[jeffkrol]

Foundation Slams Romney Health Proposals

But the Romney campaign is discrediting the report, saying many of the assumptions used by Commonwealth are flawed.

The Commonwealth Fund, with the help of Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist Jonathan Gruber, PhD, modeled three scenarios: if the ACA were fully implemented, if it had never been implemented at all, and if Romney's proposals were to take effect. It estimated the number of insured, the cost of insurance, the impact on Medicare, and other outcomes.

Results were published Tuesday in the report, "How the Obama and Romney Plans Stack Up."

The report makes a set of assumptions on two key Romney proposals -- transforming Medicaid into a block grant program and providing tax advantages to people buying insurance on their own -- because details haven't been fleshed out.

Because of his turning Medicaid into a block grant system, Romney's plan would actually increase the number of uninsured by 12 million by 2022, the Commonwealth Fund study found. More than 80% of the increase in the uninsured stems from the cuts in Medicaid that would occur under Romney's proposal.

The Romney approach would cut spending for Medicare as well as Medicaid, the report noted.

"This approach to cost containment would shift the burden of growth in U.S. healthcare costs from the federal government to the states, to low-income families, and to Medicare beneficiaries, without addressing the underlying causes of rising costs," the authors wrote.

Nationally, the uninsured rate of nonelderly under the ACA would fall to 10% by 2022, the study predicted. Under Romney's policies, it would increase to 26%, and would be at 22% if the ACA were never passed.

The Romney plan would also hit moderate income families hard. The uninsured rate for that group of people -- defined as an annual income of $57,625 for a family of four -- would jump from 28.3% to 36.4%. Under the ACA, it would fall to 6.9%, the report stated.

While the ACA provides a tax credit ranging from $3,900 to $4,500 per person to purchase plans on the private market, Romney would provide a tax deduction ranging from $1,900 to $2,600. This would cause higher out-of-pocket spending under Romney's proposal

.

[jeffkrol]

Rehash of health care plan origins:
Heritage to Romney to Obama: The disputed origins and outcomes of health care reform | Deseret News

"If a young man wrecks his Porsche and has not had the foresight to obtain insurance, we may commiserate but society feels no obligation to repair his car," read a 1989 Heritage Foundation report.

"But health care is different," the report continues. "If a man is struck down by a heart attack in the street, Americans will care for him whether or not he has insurance. If we find that he has spent his money on other things rather than insurance, we may be angry but we will not deny him services — even if that means more prudent citizens paying the tab."

The Heritage plan offered three policy strategies: expand Medicaid for the very poor, offer tax credits for lower and middle incomes and use an individual mandate to force free-riders to join up. All three of these elements eventually entered into Romney's reforms — and from there moved into the 2010 Obamacare legislation.

[GeneV]

Great history on Obamacare and Romneycare. It seems that some of the differences could have been worked out if the GOP had any interest in a bipartisan plan based upon the Heritage concept. I didn't hear arguments about the differences between the two, but, instead, scrapping the whole thing and going with a very skeletal proposal involving interstate insurance sales.

[jeffkrol]

Oh and tort reform..........