The Flaw in Obamacare?

[OohPooPahDoo]

Some jobs do not require high quality employees.

Those tend to be the jobs that pay dick and result in the federal and local governments picking up the tabs on the health care expenses of the uninsured minimum wage worker and their families.

Tissue?

For who? The taxpayer who foots the bill?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Interestingly, this is an essay written by Robert Moffit from the Heritage Foundation back in 1994. It was part of the conservative effort to come up with their alternative to Hillary-care.

Robert Moffit was deputy director of domestic policy studies at The Heritage Foundation at the time.

In late January 1994 The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and Princeton University sponsored a conference entitled “Universal Coverage: How Best to Achieve It?” At that conference several prominent economists and policymakers presented papers on the pros and cons of employer and individual mandates. In response, a number of others offered comments on various aspects of the mandate question. Here Health Affairs presents the views of two respondents.


Personal Freedom, Responsibility, And Mandates
by Robert E. Moffit

Perspectives: Personal Freedom, Responsibility, and Mandates

A Snare And A Delusion

Employer-based health insurance in this country is the product of wartime economic and tax policy of the 1940s. There is no reason why health reform in the 1990s should be governed by those unique circumstances and outdated tax policies.

Uwe Reinhardt and Alan Krueger tell us that the tax treatment of employment-based health insurance now is sharply regressive. And, Mark Pauly confirms, it contributes to market distortions, high costs, and lack of portability in health insurance. Americans today get tax relief for health insurance on only one condition: that they get it from their employer. This has tied health insurance to the workplace in a way that no other insurance is treated. It means that if we lose or change a job, we lose our health coverage.

Pauly also tells us that employer-based insurance hides the true costs of health care. Thus, there is no normal collision between the forces of supply and demand on even the most basic level. Most workers do not purchase health insurance; it is purchased by somebody else, usually the company. For most workers, it is a “free good,” an extra, that automatically comes with the job. At least, we live with that comfortable illusion. But, in fact, it is not free at all, and the employer gives us nothing. Because too many people think that the employer’s contribution is the employer’s money and not theirs, the consumer’s perception is distorted (as is the provider’s), and health spending is not subject to market discipline. Likewise, because too many people still do not understand this reality, “hidden taxes” through the employer mandate are politically attractive. Such a mandate thus serves as a psychological snare and an economic delusion.

Karen Davis and Cathy Schoen suggest a payroll tax to finance reform, whereby the employer pays 8 percent and the employee pays 2 percent. If one of our tasks is to make the true costs transparent, this suggestion does not help very much.

In his otherwise enlightening paper, Reinhardt calls attention to the virtues of a “mandated purchase” of health insurance. And he warns that calling an employer’s “mandated purchase” a “tax” comes close to debasing the English language. But, in a similar context, Reinhardt uses the word contribution to describe suspiciously similar functions. Suffice it to say, the campaign for linguistic precision is hardly advanced by using the word contibution to describe the state’s forcible extraction of citizens’ money.

In another context, Reinhardt proposes perhaps the best single reform idea to date. He suggests a simple financial disclosure on the part of the nation’s employers, requiring every employer to put periodically on the pay stub of every worker in America something like the following: “We have paid you X thousand dollars in health benefits. This has reduced your wages by X thousand dollars.” We would add: “Have a nice day!„

http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/13/2/101.full.pdf

Interesting enough, you are still misrepresenting the mandate the Heritage Foundation was arguing for despite the fact that you have been corrected multiple times.

That moves you into the category of insane liar.

 

[asaratis]

A lot of jobs do not require high caliber employees.

I didn't say anything about caliber.

Some jobs do not require high quality employees.

Just look at the government.

Oh and by the way:

Caliber Synonyms, Caliber Antonyms | Thesaurus.com

Main Entry:
caliber  [kal-uh-ber]
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: capacity; character
Synonyms: ability, appetency, capability, competence, constitution, dignity, distinction, endowment, essence, faculty, force, gifts, habilitation, merit, nature, parts, power, quality, scope, stature, strength, talent, value, virtue, worth, worthiness

...public (government) school teachers. They don't have to perform either.

...union goons. They don't have to perform either.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Form Mitt Romney campaign's own website

1 – What is RomneyCare? Major accomplishments and a brief overview

RomneyCare was the first significant healthcare reform to happen in the U.S. for decades.

The primary goal of RomneyCare was to provide all citizens in MA with access to affordable health insurance and to eliminate the “free riders” who expected the government or taxpayers to pay for their health care. The plan did an extraordinary job of covering nearly half a million people who were previously uninsured without raising taxes. Under RomneyCare, the citizens of MA can be assured that they will retain their health coverage when they move from job to job, or if they suffer financial hardship.

Highlights of what RomneyCare has accomplished after 5 years of being in affect:

1 - Nearly every Massachusetts citizen is covered. A recent study showed that 98.1% of adults and 99.8% of children now have medical insurance. This is by far the highest rates in the nation. The overall national rate is 83%, with Texas having the worst rates in the nation at 74%. In Texas, one out of every six children is uninsured.

2 - Many more businesses are offering medical insurance to their employees. Now 76% of employers of medical insurance to their employees, compared with 70% just five years ago. The national rate remained at 60%.

3 - The overall costs of the program to the state have not exceeded expectations. At the time of passage, Romney predicted that the new law would add just 1 to 1.5% to the state budget. Last year the additional cost to the state was only 1.2% – precisely where Romney predicted it would be even though the costs to the state would be much lower if the Massachusetts legislature and Governor Patrick (Romney’s successor) hadn’t added significant costs to the healthcare law. (This is covered more thoroughly in Section 6 – What changes would Romney make to RomneyCare?)

4 - The cost of health care premiums for individuals who buy insurance without the help of an employer have gone down dramatically. According to FactCheck.org, individuals who bought insurance on their own “saw a major drop in premiums, as much as a 40% decline, according to some figures.” On average, premiums dropped between 18%-20% for the average individual buying health insurance on their own.

5 - RomneyCare remains exceptionally popular among state residents. Studies repeatedly confirm that 67-84% of Massachusetts residents are happy with the plan and would not go back to the old system if given the chance.

The Creation of RomneyCare

Remember that the overall goal of RomneyCare was to provide all citizens with access to affordable health insurance and to eliminate the “free riders” who expected the government or taxpayers to pay for their health care. The plan did an extraordinary job of covering nearly half a million people who were previously uninsured without raising taxes.

In order to accomplish the goal of covering all the citizens of MA, Romney put together a team of business experts, not a typical political team, to explore new options for providing health insurance to more citizens. The members of this team included a former investment banker, a Bain & Company partner, a professor from MIT, an expert in federal health programs, a Washington policy guru, and experts from the Heritage Foundation. For more than a year, Romney and his team studied the details of health insurance in their state.

One of the most surprising things that the team discovered was that only 20% of the uninsured were truly too poor buy health insurance. This is a very important point because it had generally been assumed that all the uninsured fell into this category. 40% of the uninsured had the financial means to purchase health insurance but simply refused to do so. The last 40% of the uninsured were people who were able to partially pay for their insurance premiums, but could not afford all of it.

At the end of a year of research and being “immersed in the details” as Romney describes it, the team created a plan where all citizens of MA were required to purchase health insurance and the state would subsidize those who were too poor to purchase health insurance on their own. The plan would be paid for by simply redirecting money that was already allocated to pay for free-riders, and using that money to instead help those without any coverage to buy insurance. The subsidy for the poor was on a sliding scale where the poorest would get a greater percentage of money, and people received less and less of a subsidy as their incomes went up and they were more able to afford it on their own.

RomneyCare Passage and Popularity

The plan was approved by two conservative Republicans who were George W. Bush’s Secretary of the Health and Human Services Department, Tommy Thompson and Mike Leavitt. Furthermore, the plan was supported overwhelmingly in the MA legislature with 198 house reps supporting the bill and only 2 voting against it – 99% voting in favor of the plan! The bill also passed through the state senate without a single dissenting vote and it was supported by nearly every special interest group in the state. (As of September 2011, 33 of the 36 Republicans in the MA legislature endorsed Romney for president further illustrating the sustained support for Romney and his tenure as Governor of MA.)

Physician and New York Times bestselling author Atul Gawande wrote in The New Yorker magazine on January 26, 2009 that the plan “remains extremely popular” among the citizens of MA and that “a large majority would not want to go back to the old system.” Recent polls show that 84% of MA residents are satisfied with the plan!

RomneyCare provides the citizens of Massachusetts better access to healthcare and ultimately healthier, longer lives. The plan provided healthcare that is both portable and affordable, something that people have been trying to achieve about for decades.

and


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_health_care_reform#Implementation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_health_care_reform#Outcomes

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Say goodnight Grandpa!

Ah, yes.....the Libertarians' lament!!


​

 

[Skull Pilot]

Those tend to be the jobs that pay dick and result in the federal and local governments picking up the tabs on the health care expenses of the uninsured minimum wage worker and their families.

Tissue?

For who? The taxpayer who foots the bill?

Tell me if an employers cost goes up who foots the bill?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"In CBO and JCT's judgment, a sharp decline in employment-based health insurance as a result of the ACA is unlikely, and, if it occurred, would not dramatically increase the cost of the ACA."

While this might not be the right thread to post this, my assertion is a simple one, as most know by now that companies with over 50 employee's will be required under the ACA to provide coverage for their employee's or pay a fine of 2,000.00 per employee it should come as no surprise. The problem with that is that most companies healthcare cost range from 12, to 15K per employee according to the CBO as well as several other studies. Given these factors, the incentive for a company to simply drop coverage and pay the fine is very high. It's my humble opinion that this is the biggest flaw in the ACA and if these companies begin to do this and from my reading some already have begun, then the law itself will become too costly to sustain and will result in not more people covered but less and further will result in higher insurance costs and not lower ones. While I am open to other conclusions here, at this point I have yet to see anything that convinces me otherwise save for the competition argument which states that employers will have an incentive to carry health insurance to attract employee's against those who don't.

Paying the fine essentially reduces the total value of compensation you are able to pay the employee by 2k. You can afford to compensate your employees more if you avoid the fine and give them health care. Lower compensation = lower quality employees.

Instead of giving them $15,000 worth of health care they can get through the government the employer takes a $2000 fine and pays them an extra $10,000 a year. Want to explain why anyone except an idiot that doesn't understand math would prefer the first alternative?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Obamacare is going to blow up in the country's face.

Ah, yes.....just like in the (former) Massachusetts, right?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If you even have a doctor under obamacare you'll be lucky. My doctor is gone, his practice is being seen by a physician's assistant employed by the county health care system.

Only one doctor in your county?

Will doctors be able to practice forever without Obama?

If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor. does that sound familiar to you PooP?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Obamacare is going to blow up in the country's face. It’s really too bad so many people like Greenbread are out there lying their ass off about the consequences.

Facts that are unpleasant to you are not "lies." Point on your big boy pants and learn to face reality.

Projections based on conjecture are not facts.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Applebee's just announced it will be dismissing employees due to Obamcare.

Whoops!!!

You forgot to post proof of that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Applebee's just announced it will be dismissing employees due to Obamcare. let's see... how many companies is that now.. how many more to come?. This bullshit is a job killer, no matter how you look at it.

NEWSFLASH - companies blaming their failures on Obama!

Is Applebee's going out of business? If they aren't, it is not a failure. The failure is that people do not want to pay $50 for a plate oc rubbery Applebee's chicken.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Obamacare is going to blow up in the country's face. It’s really too bad so many people like Greenbread are out there lying their ass off about the consequences. You more or less are fined to have too many empoloyees that work too many hours, that is how the country will view the ACA.

You may not agree with Greenbread, but he really knows his shit on Obamacare, Romneycare & the ACA. He can whip anyone's ass on this board with the facts on these laws. I have been reading his post for a couple of years now & have not seen a lie he has posted yet.

You should pay more attention. He actually lied right here in this thread when he claimed that the projections of the CBO are facts.

 

[syrenn]

Let's see here...
51 employees: If I provide health care, my cost is $612,000
51 employees: If I elect to pay the fine, my cost is $102,000
49 employees: My cost is $0.00

i have several friends who won small businesses..... guess what the plan is. You got it... to lay off a few people.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Paying the fine essentially reduces the total value of compensation you are able to pay the employee by 2k. You can afford to compensate your employees more if you avoid the fine and give them health care. Lower compensation = lower quality employees.

Astounding Alice-in-Wonderland thinking. Why don't we raise the minimum wage to $100/hr? Then we would have nothing but higher quality employees!

Minimum wage isn't what we're talking about.


When you're ready to stop being stupid let us know.

When are you going to stop?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I didn't say anything about caliber.

Some jobs do not require high quality employees.

Those tend to be the jobs that pay dick and result in the federal and local governments picking up the tabs on the health care expenses of the uninsured minimum wage worker and their families.

Like the jobs at Applebee's that used to be full time?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Form Mitt Romney campaign's own website

1 – What is RomneyCare? Major accomplishments and a brief overview

RomneyCare was the first significant healthcare reform to happen in the U.S. for decades.

The primary goal of RomneyCare was to provide all citizens in MA with access to affordable health insurance and to eliminate the “free riders” who expected the government or taxpayers to pay for their health care. The plan did an extraordinary job of covering nearly half a million people who were previously uninsured without raising taxes. Under RomneyCare, the citizens of MA can be assured that they will retain their health coverage when they move from job to job, or if they suffer financial hardship.

Highlights of what RomneyCare has accomplished after 5 years of being in affect:

1 - Nearly every Massachusetts citizen is covered. A recent study showed that 98.1% of adults and 99.8% of children now have medical insurance. This is by far the highest rates in the nation. The overall national rate is 83%, with Texas having the worst rates in the nation at 74%. In Texas, one out of every six children is uninsured.

2 - Many more businesses are offering medical insurance to their employees. Now 76% of employers of medical insurance to their employees, compared with 70% just five years ago. The national rate remained at 60%.

3 - The overall costs of the program to the state have not exceeded expectations. At the time of passage, Romney predicted that the new law would add just 1 to 1.5% to the state budget. Last year the additional cost to the state was only 1.2% – precisely where Romney predicted it would be even though the costs to the state would be much lower if the Massachusetts legislature and Governor Patrick (Romney’s successor) hadn’t added significant costs to the healthcare law. (This is covered more thoroughly in Section 6 – What changes would Romney make to RomneyCare?)

4 - The cost of health care premiums for individuals who buy insurance without the help of an employer have gone down dramatically. According to FactCheck.org, individuals who bought insurance on their own “saw a major drop in premiums, as much as a 40% decline, according to some figures.” On average, premiums dropped between 18%-20% for the average individual buying health insurance on their own.

5 - RomneyCare remains exceptionally popular among state residents. Studies repeatedly confirm that 67-84% of Massachusetts residents are happy with the plan and would not go back to the old system if given the chance.

The Creation of RomneyCare

Remember that the overall goal of RomneyCare was to provide all citizens with access to affordable health insurance and to eliminate the “free riders” who expected the government or taxpayers to pay for their health care. The plan did an extraordinary job of covering nearly half a million people who were previously uninsured without raising taxes.

In order to accomplish the goal of covering all the citizens of MA, Romney put together a team of business experts, not a typical political team, to explore new options for providing health insurance to more citizens. The members of this team included a former investment banker, a Bain & Company partner, a professor from MIT, an expert in federal health programs, a Washington policy guru, and experts from the Heritage Foundation. For more than a year, Romney and his team studied the details of health insurance in their state.

One of the most surprising things that the team discovered was that only 20% of the uninsured were truly too poor buy health insurance. This is a very important point because it had generally been assumed that all the uninsured fell into this category. 40% of the uninsured had the financial means to purchase health insurance but simply refused to do so. The last 40% of the uninsured were people who were able to partially pay for their insurance premiums, but could not afford all of it.

At the end of a year of research and being “immersed in the details” as Romney describes it, the team created a plan where all citizens of MA were required to purchase health insurance and the state would subsidize those who were too poor to purchase health insurance on their own. The plan would be paid for by simply redirecting money that was already allocated to pay for free-riders, and using that money to instead help those without any coverage to buy insurance. The subsidy for the poor was on a sliding scale where the poorest would get a greater percentage of money, and people received less and less of a subsidy as their incomes went up and they were more able to afford it on their own.

RomneyCare Passage and Popularity

The plan was approved by two conservative Republicans who were George W. Bush’s Secretary of the Health and Human Services Department, Tommy Thompson and Mike Leavitt. Furthermore, the plan was supported overwhelmingly in the MA legislature with 198 house reps supporting the bill and only 2 voting against it – 99% voting in favor of the plan! The bill also passed through the state senate without a single dissenting vote and it was supported by nearly every special interest group in the state. (As of September 2011, 33 of the 36 Republicans in the MA legislature endorsed Romney for president further illustrating the sustained support for Romney and his tenure as Governor of MA.)

Physician and New York Times bestselling author Atul Gawande wrote in The New Yorker magazine on January 26, 2009 that the plan “remains extremely popular” among the citizens of MA and that “a large majority would not want to go back to the old system.” Recent polls show that 84% of MA residents are satisfied with the plan!

RomneyCare provides the citizens of Massachusetts better access to healthcare and ultimately healthier, longer lives. The plan provided healthcare that is both portable and affordable, something that people have been trying to achieve about for decades.

and


Massachusetts health care reform - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Massachusetts health care reform - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why do you think he lost?

 

[healthmyths]

"In CBO and JCT's judgment, a sharp decline in employment-based health insurance as a result of the ACA is unlikely, and, if it occurred, would not dramatically increase the cost of the ACA."

While this might not be the right thread to post this, my assertion is a simple one, as most know by now that companies with over 50 employee's will be required under the ACA to provide coverage for their employee's or pay a fine of 2,000.00 per employee it should come as no surprise. The problem with that is that most companies healthcare cost range from 12, to 15K per employee according to the CBO as well as several other studies. Given these factors, the incentive for a company to simply drop coverage and pay the fine is very high. It's my humble opinion that this is the biggest flaw in the ACA and if these companies begin to do this and from my reading some already have begun, then the law itself will become too costly to sustain and will result in not more people covered but less and further will result in higher insurance costs and not lower ones. While I am open to other conclusions here, at this point I have yet to see anything that convinces me otherwise save for the competition argument which states that employers will have an incentive to carry health insurance to attract employee's against those who don't.

NOT ONLY arre these the flaws BUT the MATH doesn't WORK to begin with!
A) There NEVER were or has been EVER 50 million "uninsured" that was the number used to pass just by 6 votes! I am sure that some of the "yes" votes NEVER knew that:
1) 10 million of "uninsured NOT citizens! 2)14 million ALREADY covered by Medicaid 3)18 million don't want, don't need and NOW must BUY! That left 8 million truly uninsured!
B) The experts, actuaries are telling people insurance premiums will rise 122% for private insurance which 64% of Americans have starting 2013!


So here we have Obamacare not capable of simple math.. 42 million don't qualify,already covered and DON"T want being used to pass a bill a majority never READ!

We have 30% of businesses saying they'll drop their employee insurance...

AND just wait till the BIG BIG shoe drops!!!

How many of you know that the single biggest DEDUCTION against taxable income is this:
Deduction Type of deduction that government ALLOWS tax payer to subtract from taxes

• 
  [*]$131.0 billion Exclusion of employer medical insurance premiums and medical care
  [*]$117.7 Net exclusion of pension contributions and earnings
  
  [*]$ 88.5 Deductibility of mortgage interest on owner-occupied homes
  [*]$55.9 Accelerated depreciation of machinery and equipment
  [*]$49.1 Deductibility of non-business state and local taxes
  [*]$46.8 Deductibility of charitable contributions
  [*]$31.5 Deferral of income from controlled foreign corporations
  [*]$30.0 Capital gains exclusion on home sales
  [*]$29.1 Deductibility of State and local property tax on owner-occupied homes
  [*]$28.4 Child credit
  [*]$24.2 Capital gains (except agriculture,timber, and coal)
  [*]$21.5 Step-up basis of capital gains at death

$653.7 billion
These two DEDUCTIONS health premiums and pensions of over $250 billion NOT being allowed to be deducted????
BIG BIG shoe on Obamacare!!! On 2014 election! Repeal of Obamacare!

 

[healthmyths]

Form Mitt Romney campaign's own website

1 – What is RomneyCare? Major accomplishments and a brief overview

RomneyCare was the first significant healthcare reform to happen in the U.S. for decades.

The primary goal of RomneyCare was to provide all citizens in MA with access to affordable health insurance and to eliminate the “free riders” who expected the government or taxpayers to pay for their health care. The plan did an extraordinary job of covering nearly half a million people who were previously uninsured without raising taxes. Under RomneyCare, the citizens of MA can be assured that they will retain their health coverage when they move from job to job, or if they suffer financial hardship.

Highlights of what RomneyCare has accomplished after 5 years of being in affect:

1 - Nearly every Massachusetts citizen is covered. A recent study showed that 98.1% of adults and 99.8% of children now have medical insurance. This is by far the highest rates in the nation. The overall national rate is 83%, with Texas having the worst rates in the nation at 74%. In Texas, one out of every six children is uninsured.

2 - Many more businesses are offering medical insurance to their employees. Now 76% of employers of medical insurance to their employees, compared with 70% just five years ago. The national rate remained at 60%.

3 - The overall costs of the program to the state have not exceeded expectations. At the time of passage, Romney predicted that the new law would add just 1 to 1.5% to the state budget. Last year the additional cost to the state was only 1.2% – precisely where Romney predicted it would be even though the costs to the state would be much lower if the Massachusetts legislature and Governor Patrick (Romney’s successor) hadn’t added significant costs to the healthcare law. (This is covered more thoroughly in Section 6 – What changes would Romney make to RomneyCare?)

4 - The cost of health care premiums for individuals who buy insurance without the help of an employer have gone down dramatically. According to FactCheck.org, individuals who bought insurance on their own “saw a major drop in premiums, as much as a 40% decline, according to some figures.” On average, premiums dropped between 18%-20% for the average individual buying health insurance on their own.

5 - RomneyCare remains exceptionally popular among state residents. Studies repeatedly confirm that 67-84% of Massachusetts residents are happy with the plan and would not go back to the old system if given the chance.

The Creation of RomneyCare

Remember that the overall goal of RomneyCare was to provide all citizens with access to affordable health insurance and to eliminate the “free riders” who expected the government or taxpayers to pay for their health care. The plan did an extraordinary job of covering nearly half a million people who were previously uninsured without raising taxes.

In order to accomplish the goal of covering all the citizens of MA, Romney put together a team of business experts, not a typical political team, to explore new options for providing health insurance to more citizens. The members of this team included a former investment banker, a Bain & Company partner, a professor from MIT, an expert in federal health programs, a Washington policy guru, and experts from the Heritage Foundation. For more than a year, Romney and his team studied the details of health insurance in their state.

One of the most surprising things that the team discovered was that only 20% of the uninsured were truly too poor buy health insurance. This is a very important point because it had generally been assumed that all the uninsured fell into this category. 40% of the uninsured had the financial means to purchase health insurance but simply refused to do so. The last 40% of the uninsured were people who were able to partially pay for their insurance premiums, but could not afford all of it.

At the end of a year of research and being “immersed in the details” as Romney describes it, the team created a plan where all citizens of MA were required to purchase health insurance and the state would subsidize those who were too poor to purchase health insurance on their own. The plan would be paid for by simply redirecting money that was already allocated to pay for free-riders, and using that money to instead help those without any coverage to buy insurance. The subsidy for the poor was on a sliding scale where the poorest would get a greater percentage of money, and people received less and less of a subsidy as their incomes went up and they were more able to afford it on their own.

RomneyCare Passage and Popularity

The plan was approved by two conservative Republicans who were George W. Bush’s Secretary of the Health and Human Services Department, Tommy Thompson and Mike Leavitt. Furthermore, the plan was supported overwhelmingly in the MA legislature with 198 house reps supporting the bill and only 2 voting against it – 99% voting in favor of the plan! The bill also passed through the state senate without a single dissenting vote and it was supported by nearly every special interest group in the state. (As of September 2011, 33 of the 36 Republicans in the MA legislature endorsed Romney for president further illustrating the sustained support for Romney and his tenure as Governor of MA.)

Physician and New York Times bestselling author Atul Gawande wrote in The New Yorker magazine on January 26, 2009 that the plan “remains extremely popular” among the citizens of MA and that “a large majority would not want to go back to the old system.” Recent polls show that 84% of MA residents are satisfied with the plan!

RomneyCare provides the citizens of Massachusetts better access to healthcare and ultimately healthier, longer lives. The plan provided healthcare that is both portable and affordable, something that people have been trying to achieve about for decades.

and


Massachusetts health care reform - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Massachusetts health care reform - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why do you think he lost?

NEWS FLASH!!!
Massachusetts is one of 50 states. What may work in Massachusetts may not work in Texas!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Form Mitt Romney campaign's own website

1 – What is RomneyCare? Major accomplishments and a brief overview

RomneyCare was the first significant healthcare reform to happen in the U.S. for decades.

The primary goal of RomneyCare was to provide all citizens in MA with access to affordable health insurance and to eliminate the “free riders” who expected the government or taxpayers to pay for their health care. The plan did an extraordinary job of covering nearly half a million people who were previously uninsured without raising taxes. Under RomneyCare, the citizens of MA can be assured that they will retain their health coverage when they move from job to job, or if they suffer financial hardship.

Highlights of what RomneyCare has accomplished after 5 years of being in affect:

1 - Nearly every Massachusetts citizen is covered. A recent study showed that 98.1% of adults and 99.8% of children now have medical insurance. This is by far the highest rates in the nation. The overall national rate is 83%, with Texas having the worst rates in the nation at 74%. In Texas, one out of every six children is uninsured.

2 - Many more businesses are offering medical insurance to their employees. Now 76% of employers of medical insurance to their employees, compared with 70% just five years ago. The national rate remained at 60%.

3 - The overall costs of the program to the state have not exceeded expectations. At the time of passage, Romney predicted that the new law would add just 1 to 1.5% to the state budget. Last year the additional cost to the state was only 1.2% – precisely where Romney predicted it would be even though the costs to the state would be much lower if the Massachusetts legislature and Governor Patrick (Romney’s successor) hadn’t added significant costs to the healthcare law. (This is covered more thoroughly in Section 6 – What changes would Romney make to RomneyCare?)

4 - The cost of health care premiums for individuals who buy insurance without the help of an employer have gone down dramatically. According to FactCheck.org, individuals who bought insurance on their own “saw a major drop in premiums, as much as a 40% decline, according to some figures.” On average, premiums dropped between 18%-20% for the average individual buying health insurance on their own.

5 - RomneyCare remains exceptionally popular among state residents. Studies repeatedly confirm that 67-84% of Massachusetts residents are happy with the plan and would not go back to the old system if given the chance.

The Creation of RomneyCare

Remember that the overall goal of RomneyCare was to provide all citizens with access to affordable health insurance and to eliminate the “free riders” who expected the government or taxpayers to pay for their health care. The plan did an extraordinary job of covering nearly half a million people who were previously uninsured without raising taxes.

In order to accomplish the goal of covering all the citizens of MA, Romney put together a team of business experts, not a typical political team, to explore new options for providing health insurance to more citizens. The members of this team included a former investment banker, a Bain & Company partner, a professor from MIT, an expert in federal health programs, a Washington policy guru, and experts from the Heritage Foundation. For more than a year, Romney and his team studied the details of health insurance in their state.

One of the most surprising things that the team discovered was that only 20% of the uninsured were truly too poor buy health insurance. This is a very important point because it had generally been assumed that all the uninsured fell into this category. 40% of the uninsured had the financial means to purchase health insurance but simply refused to do so. The last 40% of the uninsured were people who were able to partially pay for their insurance premiums, but could not afford all of it.

At the end of a year of research and being “immersed in the details” as Romney describes it, the team created a plan where all citizens of MA were required to purchase health insurance and the state would subsidize those who were too poor to purchase health insurance on their own. The plan would be paid for by simply redirecting money that was already allocated to pay for free-riders, and using that money to instead help those without any coverage to buy insurance. The subsidy for the poor was on a sliding scale where the poorest would get a greater percentage of money, and people received less and less of a subsidy as their incomes went up and they were more able to afford it on their own.

RomneyCare Passage and Popularity

The plan was approved by two conservative Republicans who were George W. Bush’s Secretary of the Health and Human Services Department, Tommy Thompson and Mike Leavitt. Furthermore, the plan was supported overwhelmingly in the MA legislature with 198 house reps supporting the bill and only 2 voting against it – 99% voting in favor of the plan! The bill also passed through the state senate without a single dissenting vote and it was supported by nearly every special interest group in the state. (As of September 2011, 33 of the 36 Republicans in the MA legislature endorsed Romney for president further illustrating the sustained support for Romney and his tenure as Governor of MA.)

Physician and New York Times bestselling author Atul Gawande wrote in The New Yorker magazine on January 26, 2009 that the plan “remains extremely popular” among the citizens of MA and that “a large majority would not want to go back to the old system.” Recent polls show that 84% of MA residents are satisfied with the plan!

RomneyCare provides the citizens of Massachusetts better access to healthcare and ultimately healthier, longer lives. The plan provided healthcare that is both portable and affordable, something that people have been trying to achieve about for decades.

and


Massachusetts health care reform - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Massachusetts health care reform - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why do you think he lost?

Seriously? the math and of course the Obama campaign machine went all out during the GOP primaries. It was a calculated risk. Brilliant. They were an awesome team to behold during the Dem primaries in 2008 and now 2012. Disciplined and on message.

Romney's weaknesses were the same ones he had when he ran against Senator Ted Kennedy. He just doesn't learn and his campaign did what Senator Kerry's campaign did in 2004 before John Sasso was brought in to replace Mary Beth Cahill....they existed in a bubble. In 204 Kerry just didn't have enough time. A few more weeks or a month and I think he would have won.

Romney had the odds against him. Ryan was a terrible pick -- too much baggage and a long record to run away from. Made Romney look like a poor decider. The odds always favored the President even after the first debate. A Romney win was always possible, but to me...not very probable.

think difference between 'can' and 'may'

btw, like Reagan, Obama has a likeability things. that stacked the odds