Comments on: Romney’s ‘Free Market’ Health Plan Vs. Barack Obama’s ‘Government’ Health Care Plan http://thecompetentconservative.com/romneys-free-market-health-plan-vs-barack-obamas-government-health-care-plan/ Mitt Romney For President 2012! Sun, 20 May 2012 03:02:25 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: John West http://thecompetentconservative.com/romneys-free-market-health-plan-vs-barack-obamas-government-health-care-plan/comment-page-1/#comment-118 John West Tue, 21 Jul 2009 21:06:40 +0000 http://thecompetentconservative.com/?p=302#comment-118 Why doesn't governor Romney come out and make public statements regarding the battering he is taking on the Mass. Health Care Bill budget shortfalls before the steam roller effect comes in to play and the media spins it irretrevabley against him ? Why doesn’t governor Romney come out and make public statements regarding the battering he is taking on the Mass. Health Care Bill budget shortfalls before the steam roller effect comes in to play and the media spins it irretrevabley against him ?

]]> By: Spencer Iacono http://thecompetentconservative.com/romneys-free-market-health-plan-vs-barack-obamas-government-health-care-plan/comment-page-1/#comment-95 Spencer Iacono Thu, 16 Jul 2009 22:37:06 +0000 http://thecompetentconservative.com/?p=302#comment-95 Adam, thank you for your analysis. The plan is obviously <em>not</em> exactly what Mitt would have it be, but I guess that's about as good as the Democratic legislature will allow. As Mitt stated before "is it perfect?, of course not and it may need some revisions in the future...time will tell." We need someone who is willing to actually work on a plan to get everyone insured without doing it the easy costly way -raise taxes and turn it over to the government. I think with Mitt's plan we have a start in the right direction. Adam, thank you for your analysis. The plan is obviously not exactly what Mitt would have it be, but I guess that’s about as good as the Democratic legislature will allow. As Mitt stated before “is it perfect?, of course not and it may need some revisions in the future…time will tell.” We need someone who is willing to actually work on a plan to get everyone insured without doing it the easy costly way -raise taxes and turn it over to the government.

I think with Mitt’s plan we have a start in the right direction.

]]> By: Adam Kolasinski http://thecompetentconservative.com/romneys-free-market-health-plan-vs-barack-obamas-government-health-care-plan/comment-page-1/#comment-93 Adam Kolasinski Thu, 16 Jul 2009 19:53:15 +0000 http://thecompetentconservative.com/?p=302#comment-93 Here's my take on the Romney healthcare plan. Most of my opinion is based on data underlying the following analysis: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/healthcare_mass_doc.pdf Romney's plan was more expensive than people thought at the time it was drafted. This has to do with the part of the plan that gives subsidies to buy private insurance to people whose incomes are too high to qualify for Medicade, but too low to buy private insurance. The drafters thought that the increased expenditure for this subsidy would be offset by reduced state spending on compensating hospitals for treating uninsured people who failed to pay their ER bills. It turns out that the number of uninsured people who qualified for the subsidy was higher than anticipated, and while there was a big reduction in the uncompensated ER reimbursement, it wasn’t big enough to cover the cost of the subsidy. So on net, the plan has cost taxpayers some money. It hasn’t been all that much, though. The new subsidy costs the state $800 million per year, but reimbursements for uncompensated care have gone down by $275 million per year. So on net, the plan has ended up costing the taxpayers $525 million on an anual basis, which is not all that much compared to the total state budget of $28 billion. All my numbers are from the 2009 budget. On other fronts, premiums for individual policies have gone down, and the reform plan has made it legal for insurers to sell cheaper policies with higher deductible and co-copays that they previously weren’t allowed to sell. As a result, things got much better for people who are self employed or whose employers did not offer insurance. Premiums for employer-sponsored group plans, however, have gone up at approximately the same rate as they did before the plan was passed. So in sum: The plan made people who were to rich to qualify for Medicade, but too poor to buy insurance on their own, much better off as they can now afford insurance. It also made better off the self-employed and those who worked for employers too small to offer insurance, as premiums for individual policies have gone down. It didn’t affect the vast majority of people who get insurance through their employer. It made the taxpayers slightly worse off because the subsidy for the too-rich-for-medicade but too-poor-for-private-care group was higher than expected and was not completely offset by reductions in uncompensated care reimbursements Here’s my take on the Romney healthcare plan. Most of my opinion is based on data underlying the following analysis:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/healthcare_mass_doc.pdf

Romney’s plan was more expensive than people thought at the time it was drafted. This has to do with the part of the plan that gives subsidies to buy private insurance to people whose incomes are too high to qualify for Medicade, but too low to buy private insurance. The drafters thought that the increased expenditure for this subsidy would be offset by reduced state spending on compensating hospitals for treating uninsured people who failed to pay their ER bills.

It turns out that the number of uninsured people who qualified for the subsidy was higher than anticipated, and while there was a big reduction in the uncompensated ER reimbursement, it wasn’t big enough to cover the cost of the subsidy. So on net, the plan has cost taxpayers some money.

It hasn’t been all that much, though. The new subsidy costs the state $800 million per year, but reimbursements for uncompensated care have gone down by $275 million per year. So on net, the plan has ended up costing the taxpayers $525 million on an anual basis, which is not all that much compared to the total state budget of $28 billion. All my numbers are from the 2009 budget.

On other fronts, premiums for individual policies have gone down, and the reform plan has made it legal for insurers to sell cheaper policies with higher deductible and co-copays that they previously weren’t allowed to sell. As a result, things got much better for people who are self employed or whose employers did not offer insurance.

Premiums for employer-sponsored group plans, however, have gone up at approximately the same rate as they did before the plan was passed.

So in sum:

The plan made people who were to rich to qualify for Medicade, but too poor to buy insurance on their own, much better off as they can now afford insurance.

It also made better off the self-employed and those who worked for employers too small to offer insurance, as premiums for individual policies have gone down.

It didn’t affect the vast majority of people who get insurance through their employer.

It made the taxpayers slightly worse off because the subsidy for the too-rich-for-medicade but too-poor-for-private-care group was higher than expected and was not completely offset by reductions in uncompensated care reimbursements

]]>