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:
Romney has the talent of talking out of both sides of his mouth at the same time.
The bumper sticker should say. "Do as I say,not as I do". First a Independent then Republican then a
right wing Republican. First antigun,them progun,then NRA lifer. His name should be "Weather Vain"
Who knows what's next.
Doesn't Romney know he is mentally unbalanced. He should take his money and go home!
So is Michelle Bachmann!
I'm happy with my health plan...Obama said that we can keep the health plan that we already have...but, I'm afraid that he lied about that..what he really wants is a single-payor system...which the ACA will lead to...I do not want the government managing my healthcare...talk about the potential for abuse.
How long have you had your health plan and has the premium gone up?
If 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
This is a striaght out fairytale. Under Obama our rates have gone up twice already and the reason they used was that more people are using health care unfortunately I'm paying for it.
Get rid of the insurance companies and pay directly into Medicare. Why do we allow something this important to be traded on the stock market. The insurance companies are only concerned with PROFIT not CARE.
Abolish OBAMACARE!!!!
Has the healthcare reform taken effect yet? I thought it was scheduled to take effect in 2014.
Yes, Obamacare hasn't even started yet. The GOP wants you to think that the high prices we're seeing today are because of Obamacare. They're not.
Obamacare starts in 2014.
AHIP counters those claims, citing a study by the Urban Institute that shows premiums for single policy holders, aged 18 to 34, will boost by $1,400, from $3,600 to $5,000 a year.
My daughters policy just went from to $1944 to $2160 SINGLE Full-time Student with a 10,000 deductible.
Thanks OBAMACARE.
If I'm the only one getting screwed here let me know who your provider is and I switch today.
Considering Obamacare doesn't start until 2014, you can't blame it for the increase in your daughter's policy.
That crazy increase is EXACTLY why Obamacare was passed.
Another example: The list goes on and on. You would have to be insane to think your premiums would not go up. I would think this lady would be on Medicare which Obama took money ear-marked and moved it to ObamaCare.
"I live with my mother and take care of her...she's 88.
The cost of her prescriptions fully DOUBLED beginning in January 2012.
ALL my diagnostics and copays increased (nearly doubling as well) in January 2012 along with considerable increases in premium payments. "
WRONG: Obamacare doesn't even start until 2014.
Obama didn't take money from Medicare; he prevents it from growing in cost by limiting how much goes to insurers. He also takes the extra money and puts it back into Medicare by closing the drug donut hole and paying for preventive care.
The GOP is lying to you.
That's how it is under the current system so all the more reason for Obamacare. Noone will argue there are inefficiencies with the current system.
That's how it is under the current system so all the more reason for Obamacare. Noone will argue there are inefficiencies with the current system.
This group is a proponent of Obamacare and backs into the assumptions to support its premise. Shouldn't it be the other way around??? Not a credible study
WRONG' Commonwealth Fund is a very well-respected NON-PARTISAN health care foundation that looks at the pros and cons of plans all the time.
There are, at least, two things that can help USA to reduce the national deficit, as follows:
-Tax all the offshore bank accounts
-Control the cost of health care; for instance, the cost of one bag of IVPB Ampicillin is USD 250.00, and a patient needs to have 40 bags to complete the whole course which is given intravenously, and the total price tag for this patient will be, at least, 10,000.00, excluding the cost of the staying in hospital, equipment, tubing, and the specialty care. Another instance, renting a portable oxygen tank will cost USD 75.00 per day, regardless of the tank being used or not used.
Now, the Congress should pay attention to what, at least, really cost USA. Focus the problems; fix them.
The main reason the cost of supplies and procedures have increased is because of all the self-pay people who seek medical supplies and procedures and the reason they are self-pay is because they have no insurance. The vast majority of self pay people do not even make ONE payment toward their bill, much less consistent payments to satisfy the repayment of the debt. This causes hospitals to hemorrhage money(no pun intended) to where they have to jack up the costs of everything. Now, the insurance companies don't want to hemorrhage money either, so what they do is force their insureds to pay higher premiums, higher copays, and higher deductibles. It's no different than five-finger discounting at Walmart... Walmart loses money through thefts and therefore increase the costs of the Chinese made products they sell so the honest Walmart shopper has to pay more for their purchases. Hospitals and health care facilities are a business, no different than your local WallyWorld.
I'm confused. Is this Romneycare, as enacted by the governor in Massachusetts, which is the same as Obamacare and which the governor says, proves his compassion.. or is this the new Romneycare, which is the same as no healthcare and hence shouldn't cost the government anything? All this flipflopping is really confusing.
I am amused to see so many posters mention that they are sick of the wealthy Republicans. Using terms such as "Long live the wealthy Republicans" and such. Does that mean that there are no wealthy Democrats? I think you have not been paying attention to the news. Or remembering that there are a lot of Democrats in the white house that are very rich. Like George Soros who owns a lot of businesses. Progressive Insurance is one I can mention off hand. He is one of the major contributors behind Obama. Millions of dollars are pumped to his companies. And there are many more. So it is OK that Democrats are mega wealth and not Republican? Don't you understand that when businesses are run by the wealthy they are able to create JOBS! If they are taxed to the max they can't help create JOBS! The more they earn and can keep the more they can put out into the community to help with JOB growth. This tax the wealthy to the hilt is not going to help this country at all. One of the reasons that major companies are holding back on employing now is because they are unsure of what the heck is going to happen with the crippling health care issues, the possible taxation of them crippling their company base. They can't afford to do it if they are taxed the way this socialist president is going. There is a lot of benefits to being a capitalist. That is how we grow as a country. Capitalization equals prosperity!! Study the term before you put it down. Spreading the wealth as he says is only going to cause more destruction in our country. Look at is this way. You earned through your hard work 2000.00. Someone comes along and says that there are 10 families that only earned 900.00 each in your neighborhood. You are told that it isn't fair that you have 2000.00. So they are going to take everything you have above 900.00 and spread out among the other 10 families depending on how many kids they have. You would be as mad as hell. Well that is what Obama wants to do with the wealthy job creators. That is taking away your opportunity to get a better job or a job at all. They won't be able to afford it. And your insurance as well. So get off this Wealthy Republican crap and realize that there are Democrats that are just as wealthy. They don't want to give it up any more than the Republicans. There are Republicans and Democrats on welfare, food stamps, medical assistance. It isn't just one group. You are all in the mix. I just don't understand this mindset. It makes no sense. You are so blinded by what this administration is telling you that you can't think for yourselves. God help us all....
That's if they put it into the community. There is no surety that they will do that. Also you should know that when consumers have money, they demand good and services of businesses. This must happen, it is not bound to happen in reverse.
Also I never thought the argument was about whether there were rich democrats too. The problem was with the Republican policies to give another tax break to the rich and tax the middle class even more then they are already struggling. This is another Bush policy that led us here in the first place.
Sure more people will be insured... because the 27 million healthy, who don't sit around snacking on chips soda and watching tv all day, will be paying through an extra tax for the perpetually lazy
No because the 27 million who bank on never getting sick will finally have to have insurance so when they fall skiing, or get in a bad car accident or get cancer they wont stick the rest of us with insurance with the bill. Like they have been for years ...
Wait a minute...the Repukes have a problem with women's health coverage? Let's not want birth control pills covered but let's cover boner pills? Romney is a snake-oil salesman (he definitely has the look!) and apparently the American people go with the cult of personality instead of substance!
Lulu98... I would find it hard to believe the ACA had anything to do with their decisions. For one, it has not been fully implemented and won't be for another one plus years. This is still the ongoing trend of businesses to put more of the burden on their workers. Also usually large companies such as your husbands, self insure and this could be what is going on.
Flatiron, at least Obama has set a deadline to bring home the troops from an unending war whisch Bush started without a plan. Obama has already brought home some and will like to bring him more but then Romney and they will jump in and just take an opposing stance to make it political. When he withdraws the tropps, what do they say----- They say he's leaving us at risk. Their politics is just to oppose everything the President does without a viable alternative.
...and you think obamacare isn't costing us? not just the cost of this huge bureaucracy (14,500 new irs agents) but the cost of personal freedoms.
"If this , if that, if, if, if,"
If anyone thinks any system we adopt isn't going to cost an enormous amount of money, and not do everything for everyone, think again.
No way around it, taxes in all forms are going to rise. There is NO free lunch. The bigger question is WHERE that tax money will come from in a stagnant economy, likely to remain so at least a couple decades? The unemployed don't pay very much in taxes. Non-existent businesses pay even less.
After having lived in the United States for 26 years I moved back to Germany. Health Insurance is mandatory here and EVERYBODY has it, either through your employer who pays 50% of it and you pay the other 50%, or through social services or the retirement system.
Shortly after having moved here i cut myself deep enough to need stitches. Since the insurance hadn't finished processing my paper work I had the emergency room bill sent directly to me, and I was absolutely shocked that it was less than €40.00. That was for the physician administering the stitches, the anesthetic and all supplies needed. I would have even paid that bill myself, but didn’t need to, as the health insurance covers 100%. And the best part I was seen in the Emergency Room within 10 minutes after I arrived.
Since everybody has insurance there aren't any people needing to clog up emergency rooms with colds, the flu, stomach pain etc.
Now 4 years later I make about €60,000 a year and I am voluntarily insured with a mandatory insurance company, I pay the upper limit on monthly health insurance dues, which is €313.00 a month, for myself and my spouse. If i would have 19 kids, they would be included in the monthly dues as well. I pay €10.00 every 3 months to the doctor’s office for co-pay, all subsequent visits to that doctor as well as all referrals are free. I also pay 10% of the cost of the medication, but a maximum of €10.00 per prescription. Medicines that are part of the insurance pre negotiated discount program (several hundred of them) are free.
Should I become sick and cannot work, my employer will pay my salary for 6 weeks (mandated by law), and subsequently my health insurance will pay 90% of my net or 70% of my gross, whichever is greater, for another 72 weeks.
I have had X-Rays, and 3 MRIs since I returned to Germany, and did not have to wait more than a week, in one instance I had the MRI on the same day as seeing my physician.
For hospital stays I have to pay €10.00 a day for in-patient fee, as well as a €10.00 fee for ambulance transportation if needed.
If in any year my cumulative co-pays reach 2% of my net income (or 1% if you suffer from a chronic illness) no further co-pays have to be paid.
Keeping in mind that the above examples are for the minimum government mandated insurance programs only, and can be expanded upon by purchasing private insurance or coverage for additional services like 1 bed private hospital rooms, daily coverage for out of pocket expenses while in the hospital.
I am not saying that the system is without it's faults, but it sure is much better than the mess that I experience while living in the United States, where even with insurance health expenditures can cause someone to become bankrupt.
NOONE should have to live without affordable medical care, imo that’s a human right; it has nothing to do with socialism.
We are the United States of America.
I cannot believe that there are not good and reasonable solutions that will provide proper healthcare for each and every American.
I think that instead of signing on to any particular candidates platform of solutions, we need to have the problem properly analyzed by three separate non-partisan, non-lobbied by / influenced by / connected to the medical industry panels that we can, in the majority, agree are the best people to solve this problem and then turn them loose.
Each panel should approach the matter with the same seriousness and dedication and effort as was evident in the return of the Apollo 13 astronauts safely to Earth. The goals should be coverage of every American citizen, full coverage of all necessary care and procedures, and of course minimal cost to each and every citizen. Elective procedures and care should be excluded.
The panels should work 'blind' - independent from one another and with common citizen observers. When the first round is completed, the solutions should be gathered and each presented before the other panels and then they should, among themselves, decide on the best course.
And then their recommendations should be followed to the letter without amendment or modification by anyone, especially politicians.
The problem is not insurmountable, but the proper solution is doubtfully achievable by current means.
This same process should be then applied to the tax system, the legal system, the budget, the economy, etc.
Politician are not good at such things and to expect them to perform well is ridiculous - they are politicians and they best know 'how to get elected'. A mixture of experts, thinkers and common folk will find the best solutions and are most likely to tell us everything we may not want to hear...
Just what is it the politicians DO, exactly, please, again...I seem to have forgotten...or they have...
Be well, all
p.s. or we could just copy cat germany...
I don't believe most of you guys. I don't know which Canadians you have been taking to but this ex Canadian can tell you horror stories. I worked in that system. People died and were affected by delayed tests and surgeries all the time. And they do pay for it with extremely high taxes. Not just income taxes but state and federal taxes as well. 15%tax on clothes purchases etc. However in the Canadian system, if and when you are unhappy with your care (which many are), there are no other options. What are you gonna do. Call up another specialist and wait another year to get their opinion. What you get is what you get. Patients in rooms 6 deep. Men housed with woman. To many patients for 1 nurse. And if you are unhappy no lawsuits. Which isn't all bad but very frustrating if you truly have a case. They will take all your treatment centers out of your local cities and you will have to travel 2-3 hours for even emergency services. If you think your healthcare will improve under Obama think again. You will lose all choice and quality. Good luck with that when you are really sick.
Let's also don't forget some hidden cost: How much tax dollar will be spent on jail people who didn't buy health insurance and can't pay pannalty.
How exactly do you think those in jail get healthcare now?
How ever if your poorly written post refers to throwing people in jail for not having health ins, the law doesn't allow that.
The law says this is tax issue. So the penalty if not paid will be dealt with in tax court, going to jail for not paying tax happens all the time, except, from now on it will be the main prison population. If you are young and work in medical industry this bill will kill your long term career, because there will not be anymore advancement in medical science. The medical science is hardly a mature science, if it doesn't improve, people will abandon it eventurally. It will be a shame.
Doojohn,
I'd suggest a reading compehension class. While there are fines with not getting health insurance as of 2014 they do not have the power (the IRS) to throw anyone in jail for not having health ins and not paying the fine.
As to healthcare reimbursement.
Its obvious you have NO f'ing clue how the system really works or just how much "shoplifting" of healthcare your local hospital currently has to eat.
If the uninsured had coverage and went to the doctor once a year maybe instead of 3-4 ER visits for colds, etc at 800.00 a visit that are not paid for they would have 3-4 office visits for less than 100.00 a visit and ARE paid for.
the healthcare providers will be just fine. What they lose in medicare/medicaid reimbursement rates they will gain in less shoplifting and more patients actually getting care.
I am not saying healthcare for all is not important. I just think this bill will do the opposit. A big population of America people have irregular income due to self employment, seasonal jobs et al. They can't qualify for medicare/medicaid but also don't always have the money to buy health insurance or pay the penalty. Although the law says no one should go to jail for not buying health insurance, we have no law says people should not go to jail if they don't pay penalty tax. If people connect healthcare with penalty, jail, bankrupcy, et al, it is not good for the industry. The art of demoncracy is that it rules without using force. It is so powerful, because it follows the law of the physics: action creates reaction. I am sure there is better way to have everyone covered. Perhaps step by step. Let each state come up with its own version first, once prove work, we can then see where are the common ingredients for nationalization. Healthcare is the only industry left now to have jobs, the last thing we want is to create chao to have healthcare industry also collapsed.
Again some reading comprehension would help you greatly
Not paying the fine for not having health insurance will NOT subject you to arrest or confinement.
Try reading how it REALLY will work :
http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/29/pf/taxes/health_insurance_mandate/index.htm
or from another source
http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2012/07/03/some-tax-few-will-face-obamacare-uninsured-penalty-and-irs-hamstrung-to-collect/
SO TRY READING INSTEAD OF SWALLOWING THE FAUX NEWS LINE OF FEAR MONGERING CRAP AS GOSPEL "TRUTH".
you might actually learn something instead of coming off looking like an idiot unless of course your role model is Paul Ryan in which case consider me smirking at you.
No name calling ok. The more people share concern the better. After all this is a big bill, no one knows for sure what are all the consequences. For example, we still need businesses to employ workers, If this bill makes business imposible to make money, no business will move back to America, and America will loss its compatitiveness globally. But I admit that I have not read the bill. I am not affiliated with any party, but I believe creating wealth is better than redistributing wealth. Because once redistribution is over, everyone is poor. If we allow old wealth invest in new businesses, everyone will be better off. So poor or rich we really are all on the same side.
The simple fact is that if you privatize Medicare, tens of billions of dollars of public funds go into the pockets of private insurers whose bottom line is maximizing profit. Even the best private health insurers spend only 80% of their revenues on actual health care - the rest goes to administration, advertising, and the pockets of shareholders. Privatization means more dollars for less care. Further, a premium support program which does not keep up with the rate of health care inflation, as proposed by Ryan, over time shifts higher and higher costs to seniors. Ryan's original plan would've cost future seniors $6400 more per year. Even though we don't have the "details" of their new plan, just like we don't have any details of their arithmetically challenged tax plan, the result will be bad news for seniors.
It's also important to point out that Ryan's budget, that was passed by the House and endorsed by Romney, cuts Medicaid by 1/3 over the next ten years and by 49% by 2030. Two thirds of Medicaid money goes to pay for nursing home care for seniors who have run out of assets, and these cuts, if enacted, will effect TODAY'S seniors, not just those under 55. The rest goes primarily to pay for health care for individuals with disabilities and poor children. A study sponsored by the Kaiser Foundation projects that the Medicaid cuts alone will cost 14-27 million people health care coverage by 2021, over and above the 11 million who will lose Medicaid coverage if the ACA is repealed. This is draconian, and it is disgraceful that Ryan and his running mate are advocating huge tax cuts for the wealthiest among us and yet unendurable pain for others much less fortunate.
"the Republican goal of more privatization of health insurance would cost Americans more..." We need to have a MAJOR information push to show America how much of a bigger bang-for-the-buck we get from government run Medicare than from private insurance.
We are -justifiably- so used to the fact that the government is much less efficient than private industry that we have a knee-jerk reaction that tells us the same is true of Medicare. But is isn't for a couple of reasons. 1) "cheaper by the dozen" - it deals in such large sizes it gets lower prices, 2) Single payer efficiency: Private insurance companies have one policy for company A, another for B, different ones for Seniors in different states, so it's bogged down in paperwork - not to mention it takes 20% out of each premium to run the company (29%-33% before Obamacare), compared to 6% for private companies in other nations.
The PROOF in Medicare efficiencies is that the private companies moaned and begged Congress to give them 13.3% MORE per patient for the equivalent Medicare Advantage than it costs the government to run Medicare B - despite the fact the most costly patients were on B. They said they couldn't compete without that 13.3% and Congress gave it to them.
Now, much of the $716B you hear Obama has cut is a cut in the extra money Medicare Advantage companies are getting. And they're screaming again: just look at their contributions to Romney and Ryan.