked up for months in advance so he will have to get in line behind the bums and have an intern do their surgery . and while hes in line he can explain to his daughter that this is his idea .. to keep those nasty rich people like him in line .. he and his kids are no better than the common bum on the street .. get in the back of the line .. next ..lawyers will have their offices right in those emergency rooms lining up clients .suing for discrimination. im sure john edwards will be the pionere of this type of practice ..

[Crow]

WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION DOES IT SAY THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS TO PROVIDE HEALTHCARE?????????????? JEEEEZ

[sportfisher]

hey there "studmuffin",

tell me, who has Obamacare gotten health coverage for?

[Hooter]

WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION DOES IT SAY THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS TO PROVIDE HEALTHCARE?????????????? JEEEEZ

If someone is uninsured, they can do what I did, and BUY HEALTH INSURANCE.

[pattyangel]

hey there "studmuffin",

tell me, who has Obamacare gotten health coverage for?

Sportfisher, you just make me laugh.

[kliklok00]

Same here, and my family just got cut from ours because the business could no longer afford it and neither can I, I don't blame them, I blame Obama!!

And now you will get "fined" for not having coverage...

On a slightly different note, two people I know who have terminal children cannot be denied coverage due to preexisting conditions...so why don't they have coverage for their kids? Because the insurance companies jacked up the premiums effectively forcing the two families to drop the coverage. And these two families will now be fined for not having coverage...what a sad state of affairs. How anyone can look at HCA and think it is a good thing is beyond me.

[sportfisher]

Sportfisher, you just make me laugh.

:)