"I will repeal Obamacare" Mitt Romney

[Greenbeard]

Mitt Romney and Healthcare: Romney's Healthcare Fix

Sometimes it's difficult to tell if Romney just plays dumb or if he really just doesn't follow public policy developments.

Fine ideas he's suggesting that have already been adopted and are being run with as we speak: consumer-friendly health insurance plan ratings, the introduction of out-of-state plans to "decrease monopolies of health insurers," innovation grants for states to enact novel tort reforms, payment reform to move away from fee-for-service, the proliferation of the principles underlying integrated delivery systems like Intermountain, investment in electronic health record adoption and health information exchange, and greater emphasis on wellness incentives. Though his position on the particular rules of the individual market and the precise structure of the tax benefits for buying insurance in it seem to have evolved, the designs that were settled on won't be unfamiliar to him.

 

[Valerie]

Mitt Romney will not enroll in Medicare, choosing to maintain his private insurance as his sole coverage, his campaign confirms.


Romney turned 65 today, becoming eligible for the entitlement program he wishes to modify. The former Massachusetts governor has called for the wealthiest to see reduced public insurance benefits in order to maintain the solvency of the program. Romney, worth well north of $100 million, is practicing as he preaches.

Romney has been able to receive partial Social Security benefits since the age of 62. (He will be eligible for full retirement benefits when he turns 66.) It's not clear whether he will partake in that benefit.

Paying out smaller benefits to the wealthiest Americans (like himself) is a key component of Romney's plan to save money by means-testing both programs — a point he often emphasizes during his stump speech.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/mitt-romney-will-not-enrolling-in-medicare

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/medicare
http://www.mittromney.com/issues/social-security

 

[Valerie]

Key Elements of Mitt’s Medicare Plan

-Nothing changes for current seniors or those nearing retirement

-Medicare is reformed as a premium support system, meaning that existing spending is repackaged as a fixed-amount benefit to each senior that he or she can use to purchase an insurance plan

-All insurance plans must offer coverage at least comparable to what Medicare provides today

-If seniors choose more expensive plans, they will have to pay the difference between the support amount and the premium price; if they choose less expensive plans, they can use any leftover support to pay other medical expenses like co-pays and deductibles

-“Traditional” fee-for-service Medicare will be offered by the government as an insurance plan, meaning that seniors can purchase that form of coverage if they prefer it; however, if it costs the government more to provide that service than it costs private plans to offer their versions, then the premiums charged by the government will have to be higher and seniors will have to pay the difference to enroll in the traditional Medicare option

-Lower income seniors will receive more generous support to ensure that they can afford coverage; wealthier seniors will receive less support

-Competition among plans to provide high quality service while charging low premiums will hold costs down while also improving the quality of coverage enjoyed by seniors

Medicare

Frequently Asked Questions About Mitt’s Plan


What are the immediate effects of this plan?

This plan has no effect on current seniors or those nearing retirement. It will go into effect for younger Americans when they reach retirement in the future.

How is this different from the Ryan Plan?

Shortly after Mitt presented the proposal described here, Congressman Paul Ryan and Senator Ron Wyden introduced a bipartisan proposal that almost precisely mirrors Mitt’s ideas. Unsurprisingly, the Obama administration immediately rejected the proposal. Mitt has applauded the Ryan-Wyden effort and looks forward to working as president with leaders from both sides of the aisle to implement meaningful reforms that will preserve Medicare for future generations.


How high will the premium support be? How quickly will it grow?

Mitt continues to work on refining the details of his plan, and he is exploring different options for ensuring that future seniors receive the premium support they need while also ensuring that competitive pressures encourage providers to improve quality and control cost. His goal is for Medicare to offer every senior affordable options that provide coverage and service at least as good as what today’s seniors receive. Lower income seniors in the future will receive the most generous benefits to ensure that they are able to get care every bit as good as that provided in the current Medicare program.


How will the plan impact total Medicare spending?

The total impact on spending will depend on a number of factors, including the rate of premium support increase and the effect of competitive pressure on providers. By replacing the inefficiency of the current system with a competitive, market-oriented system in which every provider – including the government – wants to find the most efficient way to provide high quality care, the plan puts the future of Medicare on a sound footing to meet the needs of future generations.


How will traditional Medicare remain an option?

Traditional Medicare will compete against private plans. It will be operated by the government and funded by premiums, co-insurance, and deductibles that are set at the level necessary to cover its costs. The attractiveness of this option to future seniors will depend on how its efficiency and quality compares to that offered by other providers in the marketplace. Future seniors will benefit from the innovation and competition among options.


How will seniors be affected by the costs of different options?

Future seniors will be able to enjoy the savings from selecting less expensive plans, or choose to pay more for costlier options. When the insurance premium costs less than the support provided, the balance will be available in an HSA-like account to pay for other out-of-pocket health expenses.
Medicare

 

[L.K.Eder]

As always, you never let the truth get in the way of your ranting bullshit.

I have history on my side

In the 90s, Republicans squashed Clintons Healthcare with the promise they would come up with something better. Once they got control of Congress and the White House, guess what they gave us?

Nothing

Historically, so have the Democrats.... until Obama decided to use healthcare as a way to push a socialist agenda onto the country.

I'm bored with your constant lying about what Republicans 'advocate'. Pathetic fear mongering... it's embarrassing.

ah, "critical thinking", and "marching to your own drum".

what a coincidence that you are marching in line with the hive to the tact of the nutwing talking points.

 

[Valerie]

Mitt Romney will not enroll in Medicare, choosing to maintain his private insurance as his sole coverage, his campaign confirms.


Romney turned 65 today, becoming eligible for the entitlement program he wishes to modify. The former Massachusetts governor has called for the wealthiest to see reduced public insurance benefits in order to maintain the solvency of the program. Romney, worth well north of $100 million, is practicing as he preaches.

Romney has been able to receive partial Social Security benefits since the age of 62. (He will be eligible for full retirement benefits when he turns 66.) It's not clear whether he will partake in that benefit.

Paying out smaller benefits to the wealthiest Americans (like himself) is a key component of Romney's plan to save money by means-testing both programs — a point he often emphasizes during his stump speech.
Mitt Romney Will Not Enroll In Medicare

Medicare
Social Security

Well, golly gee whiz... The man gave up his entire salary in his only public capacity, he gave up his inheritance to charity, and now he is giving up his Medicare. Some people talk the talk and others walk the walk every single day of their lives.

Health Care

 

[Polk]

No, you're not the only curious one. If they repeal it or the SCOTUS finds it to be unconstitutional, we gotta come up with something. The status quo isn't going to cut it; for starters I'd allow health insurance companies to offer coverage nation-wide, no more state-controlled arrangements. Maybe limit tort fees and setup an information sharing network that allows physicians and care providers nation-wide access to your medical records if you give them permission.

A lot of investment in building up information sharing networks is part of the ACA.

As for allowing a national marketplace for insurance, the problem is which state's regulations control?

 

[Polk]

Romney isn't going to repeal anything. He knows he wouldn't have the votes and he (presumably) knows that the waivers he's proposing to offer states are well-defined in the law, meaning the leeway for the executive branch to decide when to award them is severely limited.

Moreover, it's pretty clear from his own history and his PowerPoint explaining what he wants to see that he isn't particularly opposed to the ACA ideologically.

As for a simple repeal of the ACA, even some of the fiercest GOP critics are pointing out that logistically a straight-up repeal with no replacement legislation is a bad idea.

Republicans - including Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) - have been calling for the law's repeal ever since it was passed. In his opening statement at a hearing on the Health and Human Services Department's proposed budget for FY 2013, Shelby said lawmakers should start taking a hard look at how they can mitigate some of the impacts of repealing the law as the Supreme Court this month prepares to hear hours of arguments for why it should strike it down.

"The administration has used the Affordable Care Act's mandatory spending, which is not subject to a vote by Congress every year, to backfill key discretionary programs," Shelby said in his opening remarks.

"The administration then diverts discretionary dollars to fund new programs. When the Affordable Care Act is repealed, many important programs like Community Health Centers and the [federal] Immunization program at the Centers for Disease Control will be in jeopardy because their base funding … has been so significantly reduced."

Why would he be opposed to the ACA ideologically? The general structure was cooked up by the Heritage Foundation as a big kiss for the insurance industry.

 

[Polk]

Key Elements of Mitt’s Medicare Plan

-Nothing changes for current seniors or those nearing retirement

-Medicare is reformed as a premium support system, meaning that existing spending is repackaged as a fixed-amount benefit to each senior that he or she can use to purchase an insurance plan

-All insurance plans must offer coverage at least comparable to what Medicare provides today

-If seniors choose more expensive plans, they will have to pay the difference between the support amount and the premium price; if they choose less expensive plans, they can use any leftover support to pay other medical expenses like co-pays and deductibles

-“Traditional” fee-for-service Medicare will be offered by the government as an insurance plan, meaning that seniors can purchase that form of coverage if they prefer it; however, if it costs the government more to provide that service than it costs private plans to offer their versions, then the premiums charged by the government will have to be higher and seniors will have to pay the difference to enroll in the traditional Medicare option

-Lower income seniors will receive more generous support to ensure that they can afford coverage; wealthier seniors will receive less support

-Competition among plans to provide high quality service while charging low premiums will hold costs down while also improving the quality of coverage enjoyed by seniors

Medicare

Frequently Asked Questions About Mitt’s Plan


What are the immediate effects of this plan?

This plan has no effect on current seniors or those nearing retirement. It will go into effect for younger Americans when they reach retirement in the future.

How is this different from the Ryan Plan?

Shortly after Mitt presented the proposal described here, Congressman Paul Ryan and Senator Ron Wyden introduced a bipartisan proposal that almost precisely mirrors Mitt’s ideas. Unsurprisingly, the Obama administration immediately rejected the proposal. Mitt has applauded the Ryan-Wyden effort and looks forward to working as president with leaders from both sides of the aisle to implement meaningful reforms that will preserve Medicare for future generations.


How high will the premium support be? How quickly will it grow?

Mitt continues to work on refining the details of his plan, and he is exploring different options for ensuring that future seniors receive the premium support they need while also ensuring that competitive pressures encourage providers to improve quality and control cost. His goal is for Medicare to offer every senior affordable options that provide coverage and service at least as good as what today’s seniors receive. Lower income seniors in the future will receive the most generous benefits to ensure that they are able to get care every bit as good as that provided in the current Medicare program.


How will the plan impact total Medicare spending?

The total impact on spending will depend on a number of factors, including the rate of premium support increase and the effect of competitive pressure on providers. By replacing the inefficiency of the current system with a competitive, market-oriented system in which every provider – including the government – wants to find the most efficient way to provide high quality care, the plan puts the future of Medicare on a sound footing to meet the needs of future generations.


How will traditional Medicare remain an option?

Traditional Medicare will compete against private plans. It will be operated by the government and funded by premiums, co-insurance, and deductibles that are set at the level necessary to cover its costs. The attractiveness of this option to future seniors will depend on how its efficiency and quality compares to that offered by other providers in the marketplace. Future seniors will benefit from the innovation and competition among options.


How will seniors be affected by the costs of different options?

Future seniors will be able to enjoy the savings from selecting less expensive plans, or choose to pay more for costlier options. When the insurance premium costs less than the support provided, the balance will be available in an HSA-like account to pay for other out-of-pocket health expenses.
Medicare

Notice something about this proposal? It doesn't actually save any money. It just takes it off the government's ledger and puts in on the backs of seniors.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Then what?

See: Snapshots: Health Care Spending in the United States & Selected OECD Countries - Kaiser Family Foundation

The Democrats pushed health care reform for a reason, the cost to individuals, business and government was putting a drag on the economy and individuals stood to lose everything they worked years for when a catastrophic illness or injury occurred.

Then actually pass some healthcare reforms that HELP the country instead of toss it down the rabbit hole of borrowed money.

Seriously......you act as if getting rid of obamacare means health services will stop in the country...without it we could pass a SMALL bill dealing with pre-existing conditions and another SMALL bill dealing with those whom insurance companies will deem "uninsurable"

We don't need thousands of pages changing things from patient doctor relationships to the tax code (which obamacare does)

 

[Polk]

Then what?

See: Snapshots: Health Care Spending in the United States & Selected OECD Countries - Kaiser Family Foundation

The Democrats pushed health care reform for a reason, the cost to individuals, business and government was putting a drag on the economy and individuals stood to lose everything they worked years for when a catastrophic illness or injury occurred.

Then actually pass some healthcare reforms that HELP the country instead of toss it down the rabbit hole of borrowed money.

Seriously......you act as if getting rid of obamacare means health services will stop in the country...without it we could pass a SMALL bill dealing with pre-existing conditions and another SMALL bill dealing with those whom insurance companies will deem "uninsurable"

We don't need thousands of pages changing things from patient doctor relationships to the tax code (which obamacare does)

All joking aside, what would be your proposal for dealing with pre-existing conditions?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Then what?

See: Snapshots: Health Care Spending in the United States & Selected OECD Countries - Kaiser Family Foundation

The Democrats pushed health care reform for a reason, the cost to individuals, business and government was putting a drag on the economy and individuals stood to lose everything they worked years for when a catastrophic illness or injury occurred.

Then actually pass some healthcare reforms that HELP the country instead of toss it down the rabbit hole of borrowed money.

Seriously......you act as if getting rid of obamacare means health services will stop in the country...without it we could pass a SMALL bill dealing with pre-existing conditions and another SMALL bill dealing with those whom insurance companies will deem "uninsurable"

We don't need thousands of pages changing things from patient doctor relationships to the tax code (which obamacare does)

All joking aside, what would be your proposal for dealing with pre-existing conditions?

Pass a bill that states very simply the following:

1) You can not remove coverage from people because they get sick
2) You can not remove coverage from people because you found out they have an illness AFTER you extended them coverage (this would allow a denial however if they know before that you have an illness, such as diabetes)
3) Creates a taxpayer funded pool that will provide a subsidy, to INDIVIDUALS NOT COMPANIES, that would cover a much higher insurance rate to get coverage with pre-existing conditions. As part of this companies would be required to provide the coverage, at a reasonably higher rate, and the citizen can then write it off in their taxes at the end of the year. If it exceeds their taxes they can apply for reimbursement from the "pool" i mentioned.

Simple, effective, way less expensive than obamacare, targeted, and able to be done in less than 10 pages of legalise.

 

[Polk]

Then actually pass some healthcare reforms that HELP the country instead of toss it down the rabbit hole of borrowed money.

Seriously......you act as if getting rid of obamacare means health services will stop in the country...without it we could pass a SMALL bill dealing with pre-existing conditions and another SMALL bill dealing with those whom insurance companies will deem "uninsurable"

We don't need thousands of pages changing things from patient doctor relationships to the tax code (which obamacare does)

All joking aside, what would be your proposal for dealing with pre-existing conditions?

Pass a bill that states very simply the following:

1) You can not remove coverage from people because they get sick
2) You can not remove coverage from people because you found out they have an illness AFTER you extended them coverage (this would allow a denial however if they know before that you have an illness, such as diabetes)
3) Creates a taxpayer funded pool that will provide a subsidy, to INDIVIDUALS NOT COMPANIES, that would cover a much higher insurance rate to get coverage with pre-existing conditions. As part of this companies would be required to provide the coverage, at a reasonably higher rate, and the citizen can then write it off in their taxes at the end of the year. If it exceeds their taxes they can apply for reimbursement from the "pool" i mentioned.

Simple, effective, way less expensive than obamacare, targeted, and able to be done in less than 10 pages of legalise.

It's far cheaper because it does a lot less. I've also never understood the page issue. You know also would have been shorter than the ACA? Medicare for all. Pete Stark's bill do to that was 58 pages long, and that included provisions about creating a website and stuff like that. Length of bill does not equal desirability of outcome.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

The page thing matters because of all the stuff that gets hidden in these bills, i mean the most recent one was the birth control thing right?

keep it simple, keep it small, keep it so most americans can read it and understand the laws they live under.

 

[Polk]

Why would anyone consider that hidden? If HHS has the authority to state what constitutes a minimum benefit package, it logically followed they'd state requirements for the portions of the package.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Why would anyone consider that hidden? If HHS has the authority to state what constitutes a minimum benefit package, it logically followed they'd state requirements for the portions of the package.

it would also logically follow that since they determine what you get for benefits the claims of people like Palin that these would be death panels aren't all that far fetched as I once thought.

 

[Polk]

Why would anyone consider that hidden? If HHS has the authority to state what constitutes a minimum benefit package, it logically followed they'd state requirements for the portions of the package.

it would also logically follow that since they determine what you get for benefits the claims of people like Palin that these would be death panels aren't all that far fetched as I once thought.

You're too smart to get bogged down in stupid rhetoric like "death panels". The ability to set a minimum coverage requirement doesn't mean firms couldn't offer more if they wanted to. Additionally, people still have the power to buy whatever they want out of pocket.

 

[dblack]

Why would anyone consider that hidden? If HHS has the authority to state what constitutes a minimum benefit package, it logically followed they'd state requirements for the portions of the package.

it would also logically follow that since they determine what you get for benefits the claims of people like Palin that these would be death panels aren't all that far fetched as I once thought.

You're too smart to get bogged down in stupid rhetoric like "death panels". The ability to set a minimum coverage requirement doesn't mean firms couldn't offer more if they wanted to. Additionally, people still have the power to buy whatever they want out of pocket.

Except for something cheaper. If they want to funnel less of their money into the insurance industry's coffers, they're out of luck.

 

[Polk]

Nothing stops people from paying the tax instead of buying coverage, then paying for their medical expense out of pocket.

 

[dblack]

Nothing stops people from paying the tax instead of buying coverage, then paying for their medical expense out of pocket.

Well, it's not a tax, it's a penalty - for not following the law (aka - a crime). Nothing stops us from committing crimes and going to jail either. Except the desire to not take it in the ass.

Specious argument. Got any better?

 

[Polk]

It's a tax. I don't see how people fail to understand that. It's the exact same thing as levying a tax of $600 per person, then giving a $600 tax credit to people who have health insurance.