E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSIf Mitt Romney gets elected as president and keeps his promise to repeal the 2010 health reform law, more than 72 million Americans will be lacking health insurance by 2030 and health care costs will rise, a report from the Commonwealth Fund projects. If President Barack Obama stays in office, just 27 million will go without insurance and costs will fall, the group predicts.
There are a lot of caveats in the report issued Tuesday by the group, which does research in support of a “high-performing” health system. Romney would also need a friendly (read Republican-dominated) Congress to roll back health reform, and he hasn’t given very many details of his health plan.
Nonetheless the group, which backs the Affordable Care Act, says the Republican goal of more privatization of health insurance would cost Americans more and leave more without any health coverage.
“The Republican nominee has said that, if elected, he will work to repeal the law and replace it with his own vision for health care,” the Fund’s Karen Davis told reporters in a telephone briefing. “Romney’s plan to repeal the Affordable Care Act and replace it with block grants to states for Medicaid and new tax incentives for health plans purchased in the individual market are expected, on balance, to reduce health insurance coverage in every state,” the group says in its report.
The Romney campaign said the report was based on flawed assumptions and depicts “a fantasy world where Obamacare has been a success," according to Politico.
The health reform law has several aims: to get more people covered by health insurance, to lower skyrocketing healthcare costs and to improve medical care.
Most of its provisions don’t even take effect until 2014, when states are supposed to expand the Medicaid health insurance plan to cover more people and set up health insurance exchanges to help people choose a health insurance plan. Some of the provisions that are already in effect are popular -- such as rules requiring insurance companies to cover adult children on their parents’ plans until age 26 and restrictions on cutting off coverage for sick people. Rules requiring free vaccinations and cancer screenings are also in effect.
But Republicans say the law, passed by Congress and signed by Obama in 2010, will lead to higher costs. They especially criticize a provision requiring insurance companies and employers to provide free women’s health coverage, including birth control. They also say it greatly increases the role of the federal government in health care.
They’ve promised to repeal it, despite predictions that this might end up coosting the country more money. “According to CBO (the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office) estimates, repeal would also end the Medicare spending reductions and higher taxes and fees in the law, increasing net Medicare spending by $716 billion over the period 2013 to 2022,” the report notes.
Few deny that U.S. health care needs improvement. The independent Institute of Medicine says the U.S. health care system wasted $750 billion in 2009, about 30 percent of all health spending, on unnecessary services, excessive administrative costs, fraud, and other problems.
The International Federation of Health Plans reported in March that Americans spend more than people in other countries on just about every medical procedure and doctor visit. It found a hospital stay costs an average of $1,825 in Spain, $5,004 in Germany and an average of $15,734 in the U.S. Health spending as a percentage of GDP, according to the group, is 17.4 percent in the U.S. versus 11.8 percent in France, where medicine is socialized, and 9.5 percent in Spain.
But Republicans and Democrats differ on how to fix this.
“With each candidate offering fundamentally different visions for the nation’s health care system, this fall’s presidential election provides a stark choice for U.S. voters,” the Commonwealth Fund report says.
“President Obama supports the goal of near-universal health insurance coverage, by maintaining existing private insurance markets but also instituting tighter and more standardized regulations across the country to ensure a broad choice of comprehensive health plans to all who seek coverage. In addition, federal tax credits would make individually purchased health plans more affordable. The Medicaid program would cover more families with low or moderate incomes,” it says.
“Governor Romney, on the other hand, has not identified universal coverage as a goal. While also supporting a health insurance system based on existing markets, he believes that more limited regulation will ensure a broad choice of health plans for consumers.” He has suggested giving states “block grants” for Medicaid, allowing them to choose more freely who can get this government-funded health insurance.
Currently, about 48.6 million Americans do without health insurance, the Census Bureau says, or just under 16 percent of the population.
By 2030, the health reform law should bring the number of people without health insurance down to 27.1 million people, the report projects. But the Supreme Court’s ruling in June that states can choose not to expand Medicaid could affect this projection.
Many states currently offer Medicaid mostly to pregnant women and children, but poor adults often are not eligible
“In contrast, the analysis projects that Romney’s proposals will increase the number and share of people who are uninsured in every state and demographic group,” it adds.
It says Romney’s proposals would leave 72 million people uninsured in 2022. Most of these people would lose insurance as states further restrict who is eligible for Medicaid, the group said. Under the health reform law, more people would be insured by Medicaid, but under Romney’s plan, even fewer would get Medicaid than already do. Romney’s team has suggested giving states “block grants” so they can more freely decide how to spend Medicaid money.
The Commonwealth Fund also says Romney’s ideas would cost people more of their own money. The health reform law is projected to reduce the cost of health insurance for people who buy it on their own -- not through an employer or government plan -- to 9 percent of their income. But Romney’s plan would raise these costs to 14 percent of income, the group said.
The report also says the Republican plan would raise Medicare costs.
“Governor Romney’s intent to repeal the law would restore the doughnut hole in Medicare’s prescription drug benefit and reinstate cost-sharing for preventive care services and annual wellness visits,” the report says. The “doughnut hole” was a byproduct of prescription drug coverage that required seniors to pay the full costs of their prescriptions for a while once they had spent a certain amount, and up to a higher point.
The group says some of Romney’s proposals would save the federal government money, but would do that by shifting the costs to individuals, not by lowering medical costs overall.
“In July, CBO estimated that a House Republican bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act would result in a $109 billion increase in the federal budget deficit over 2013–2022,” the group noted.
Romney has said his plan to let people buy insurance across state lines will lower costs and increase choice. The health care plan he signed in Massachusetts did get 98 percent of the population coverage but it did not lower costs -- and may have raised them a little. Romney has said the federal government can lower costs by reforming how we pay for health care, but he has not given any details of how he would do this in his presidential campaign proposals.
“Regardless of the outcome of the election, it will be critical for state and federal policymakers, regulators, businesses, consumers, and other key stakeholders to work together to achieve the vision of high-quality, safe health care at a price that everyone in America can afford,” it concluded.
Related links:
Mass health care law proof of empathy, Romney says
Leave a Comment:
Health costs going down under Obama??? NOT! My company just announced that they will no longer offer lower cost HMOs. Our only option is a high deductible plan. I must spend $1500 per insuranced family member before I get coverage of any kind. And I still have to pay $168 per pay for two of us. How is this cutting costs for me? How is Obamacare helping hard working taxpayers? It's not.
Well you have to pay for every lazy person who chooses not to work its call redistrubuting the wealth.
Can't people just opt out of Obama care & pay the fine/tax & use home remedies when sick? I thought that was part of the plan. Still sucks to have to pay the fine/tax though.
Health care costs were & are going up regardless of what policy or law there is. How much they go up is the issue.
DEATH PANELS! Romney-Ryan would turn Medicaid from a defined benefit plan into a defined contribution plan. That means some government accountant pulls the plug on a hospital or township, and anyone there who gets sick later can just roll themselves into a grave because the money's all gone. Death by accounting!
But the government will save money, so who cares? You?
You described the ACA perfectly..Thank you!
No Marc he hasn't really described the ACA.
There are quite a few similarities between Obama/RomneyCare and Ryan's plan but neither of them create governemnt death panels. Instead both of them turn that work over to the existing insurance industry death panels
Obamacare or Romneycare...many will still head to the Emergency rooms and it will make no difference to them.
There was a study published in the NEJM in Oct 2011 looking at RomneyCare and ER utilization that essentially said that.
"Instead both of them turn that work over to the existing insurance industry death panels"
Haa... Good one..
And Obama care is going to do what it already took 700 billion from medicare no matter how you spin it its fact as Pelosi said you have to pass it to know what is in it. I personally think it should have been read before it was voted on but what do I know.
Let's forget about National Health Care and open up our state borders so these insurance companies can compete. I just don't want to see another plan for individuals when they can't even get welfare under control. Our tax dollars should be spent on cutting the national debt, roads, government jobs, military, or social security. We need to be thinking about strengthening our dollar and giving out to individuals who never give back on a working mans back isn't right. I would even being for helping any business or small business, people who are physically disables, but not someone who just won't work.
Your idea about opening up the competition is right on.
The following story has been brought to you by:
THE NBC OBAMA CAMPAIGN FUND
Just carpet bomb the 47% and all our problems are solved--that will only leave 5%-10% that are viewed as problematic and they will come right in to line after they see what happed to the 47%. Huge budget savings and jobs in the defense industry to replace the expended munitions. Sounds like a sociopathic win-win to me.
Well said Ben.........
Paradoxical Quote of The Day From Ben Stein:
"Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen."
Now add this, "Many of those who refuse, or are unable, to prove they are citizens will receive free insurance paid for by those who are forced to buy insurance because they are citizens."
AND OBAMA'S PLAN DOESN'T COST US MONEY? This is the most ridiculous story I've ever read and just a simple blatant biased reporter that NBC loves to throw out there.
I am a 26 year old college student. My Dad gets veterans insurance and my mom has been out of the picture since I was 8. I work part time and go to school full time and I obviously cannot afford any type of private insurance. Yet I'm a HARDCORE republican.
As far as healthcare goes, if any one who cannot afford healthcare, needs healthcare, there are MANY options. As a veteran of the "I have no insurance" club since I was 18, I have ALWAYS been able to find healthcare without going into medical debt. Check with your provider, there are sliding fees that are VERY affordable (My doctor and obgyn only require $35 on their scales...my dentist is the same way with $20) If you're a student like me, you can even see a doctor for free at university health services. Health departments by the county usually offer flu vaccines, and tetanus vaccines, etc for as little as $10 sometimes. If you need to go to the ER, when you are discharged check with the cashiers office or your doctor...they can set up payment plans.
Seriously if you can't get insurance don't sit there and whine for a handout it's not that bad.
Why don't we talk about how Obamacare is going to break the bank and cost more. Just more BS on trying to sell Obamacare to people that can't read between the lines. Let start a rumor, by good source Obama is going to bring back the draft.
Seems like the tea baggers can't handle the truth. Always someone who gives a hypo-type sitution where they or their company will be paying more. Lmao on that.
What truth is that?...or you just have the need to call names at this time?
But, it does seem like the Douche-Baggers can't handle the truth... When Obama gives a hypo-type situation where they or their company will be paying less.
You are a SICK MAN ROMPPY!! Once AGAIN DROP IT ON THE CONSUMERS LAP. While YOU and your CHUMPS get the PROFITS TO POCKETS DEAL.
Yes -er-re! You and your FORKED-TONGUE, TWO-FACED, CON-JOBBING of the American Citizens is really quite PATHETIC. All you GOP and TEA-SHYSTERS have in MIND without confessing anything is to be GREEDY, and THIEVES, instead of CONTROLS and REGULATION to HELP CITIZENS of this Country.
More CRASHING and STEELING seems to be their policies!!!
I hope your insurance covers the psych treatment you so badly need.
Why don't we talk about how Obama is cutting medicare cutting veteran dissability all so people whom choose to live off the government can. No one can tell me one thing Obama has accomplished and don't tell me kill Bin Laden because our Seals did and any president would have gave that order. And without the Bush intelligence he would not have got to him but this administration(most transparent) does not want you to know that.
Gee V and if BUSH had LISTENED to his intelligence advisers maybe we wouldn't have gotten caught so flat footed on 9/11 ... Its well documented that he was warned REPEATEDLY and he and the tin man ignored it.
Not to mention if he had focused on Afghanistan instead of going after iraq based on falsified or outright lying "evidence" of WMD there that maybe with enough troop support OBL would have met his maker in 2002/2003 instead of 10 years later..
Genenut
you mean like obama was warned about this past 9/11 even though it's documented that he was warned?
what did rmoney call his health care plan? no-care or just-die?
Of course it will cost for health insurance. You can't have everything for nothing! It costs money to treat peopls who are ill. It costs money to abort babies.
Oby is trying to make America a socialist state with him as King. Only problem is evevtually he will run out of our money. We cannot succeed as a welfare state. Ask the UAW how all that worked for them.....
I have never understood why so many think they will get free healthcare with AHCA. Certainly there are some benefits such as certain preventive care but free it is not.
I personally am sick of the slanted news coverage. I am a Dem who is leaning the other way, face it the policies of this administration are not working. Obama care is costing us plenty and for you to act like it is not if stupidity and your coverage on the 9-11 attacks made you look like first graders start telling the facts and quit leaning to the left we the American people want the truth and the more you lean the less people pay attention to you.
If it has not gone into effect, how can you say it is costing you more?
The key phrase in this article to me is "...the group, which backs the Affordable Care Act, says..." From the start of the article it states that the study was bias. This is another scare tactic and smoke screen. And before someone starts claiming to know my political affiliations, please note, I think they are both unbearable choices for the office of President of the United States.
ShirleyJ: please stay home and don't vote then.
The "Commonwealth Fund" a Liberal Think-tank makes up a study based on assumptions about a plan [Romney's] they know nothing about and somehow that's news on NBC. Then based on that, the liberals light-up the 'Vine' decrying all of the things a Romney Presidency will take away from them [based on the article]. When in fact anyone who believes this study and then comments on it as fact would be better served mourning what they've lost under the Obama Presidency, mainly their independence and intelligence.
Well since RMoney hasn't bothered to actually detail what his healthcare plan looks like AND he has repeatedly said his goal is to overturn/repeal "obamacare" which is based on Romneycare what else do we have to go on? The Ryan plan WILL increase healthcare costs.
Then again spelling out that the surfs all need to die and don't deserve healthcare doesn't look as nice on paper.
what you mean like the obama administration did it with Obamacare you remember we have to pass it to know what's in it!
Genenut, Thanks for proving both points for me.
Rod go back to Faux news.
Romney and Ryan are looking to remove the rights of millions of women and LGBT. I dont see that has happened under Obama.
you missed where I stated the RYAN plan will cost us more. That's the only published republicant plan out there. Romney's only plan is get me more money (thats for him not the rest of us - we can al die for all he cares)
Genenut, Thanks for proving both points for me again.
And Obamacare wont cost us anything...healthcare isn't free no matter what you want to believe.
You should keep up with the cause and effect of AbamaCare, children after the first of the year were allowed to stay on their parents plan and that was the immediate cost rise. After ObamaCare was passed all the insurance roviders preemptively raised all their rates to compensate. It was reported in the media in great detail at the time and am surprised that you would event attempt to deflect with that Htibito.
Whether it be healthcare companies or financial companies, they are opposed to regulations. Why would they want to be regulated if they could get away with what they were doing before? - Making profits at the costs of the public or gambling our money away with risky bets. They are taking advantage while they can and trying to get people like you so to react negatively so that you would be against it. But of course you are too small minded to see it!
Something everyone glosses over is why the AHCA is more than 2,000 pages. When the repugnant-ones shot down the "public option," as a low-cost, no-frills, (not-for-profit) plan to be offered in addition to the private plans under the AHCA, that REQUIRED copious regulations to be written into the act to stop insurers from taking advantage of you and me (assuming you’re currently insured) and all those mandated to buy insurance under the act that don’t already. Without those regulations, insurers would have been allowed to continue to inflate premiums, deductibles, and reduce coverage across the board while maximizing profits. The AHCA isn’t perfect and will need close scrutiny to catch those companies who try to game the system. There will be plenty. So thank the repugnant-ones for its convoluted nature. But without it, we would go on providing “free” healthcare to those who could afford it when they accept care under the tax-subsidized Medicaid system and watch helplessly as our premiums increase by double digits every year. Yes, nothing is free, but at least this act (once it’s fully implemented) does save the government money while it stabilizes costs. Or, we can do it the repugnant-ones’ way. Tell the poor, elderly, and uninsurable to hurry up and die while enduring never-ending premium increases… you know the rest. Obama/Biden 2012!
You should keep up with that cause and effect of ObamaCare, kids after the first of the year will allowed to stay on their parents plan and that was the immediate cost rise.. After ObamaCare was passed all the insurance providers
preemptively raised all their rates to compensate. It was reported in the media in great detail at the time and am surprised that you would event attempt to deflect with that Htibito.
Rise is better than skyrocket! Check this out
http://americanfreepress.net/?p=6072
Nothing like a $83,000 scorpion anti-venom!
Ah. More anti-Romney, pro-Obama baloney! As Obamacare kicks in, I see my healthcare costs rising nearly every day. I also see the quality of the healthcare I am receiving decline. Doctors expend the absolute minimum time and effort on my care. They decline to authorize things like physical therapy. Why? Well because Obama is taking well over half a billion dollars away from Medicare to use for other purposes. So, doctors know they will receive only about one third of the cost of their services and, therefore minimize the time and effort they put into my care. Both my wife and I have experienced this within the last 6 months. Palin was right.
Obamacare will kill seniors so the money can be spent on others.
Wrong. There are no cuts to Medicare benefits.
I don't think this whole insurance coverage issue is ever going to make sense. It's too convoluted and hospital charges are too all over the place too. In some instances NOT having insurance is better. For instance a quck emergency visit for a nasty chain saw gash across the knee that needs 6-7 stiches.
If you have insurance the cost is billed out at a 40% premium to a cash paying patient. I know this for a fact since my buddy did get a gash cut that required a trip to the ER. No insurance. 6 stiches done by the physicians assitant. Total charge was $519.00 but since he paid cash he got an immediate 40% discount and owed $311.00. If that were me, my insurance would have been billed out for the full $519. How come? Seems to me that insurance coverage is raising the costs, not lowering them. Let's fix the whole hospital charging structure to be 100% the same for all. Otherwise, for acute emergency boo boos let's just charge the cash price for things and keep it simple. Ridiculously twisted and messed up this medical care system we have in place.
If you have insurance the cost is billed out at a 40% premium to a cash paying patient. I know this for a fact since my buddy did get a gash cut that required a trip to the ER. No insurance. 6 stiches done by the physicians assitant. Total charge was $519.00 but since he paid cash he got an immediate 40% discount and owed $311.00. If that were me, my insurance would have been billed out for the full $519. How come?
This is because your insurance negotiates a discount with providers of care that is probably greater than what the uninsured get. Plus you have insurance, your insurance is paying the bill not you unlike your buddy who had to pay that 311.00 himself. That discount he gets is to make it a bit more fair for those without insurance.
Of course costs would be lower if everyone paid for thier medical care but those who cant afford it and have no insurance often don't pay their bills leaving that cost to be paid by everyone else. Contrary to what some have posted, the uninsured's bills are not sent to the state for payment, they go unpaid costing hospitals and doctors millions/billions in uncompensated care jeopardizing their future ability to offer healthcare to anyone.
Think of it like shoplifting, the stores dont get paid by the state for items shoplifted from them so they pass the cost on to the paying customers in the price of goods they sell.
Here is how rags like NBC lie. They lie by starting their argument/article with an incomplete or faulty premise. Of course, once the premise is bad, any conclusions will be bad. Romney did say he would repeal Obamacare. He ALSO SAID that he would incorporate many parts of Obamacare in a new, better engineered health care system. Of course, he can't do that, if he is stuck with a crony Democratic Senate, who refuse to cooperate at the expense of every American.
Plus we have proof that Romney will carry through on his promise. Because he already has in MA, when he was governor.
Umm "obamacare" is based on Romneycare which in turn was based on an alternative to hillarycare dreamed up by the republicants back in the 90's.
the individual mandate is part of Romneycare. As are the fines for both individuals and companies. Which parts doesnt Romney like in his own plan?????
Why is something as essential as health care mostly run by for-profits? It makes no sense to me that an insurance company deems what is covered, to what percentage and by whom, all while trying to make a profit. At some point, profit will trump services and cost. At some point, shareholders will demand more profits and services and cost will suffer. It is the logical sequence of for-profit companies. They are not in it to lose money - they're in it to make it. Is it ethical, therefore, to have a health care system based on for-profits? Is it ethical to leave something as important as health care in the hands of shareholders?
Obviously this system in the U.S. doesn't work. Even if you do have inexpensive insurance (as I do), you're still faced with having to pick from a small pool of doctors (there goes my choice) thus limiting their availability. I can't get an appointment for a regular ob/gyn screen until January 2013. Really?????
Having lived in a socialized medicine country for several years, I remember my pediatrician coming to my house for house calls, never having to wait more than a day or two for regular visits and obtaining very good care at the ER when I broke my arm.
My grandparents all lived well into their 90s with excellent care. No death panels. One had a day nurse and a night nurse as she was legally blind, at no cost to her. I can go to the local pharmacy and receive treatment for minor ailments and get lab tests done as well for a very low copay.
All of this is not free; it's paid for with taxes and that's ok because of the notion of the social contract we have with one another. That's the price we pay for living together in communities. We support one another by taxation, even if we ourselves may not take advantage of some components.
It's how it works in civilized societies.