RomneyCare
|
ObamaCare
|
|
Overall Size and Scope
|
1) Whole bill was 70 pages
2) Romney vetoed significant sections of the bill including the employer penalty for not providing health insurance
3) Romney favored an “opt out” provision from the mandate
4) Romney wanted no mandated benefits for health care coverage, 'catastrophic' coverage only
5) No federal gov. insurance option
6) Intended as a market driven solution to healthcare
|
1) Whole bill was 2,074 pages
2) Very broad regulation of the insurance industry including an employer penalty for not providing health insurance
3) No “opt out” provision
4) Many mandated benefits. Establishes a 15 member board of unelected bureaucrats with great control over health care benefits and risks rationing health care
5) Leaves open the option of creating single-payer gov. insurance in the future
6) Intended as a step toward gov. run insurance
|
Costs
|
1) No new taxes!
2) Romney balanced the state’s budget first, then passed healthcare law
3) No cuts to Medicare benefits
4) Modest cost to state (only added 1% to state budget)
|
1) Increased taxes by $500 billion
-Taxes people who don’t buy insurance
2) Despite massive federal gov. debt, Obama still passed Obamacare
3) Cuts Medicare by $719 billion
4) Overall costs unknown!
|
Popularity
|
1) Very strong bipartisan support
2) Strong special interest support
3) Very popular among the public in Massachusetts
4) Strong consensus of approval was built in the state to support the law
-Consensus was built to support an individual mandate
|
1) Absolutely no bipartisan support
2) Very controversial and divided special interest groups
3) Unpopular in nation overall
4) No consensus was built to support a mandate
|
Does the Constitution Define it as a “Tax” or “Penalty/Fee”?
|
1) Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts ruled state mandates are “penalties” because states have different authority and powers than the fed. gov.
-Massachusetts constitution never considered this a tax
|
1) Supreme Court ruled that federal gov. only has the authority to enact this law by its ability to “tax,” and does not meet the required standards to be considered a “penalty.”
-This tax will be enforced by the IRS
-Breaks Obama’s promise that he would not raise taxes on the middle class
|
Federalism
|
1) A unique solution created by a state to solve its particular problems
-Through collaboration and discussion, Massachusetts created a consensus among stakeholders to support the new law
2) Much easier to change and adapt a state law if problems arise. If MA doesn’t like the law, they can change it.
-ObamaCare, however, is a new federal/nationwide entitlement program (like Medicare & Social Security), thus extremely difficult to reform.
|
1) Federal gov. “one-size-fits-all” plan
-Doesn’t take into account that each state is unique in important ways such as:
A)Vastly different debt levels between states (some states can’t afford new spending on health care)
B)Some states have twice the percentage of uninsured citizens (Much greater costs will be imposed on states with a larger percentage of uninusured citizens)
C)Conservative states and citizens will reject implementation of federal gov. plan, including the individual mandate
|
Different Outcomes from Each Plan
|
1) 98.1% of adults and 99.8% of children have health insurance
2) The number of employers offering health insurance went up from 70% to 76%
3) Did not make doctor shortages worse
4) Overall, premium prices have gone down for most groups
5) No negative affect on job creation in the state
6) Created to help the poor afford health insurance
|
1) According to the CBO, 30 million people will still not have health insurance after fully implemented. Only covers an additional 6.3% of Americans. 10% of America will still be uninsured
2) The CBO estimates that fewer people will get health insurance from their employer
3) NY Times says it will make doctors shortages worse in some areas of the country
4) Since passage, premium prices have risen 9% per year
5) CBO estimates there will be less jobs as a result
6) Some states will have almost everyone in the state getting some form of subsidy to buy health insurance
|
Here is the summary from the WSJ:
Expect campaign strategists to pay close attention to new polling data on the politics of health care out Wednesday from the Kaiser Family Foundation. With health care already a major issue in the 2012 election, the nonpartisan policy group’s latest poll has seven findings message-crafters might find interesting:
1. The law is still unpopular but not as disliked as it was in October. In the latest tracking poll, 44% of voters held an unfavorable opinion of it compared with 51% who said in October that they viewed it unfavorably.
2. Among the 44% who viewed the law unfavorably, more than three quarters said they felt that way at least in part because of their “general feelings about the direction of the country and what’s going on in Washington right now.”
3. Even though there are more voters who don’t like the law than voters who do, some 50% want to keep it, and only 38% definitely know they want to repeal it.
4. Almost every individual element in the package is popular with a majority of the public, especially the requirements that insurers provide easy-to-understand plan summaries (84% like that) and provide coverage to people regardless of their medical histories (67% like that). Even increasing the payroll tax on higher-income earners to help fund Medicare is acceptable to more than half of the respondents.
5. A majority of people – 63% — don’t like the requirement that they carry insurance or pay a fine.
6. The poll showed that when respondents were told about specific provisions, the tended to like them, but the often didn’t know they were in the law. That lack of information could hurt Democrats. Much of the law isn’t scheduled to kick in until well after the election — 2014. But starting this year, insurance companies must cover preventive care (including contraception) without a copay. Most respondents think that’s great.
7. There’s still some misinformation out there. Some 56% of respondents thought that the overhaul included a new government-run insurance plan to be offered along with private plans. (It didn’t.) And 35% of respondents thought that the law allowed for a government panel to make decisions about end-of-life care for people on Medicare. (Again, it didn’t.)
The full poll results are here. It has a margin of error of three percentage points.
For Romney supporters, this is an interesting poll. The public, and especially independents, definitely like certain parts of the new bill. The parts of the law that people like are:
1) being able to keep kids on their parents insurance till age 26
2) barring insurers from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions
3) barring insurers from having a maximum annual amount of money insurers will pay for catastrophic or extensive care
4) requiring insurers to provide easy to understand summaries of health care plans
5) increasing payroll taxes on the wealthy to help fund Medicare
6) requiring insurers to cover preventative care without a copay
I think former Senator Bill Frist said it best when he said that about 70% of the new health care law is good. Most conservatives tend to forget that even if the Supreme Court rules ObamaCare as unconstitutional, the Supreme Court will only strike down the elements of the law that are unconstitutional leaving much of the law in place. If much of the law remains in place, who better to deal with the law than a man who has been immersed in a similar law for over six years? Of course Mitt Romney would be the most qualified.
For Romney supporters, this is an interesting poll. The public, and especially independents, definitely like certain parts of the new bill. The parts of the law that people like are:
1) being able to keep kids on their parents insurance till age 26
2) barring insurers from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions
3) barring insurers from having a maximum annual amount of money insurers will pay for catastrophic or extensive care
4) requiring insurers to provide easy to understand summaries of health care plans
5) increasing payroll taxes on the wealthy to help fund Medicare
6) requiring insurers to cover preventative care without a copay
I think former Senator Bill Frist said it best when he said that about 70% of the new health care law is good. Most conservatives tend to forget that even if the Supreme Court rules ObamaCare as unconstitutional, the Supreme Court will only strike down the elements of the law that are unconstitutional leaving much of the law in place. If much of the law remains in place, who better to deal with the law than a man who has been immersed in a similar law for over six years? Of course Mitt Romney would be the most qualified.