Romney Health Care Plan Nearly Doubles Family Insurance Costs: Study

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Romney Health Care Plan Nearly Doubles Family Insurance Costs: Study

An exhaustive study from Families USA compares Obamacare, versus RomneyCare (as enacted in Massachusetts) and "RomneyCandidateCare", Romney's proposed health care per this 2012 election cycle.


Under Romney’s proposed health care plan, American families buying non-group health insurance would pay nearly double what they pay under Obamacare, according to a new study by Families USA entitled "ObamaCare versus RomneyCare versus RomneyCandidateCare." That includes both comparative insurance premium payments as well as out-of-pocket expenses.



The study finds that while RomneyCare in Massachusetts bears many similarities to Obamacare, neither are very similar to what Romney’s health care plan would look like if he were elected. Among measures identified in the study, RomneyCandidateCare would repeal Obamacare, turn Medicaid into a block grant and add an income tax deduction for purchasing health coverage. As a result, the study reports, not only would American families pay more for coverage, many fewer Americans would have health insurance at all. By 2016, 41.9 million more people would be uninsured under Romney than with Obamacare.


The study is here: 2012 Health Care Comparison.pdf
(familiesusac4.org)

The study is very comprehensive and detailed.









Health care costs will go up under Romney, and more people will be uninsured.


Despite its apparent reduction in coverage for millions of Americans, Romney says his plan does provide an option for the uninsured: the emergency room.

“We pick them up in an ambulance, and take them to the hospital,” Romney said on 60 Minutes last week.


Mitt Romney, On 60 Minutes, Cites Emergency Room As Health Care Option For Uninsured


WASHINGTON -- Downplaying the need for the government to ensure that every person has health insurance, Mitt Romney on Sunday suggested that emergency room care suffices as a substitute for the uninsured.


Never mind that this "option" was one of the leading reasons Romney cited for the creation of "Romneycare" in Massachusetts in the first place - too many uninsured people showing up in Emergency Rooms, impeding ER nurses and doctors from treating critical patients, and then skipping out on paying their bills. It's also a reversal of Romney's previous stated positions he made to Glenn Beck (11/14/07):

“When they show up at the hospital, they get care, they get free care paid for by you and me. If that’s not a form of SOCIALISM, I don’t know what is.”

But now he touts it as a health care option?



An ER nurses has made a poignant reply to Romney and his "ER" comment. It says everything that needs to be said.

Mr. Romney - On Behalf of ER Doctors and Nurses Everywhere...


I'd just like to tell you, stop now. Enough is enough. Of all the asinine, morally objectionable, ethically wrong-headed and just downright IGNORANT statements you have made (just in the past week!), this one takes the cake.

The ER is not designed for Universal Care. It is designed for life-threatening emergencies. And yes, I know you were speaking of a "heart attack", but good God man, don't you realize people already use the ER for primary care? Don't you realize that's why people die in ERs, why people die every day, why the doctors and nurses are so overworked they can barely take care of the hordes of UNINSURED sick people streaming through the door as it is?

Do you think ER care is free? Have you ever seen an ER bill? Do you know how many people have filed bankruptcy over an ER bill and/or uninsured hospital stay? How out-of-touch with reality are you, really?

Now you tell us, "this is how we take care of our uninsured"? Even when you were Governor, you realized what a burden this put on the health care system. How much it raised costs on EVERYBODY, on the state, on the facilities. In the name of all that is right and good, is there nothing you won't say to get elected? Is there no end to your utter stupidity?

If I sound angry, I am. Because I *am* an ER nurse. I know how wrong you are...and so do you.




posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 



I'd just like to tell you, stop now. Enough is enough. Of all the asinine, morally objectionable, ethically wrong-headed and just downright IGNORANT statements you have made (just in the past week!), this one takes the cake.

The ER is not designed for Universal Care. It is designed for life-threatening emergencies. And yes, I know you were speaking of a "heart attack", but good God man, don't you realize people already use the ER for primary care? Don't you realize that's why people die in ERs, why people die every day, why the doctors and nurses are so overworked they can barely take care of the hordes of UNINSURED sick people streaming through the door as it is?

Do you think ER care is free? Have you ever seen an ER bill? Do you know how many people have filed bankruptcy over an ER bill and/or uninsured hospital stay? How out-of-touch with reality are you, really?

Now you tell us, "this is how we take care of our uninsured"? Even when you were Governor, you realized what a burden this put on the health care system. How much it raised costs on EVERYBODY, on the state, on the facilities. In the name of all that is right and good, is there nothing you won't say to get elected? Is there no end to your utter stupidity?

If I sound angry, I am. Because I *am* an ER nurse. I know how wrong you are...and so do you.


Now doesn't this statement just hit home?? It did for me!!

I just wish both of these clowns with their big hopes and dreams of a freaking insurance plan would OPEN their eyes and see how bad this will fare for everyone!! It might help some, but why not just help the "some" that are in need now? Why drag the people who are insured and are fine with their insurance down with the rest?



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 

Dear Blackmarketeer,

Yet another chance meeting on this walkway of life. It's a treat. I do wish you hadn't used this particular study though, it's facts and objectivity are questionable.

Families would pay nearly twice as much for non-group health insurance under a President Romney than under President Obama, according to a new report from the liberal advocacy group Families USA.

Families USA is a prominent Washington, D.C.-based think tank that supported healthcare reform, which Romney has called a "job-killer" and vowed to repeal.

thehill.com... And what of the study itself?

As I anticipated in my earlier post, the Families USA report inaccurately assumes that Romney’s national reforms would take the form of a standard deduction, instead of a universal tax credit. Obamacare expands coverage “through tax credits and [Romney’s plan] through tax deductions,” Families USA claims (emphasis in the original). This is not true: Romney’s plan is agnostic on whether or not to use credits or deductions.

The report details on a state-by-state basis the people who would receive subsidies under Obamacare, but it does not detail the distribution of the $1.2 trillion in tax increases and $716 billion of Medicare cuts on a state-by-state basis. Perhaps Families USA believes that Obamacare was paid for by magic unicorns in the sky.

The report’s numbers come from Obama adviser and MIT economist Jonathan Gruber. Tellingly, the report does not disclose Gruber’s analysis of the impact that Obamacare would have on insurance premiums, in comparison to the Romney plan.

The report makes numerous dishonest claims about Obamacare’s Medicare cuts, such as that they “extend the life” of the program (which they only do if they aren’t double-counted toward Obamacare’s deficit-neutrality); and that the law expands Medicare’s benefits, when in fact it cuts benefits to Medicare Advantage and drives hospitals into bankruptcy, reducing access to care.


www.forbes.com...

Blackmarketeer, you're already attacking Romney on many fronts. This doesn't seem to be one of your better choices. But, fight wherever you want.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Amazing that in your attack on the study, based on the blog piece by one "Avik Roy", that you forgot to mention his disclaimer:


(DISCLOSURE: I am an outside adviser to the Romney campaign on health care issues. The opinions contained herein are mine alone, and do not necessarily correspond to those of the campaign.)


The guy who's argument you've embraced to cast doubts on the Family USA study is in fact an adviser to the Romney campaign. This calls into serious question his objectivity, as well as his debunked assertion that Obama is cutting "$716 billion from Medicare". That myth has been dispelled, the reality is that is the projected savings from the ACA which insurance companies have agreed to. (Medicare Myths, Debunked



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 

Dear Blackmarketeer,

I thought that, since you didn't mention that all the numbers came from an Obama advisor, I didn't need to mention Roy, either.

But since you dismiss that piece as worthless because of his advisor status, it's only fair for you to dismiss the article in your OP for exactly the same reason.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Sorry Charlie, I know you strive to deflect, but none of the individuals in this study are an adviser to the Obama campaign.

Family USA


Families USA is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, 501(c)(4) organization that does not endorse, support, or oppose political candidates. Its mission is to achieve high-quality, affordable health coverage and care for all Americans.



Families USA Board of Directors:

Kathy Bonk
Communications Consortium Media Center

James M. Christian, Sr.
PSI Family Services

Robert Crittenden, M.D.
Herndon Alliance

James Kimmey, M.D.
St. Louis University School of Public Health

Jeff Kirsch
Council for a Strong America

L. Toni Lewis, M.D.
SEIU

John McDonough
Harvard School of Public Health

Ali Noorani
National Immigration Forum

Philippe Villers
President and Co-Founder of Families USA Foundation

Ron Pollack
Executive Director and
Vice President


None of whom are Obama campaign advisers. The report also thanks three "distinguished health policy analysts who played significant roles in the creation and promotion of RomneyCare and ObamaCare. They are as follows:


Stuart Altman is the Sol C. Chaikin Professor of National Health Policy at the Heller School for Social Policy and Management at Brandeis University. Dr. Altman served as a Deputy Assistant Secretary of Health, education, and Welfare in the Nixon Administration and was one of the architects of Nixon’s health reform plan. He was Chair of the Prospective Payment Assessment Commission for 12 years under Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and Bill Clinton. President Clinton also appointed him to the Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare.

Jonathan Gruber is a Professor of Economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dr. Gruber served as a Deputy Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy in the Treasury Department. He is a gubernatorial appointee to the Board of the Massachusetts Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority. He is also the Director of the National Bureau of Economic Research’s Program on Children. The new data in this report were derived from a model developed by Dr. Gruber.

John McDonough is a Professor of Practice at the Harvard School of Public Health, and he is the Director of the Harvard School of Public Health’s Center for Public Health Leadership. From 2003 to 2008, Dr. McDonough served as the Executive Director of Health Care for All in Massachusetts, where he played a central role in the passage of RomneyCare in 2006. He served as a Senior Adviser to the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, where he played a major role in developing the health insurance expansion provisions of ObamaCare.


None of these three individuals were Obama advisers either, and only one, McDonough, comes close to being such - but then he was also an adviser to Romney in creating Romneycare; "where he played a central role in the passage of RomneyCare in 2006".

I'll take the word of this panel of experts over the word of a blogger any day. Say, what is "Avik Roy's" credentials, anyways?

Avik Roy;

I am a Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research and a member of Mitt Romney’s Health Care Policy Advisory Group. In addition to my Forbes blog, I write on health care, fiscal matters, finance, and other policy issues for National Review. I am a health care investment analyst. Previously, I worked as an analyst and portfolio manager at J.P. Morgan, Bain Capital, and other firms.


Adviser to Romney, former Bain Capital employee, and portfolio manager at J.P. Morgan. Hmm. I'll stick with the medical doctors and their opinions above, thank you very much. I prefer analysts who are a little less beholden to political ideology and promoting one candidate over another.



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 

Dear Blackmarketeer,

www.nytimes.com...


Along with these credentials, Mr. Gruber’s position as an adviser to the influential Congressional Budget Office also left him perfectly positioned to advise the White House on health reform.
There are more references to his advice to the government, but I thought this would be enough.

You base this entire thread on a study. I point out that the study is prepared by an Obama advisor, so it's credibility is questionable, and you call that deflecting???


With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 12:16 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 



You base this entire thread on a study. I point out that the study is prepared by an Obama advisor,


Well that is a lie. The authors of the study (which there are many) are listed, are clearly bipartisan having worked with Romney on Romneycare, including Gruber in Massachusetts, in fact more of the authors listed have been involved with Romney than in any position with Obama. Gruber in fact devised the individual mandate for Romneycare in MA. You're going to claim he doesn't know what he is talking about when making comparisons between Obamacare and Romneycare?

Apparently, Avik Roy is defending Romney on more than just health care issues. He is also defending Romney on outsourcing and offshoring issues.

Romney Defended By...Romney Policy Aide Who Worked for Bain


Over at National Review Online, Avik Roy takes issue with my scoop on Romney's investment in a Chinese appliance-manufacturing firm that sought to profit from US outsourcing. Roy says he used to work at Brookside Capital, the Bain-affiliated entity that made this investment, but he doesn't indicate whether he was around (or in a senior position) at the time of this particular deal in 1998. (On his Google+ page, by the way, Roy notes he was at Bain Capital, not Brookside. Yeah, I suppose, this stuff can be confusing.) Moreover, Roy now serves on Romney's health care policy advisory group. Thus, he has a stake in this venture.


Based on the above, Avik Roy is obviously here to defend Romney no matter what the issue is, health care related or not, and that call into question his objectivity on all issues. Gruber at least, has worked on BOTH Romney's and Obama's health care initiatives, and has not shown any slavering devotion to defending either no matter the issue. Therefore I will consider his opinion much more salient than Roy's.



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 12:30 AM
link   
Not trying to disrupt the flow of your conversation but neither Romney's plan nor Obamacare do anything to truly help assist Americans in getting medical care.

Both plans interject corporate interest into the equation and never mention a public option or single payer program....which are very popular ideas with the American people.

So while I agree Romney's plan is a complete wash, we must also be willing to denounce Obamacare for even better options not yet brought to the table.

That's my opinion anyway.



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 12:47 AM
link   
reply to post by sheepslayer247
 


I agree to some degree, Obama care, like Romney care, would be better as a single-payer option. That would also lead to lower health care costs in general. I've seen some direct benefit from the ACA, such as the 80/20 requirement, where 80% of my insurance premium MUST go to health care and not an insurance companies "profits and overhead", I got close to a 3K refund from that and my business got a big check as well, as we had been overpaying for insurance for years. My concern is that we still aren't doing enough to manage inflated costs in health care. I will say this much however, that much of those inflated costs do not come from health care providers but the insurance industry.



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 12:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


If we've reached the point where the subject has shifted from a health care study to off-shoring jobs, perhaps we should wait for another issue to discuss.

And if you choose to put the importance of possible bias ahead of looking at the message and the facts contained therein (which is your perfect right to do), I don't see how we will have a fruitful discussion on this particular topic.

Perhaps next time.



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 01:00 AM
link   
Romney's plan is to expand Medicare to all. Isn't that what Democrats want?




posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 01:11 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 



And if you choose to put the importance of possible bias ahead of looking at the message and the facts contained therein (which is your perfect right to do), I don't see how we will have a fruitful discussion on this particular topic.


You seem confused over who interjected bias into the conversation. Your first comment was to attack the study based solely on your claim it was "biased" and the work of some Obama advisor. You then offered as proof of said bias a blog from Avik Roy, which I pointed out to you was clearly the work of a highly biased partisan advisor to Romney.

Said individual is a health care advisor to Romney, and supposed professional in the health care field, yet even when the topic strays from health care (his area of expertise), this individual still comes out to defend Romney. Someone that devoted to defending Romney, no matter what the topic is, is clearly not capable of being objective over the topic of health care. Clearly his role is first and foremost DEFEND Romney.

As you had setup an Ad Hominem attack on the Family USA study based on your claim it was "biased" and focused on one individual in particular (as opposed to a rebuttal based on facts or figures), it seems somewhat disconcerting you would not allow the same consideration of your source.



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
Romney's plan is to expand Medicare to all. Isn't that what Democrats want?



Since when is that his plan? That was Obama's original plan and Republicans hated it. Romney has Ryan and the voucher idea. What are you hinting about?



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 

Please re-read the article I mentioned. There were multiple facts and figures, given and linked to, that criticize the OP's study. The discussion of bias came from the article itself and was not fundamental to the case against the study.



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 

Please re-read the article I mentioned. There were multiple facts and figures, given and linked to, that criticize the OP's study. The discussion of bias came from the article itself and was not fundamental to the case against the study.


The discussion of bias came from you posting an article claiming bias.
Otherwise what was your point in posting the article?
I am trying to follow you here.



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by wascurious
 

This is just a little complicated. The Forbes article, the first one I posted, complained that there were factual inaccuracies in the study by Families USA, and that they were biased. Blackmarketeer, denied one of the facts, then went into the bias allegations. Bias wasn't the main point I was addressing, but yes, I included it. I'd prefer to primarily stay with facts, though.

Here's the Forbes article link again. www.forbes.com... The author divides his criticism of the study into several areas, here are the topic headlines.

Families USA makes inaccurate assumptions about Romney’s plan

The report doesn’t account for Obamacare’s tax hikes and Medicare cuts

Obamacare increases premiums relative to Romneycare and prior law

Families USA’s dishonest claims about Obamacare’s Medicare cuts

Gruber’s claims about the uninsured vastly diverge from independent analyses

Obamacare isn’t a free lunch

UPDATE: Josh Archambault of the Boston-based Pioneer Institute critiques the Families USA report’s failure to note several important distinctions between Obamacare and Romneycare in Massachusetts.
Included in the article are numerous links.

I think it's only fair to look at the other side of an argument before reaching a conclusion. Certainly this study is so questionable that it's premature to jump to a vigorous and emotional defense of it. (No, I'm not saying you are emotional.)



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952


You base this entire thread on a study. I point out that the study is prepared by an Obama advisor, so it's credibility is questionable, and you call that deflecting???


With respect,
Charles1952


Don't let facts, get in between Agenda.





ATS has become the bastion of this type of Political trickery.



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 06:57 PM
link   
I did some searching on Families USA and came up with this article. It seems they are slanted Pro-Obama.I found this article refuting their claims.....At least you can judge for yourself

Families USA released the study. It is marred by a number of serious factual and analytical errors, errors that fatally damage the report’s credibility.

Obamacare increases premiums relative to Romneycare and prior law
The report doesn’t account for Obamacare’s tax hikes and Medicare cuts

Families USA report inaccurately assumes that Romney’s national reforms would take the form of a standard deduction, instead of a universal tax credit. Obamacare expands coverage “through tax credits and [Romney’s plan] through tax deductions,” Families USA claims (emphasis in the original). This is not true: Romney’s plan is agnostic on whether or not to use credits or deductions.
Forbes

Just a few highlights from the article. One group skewing numbers to favor their plan. Personally, I favor neither plan.



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 06:18 AM
link   
I just finished watching both Obama and Romney's speeches from Friday in Virginia after reading the thread on here the on here the other day by Hefficide:


Did Barack Obama Throw The Presidential Debate? Could He Know Something We Don't?


I did not sit and watch all of that debate in entirety, just a few segment of it to sort of get the general idea, and I agree with Heff - it did seem like Obama was having a bad night. But now I am pretty darn sure he was NOT trying to throw it it anyway.

Anyway, back on point here. After hearing Friday's speeches I did hopped online and started doing some investigation of my own on Romney - I'll admit I'm not a fan, and I really didn't know too much about him at all.
I stumbled onto some information that I find to be extremely interesting.

" In 1984, he cofounded and led the spin-off company Bain Capital, a private equity investment firm that became highly profitable and one of the largest such firms in the nation."
en.wikipedia.org...

"Bain Capital is an American alternative asset management and financial services company based in Boston, Massachusetts. It specializes in private equity, venture capital, credit and public market investments. Bain invests across a broad range of industry sectors and geographic regions. As of early 2012, the firm managed approximately $66 billion of investor capital across its various investment platforms.

The firm was founded in 1984 by partners from the consulting firm Bain & Company. Since inception it has invested in or acquired hundreds of companies including AMC Entertainment, Aspen Education Group, Brookstone, Burger King, Burlington Coat Factory, Clear Channel Communications, Domino's Pizza, DoubleClick, Dunkin' Donuts, D&M Holdings, Guitar Center, Hospital Corporation of America (HCA), Sealy, The Sports Authority, Staples, Toys "R" Us, Warner Music Group and The Weather Channel.

As of the end of 2011, Bain Capital had approximately 400 professionals, most with previous experience in consulting, operations or finance.[2] Bain is headquartered at the John Hancock Tower in Boston, Massachusetts with additional offices in New York City, Chicago, Palo Alto, London, Luxembourg, Munich, Mumbai, Hong Kong, Shanghai and Tokyo."
en.wikipedia.org...

Wow! They sure own / are partners with a whole bunch of companies huh? They sure have a nice global network / trade route setup too huh? Pretty neat stuff there... but the part that really gets me and that gets back to the main topic of this thread is the part about the so-called Hospital Corporation of America (HCA).

Now that's a comforting feeling!

"Hospital Corporation of America (HCA) is the largest private operator of health care facilities in the world.[1] It is based in Nashville, Tennessee and currently manages 163 hospitals and 110 freestanding surgery centers in the United States and United Kingdom.[2]"
en.wikipedia.org...


That's so messed up....
edit on 6-10-2012 by Time2Think because: why is it so hard to fix hyperlinks! lol





new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join