Thanks but no thanks, Mitt Romney

by YankeeJim | February 27, 2012 at 05:38 am
66 views | 0 Recommendations | 2 comments

Photos

Mittobamney

Mittobamney

see larger image

uploaded by YankeeJim

Mittnocare

Thank you for the Obamacare inspiration because it is working. No thanks to you and your turning away from your invention. That doesn’t work and will not get you elected.


“Mitt Romney has been very clear, and very confusing: His health-care reforms are working in Massachusetts, but they're not a good model for the rest of the nation. New numbers out from Massachusetts -- and from the rest of the nation -- suggest he's only half right.

It's been clear for some time that Romneycare succeeded in expanding access to health care in Massachusetts. Over 95 percent of the state's residents are insured. It's also popular. A February poll found that 62 percent approved of the law, and only 33 percent disapproved. Whether it's controlling costs has been less obvious.

MIT health economist -- and Romneycare architect -- Jon Gruber showed that premiums in the non-group market, which was the market most affected by the reforms, fell sharply after the law's introduction. But another group of economists, including Romney-campaign adviser Glenn Hubbard, published a paper showing that premiums in the employer market were rising more quickly than the national average.

But the data used by Hubbard and his coauthors only went through 2008. Fred Bauer has taken another look at the numbers, which now include 2009 and 2010. And now, those same numbers show the situation has turned around. "From 2006 to 2010, employer-sponsored health-care premiums for a family rose about 19% in Massachusetts, while they rose about 22% in the US as a whole," he writes. "Compare that to the period between 2002 and 2006, when Bay State family premiums increased 40% and US family premiums rose only 34.5%." Individual premiums have also been growing more slowly than the national average.

So Romneycare is working. Across the board. But perhaps, as Romney implies, there's something that makes it unsuitable for the rest of the nation.

If that's so, however, we're not seeing it yet. Romneycare's cousin, the Affordable Care Act -- or, as it's more frequently known, Obamacare -- isn't fully in place, and won't be until 2014 at the earliest. But it has passed. And since it has passed, health-care spending has been dropping. Karen Davis, director of the Commonwealth Fund, writes that the most recent spending projections show a "$275 billion (5.6 percent) reduction for 2020, compared with pre-reform estimates. Moreover, that projection represents a cumulative reduction of $1.7 trillion over the 10 years from 2011 to 2020."”


 

Advertisement
recommend Sign In or Join to post comments
1
"thirty-aught-six"

I think much more time will have to pass before anything definitive can be said about the pro's and con's of either health care plan. The cost analysis for both plans going forward has been judged to become very expensive by both liberal and conservative economist who have studied the policies. It's not always as black and white as the partisan gatekeepers would have us believe. In Massachusetts both employer and employee taxes have gone up to cover the plan and the AJM published since Romney care that the total number of medical bankruptcies in Massachusetts increased by more than one third, from 7,504 to 10,093; and 2) Illness and medical costs contributed to 59.3% of bankruptcies in 2007 and 52.9% in 2009. I couldn't find any newer stats but, the fact remains that health care can still bankrupt you coverage or not. Buyer beware.

0
YankeeJim

First, I agree with you.

Second, the reality is that Americans have needs for healthcare and Social Security some of which can be satisfied by responsible planning  by individual citizens. The rules need to be made clear so that people can plan accordingly and that is a life-long proposition.

I favor plans and programs that encourage individuals to budget for their healthcare and retirement. Reality is that the economy and demographic dynamics have created a deficit in funding for essential needs.

Prioritization is the immediate issue in planning and budgeting because sufficient resources can be allocated to human needs when government is made more efficient and our foreign policy is brought withing our financial capacity and means.

Continued focus must be given to modifying our economic model such that greater emphasis is given to private sector economic development as a means to the solution.


closeSign in to NowPublic

is reporting from