Confirmed: Romneycare = Obamacare
Jim Pethokoukis spotlights a new Health Affairs study on how Romneycare laid the foundation for Obamacare, and what it portends for the federal health insurance scene. In short: Expanded government coverage, higher taxpayer costs. Read here for details and analysis. His conclusion:
The authors conclude that based on the Romneycare experience, Obamacare will improve coverage and not kill employer-based insurance, but containing costs will be a “considerable challenge.” That is probably the avenue Romney should use to a) attack Obamacare and b) present his own national health reform. But this study will perpetuate the meme that Romneycare was the prototype for Obamacare. Santorum hammered Romney on this point at the last debate more effectively than any other candidate throughout this campaign season, probably because he understands the issue better than his rivals. We’ll see if he or Gingrich follows up tonight.
No surprises, of course. We already heard from Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber in October:
The Obama administration may have relied much more heavily on Romney’s Massachusetts healthcare legislation as a blueprint for Obamacare than was previously believed.
White House visitor logs obtained by NBC News revealed that three of Romney’s healthcare advisers had up to a dozen meetings with senior administration officials, including one in the Oval Office presided over by President Barack Obama.
“They really wanted to know how we can take that same approach we used in Massachusetts and turn that into a national model,” MIT economist and Romney healthcare adviser Jon Gruber told NBC.
And back in September, I noted the analysis by Suffolk University’s Beacon Hill Institute showing the depths of the economic damage that Romneycare did in the Bay State.
Romney’s baggage. It is so heavy:
The Bay State’s controversial 2006 universal health-care plan — also known as “Romneycare” — has cost Massachusetts more than 18,000 jobs, according to an exclusive blockbuster study that could provide ammo to GOP rivals of former Gov. Mitt Romney as he touts his job-creating chops on the campaign trail.
“Mandating health insurance coverage and expanding the demand for health services without increasing supply drove up costs. Economics 101 tells us that,” said Paul Bachman, research director at Suffolk University’s Beacon Hill Institute, the conservative think tank that conducted the study. The Herald obtained an exclusive copy of the findings.
“The ‘shared sacrifice’ needed to provide universal health care includes a net loss of jobs, which is attributable to the higher costs that the measure imposed,” said David Tuerck, the institute’s executive director.
…Despite Romney’s vaunted business acumen as a successful venture capitalist, Bachman said the former governor “was a little naive about what would become of the law.”
The Beacon Hill Institute study found that, on average, Romneycare:
• cost the Bay State 18,313 jobs;
• drove up total health insurance costs in Massachusetts by $4.311 billion;
• slowed the growth of disposable income per person by $376; and
• reduced investment in Massachusetts by $25.06 million.
And remember that RomneyCare relied on FedGovCare as a sturdy crutch: “He also noted the state’s health-care costs have been heavily subsidized by billions of dollars in federal aid through a Medicaid waiver program.”
The SEIU may be attacking Romney in Floridanow, but Big Labor radicals made out well under Romneycare.
I repeat: RomneyCare and ObamaCare share not only the same ideological architects, but similar waiver programs in part set up to benefit Big Labor – via Boston Globe in February:
Massachusetts regulators granted more exemptions last year to residents who said they could not afford the health insurance required by the state, waiving the tax penalty for more than half of those who appealed, according to state data.
State officials said they excused the majority of waiver applicants in large part because of the protracted sour economy, which made insurance unaffordable for more people. Under the 2006 state law that requires most residents to have coverage, regulators have significant latitude to authorize waivers by taking into account factors such as a home foreclosure.
The number of people seeking exemptions in 2010 was about the same as in 2009, and state figures show that roughly 98 percent of residents were insured last year.
Even as Republicans and many states wage a bitter battle in Congress and the courts to block the mandatory insurance requirement in the national health care law, the provision appears to retain broad acceptance in Massachusetts.
Regulators’ flexibility may be part of the reason.
“We aren’t going to make someone pay just to make them pay,’’ said Celia Wcislo, a director of 1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers East and a member of the Connector Authority, which oversees Massachusetts’ health care law and grants the exemptions.
Refresher on the politicized “Connector Authority” via Cato:
When Romney signed his plan he claimed “a key objective is to lower the cost of health insurance for all our citizens and allow our citizens to buy the insurance plan that fits their needs.” In actuality, insurance premiums in the state are expected to rise 10–12 percent next year, double the national average.
…Although there are undoubtedly many factors behind the cost increase, one reason is that the new bureaucracy that the legislation created-the “Connector”-has not been allowing Massachusetts citizens to buy insurance that “fits their needs.”
Although it has received less media attention than other aspects of the bill, one of the most significant features of the legislation is the creation of the Massachusetts Health Care Connector to combine the current small-group and individual markets under a single unified set of regulations. Supporters such as Robert E. Moffit and Nina Owcharenko of the Heritage Foundation consider the Connector to be the single most important change made by the legislation, calling it “the cornerstone of the new plan” and “a major innovation and a model for other states.”
The Connector is not actually an insurer. Rather, it is designed to allow individuals and workers in small companies to take advantage of the economies of scale, both in terms of administration and risk pooling, which are currently enjoyed by large employers. Multiple employers are able to pay into the Connector on behalf of a single employee. And, most importantly, the Connector would allow workers to use pretax dollars to purchase individual insurance. That would make insurance personal and portable, rather than tied to an employer-all very desirable things.
However, many people were concerned that the Connector was being granted too much regulatory authority. It was given the power to decide what products it would offer and to designate which types of insurance offered “high quality and good value.” This phrase in particular worried many observers because it is the same language frequently included in legislation mandating insurance benefits.
At the time the legislation passed, Ed Haislmaier of the Heritage Foundation reassured critics that “the Connector will neither design the insurance products being offered nor regulate the insurers offering the plans.” In reality, however, the Connector’s board has seen itself as a combination of the state legislature and the insurance commissioner, adding a host of new regulations and mandates.
For example, the Connector’s governing board has decreed that by January 2009, no one in the state will be allowed to have insurance with more than a $2,000 deductible or total out-of-pocket costs of more than $5,000. In addition, every policy in the state will be required to phase in coverage of prescription drugs, a move that could add 5–15 percent to the cost of insurance plans. A move to require dental coverage barely failed to pass the board, and the dentists-along with several other provider groups-have not given up the effort to force their inclusion. This comes on top of the 40 mandated benefits that the state had previously required, ranging from in vitro fertilization to chiropractic services.
Thus, it appears that the Connector offers quite a bit of pain for relatively little gain. Although the ability to use pretax dollars to purchase personal and portable insurance should be appealing in theory, only about 7,500 nonsubsidized workers have purchased insurance through the Connector so far. On the other hand, rather than insurance that “fits their needs,” Massachusetts residents find themselves forced to buy expensive “Cadillac” policies that offer many benefits that they may not want.
Governor Romney now says that he cannot be held responsible for the actions of the Connector board, because it’s “an independent body separate from the governor’s office.” However, many critics of the Massachusetts plan warned him precisely against the dangers of giving regulatory authority to a bureaucracy that would last long beyond his administration.
Industrial-strength nose plugs can’t cover the stench.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Overnight Open Thread: Dems Try to Manufacture New Voting Bloc
February 20, 2012 10:24 PM by Doug Powers
55 Comments‘Prominent’ GOP Senator: If Romney Loses Michigan, We Need a New Candidate
February 20, 2012 05:46 PM by Doug Powers
112 Comments
Obama Campaign Setting Sights on Santorum
February 18, 2012 04:43 PM by Doug Powers
137 CommentsIt Wouldn’t Be Saturday Morning Without Another Friday Night Solyndra Document Dump to Sift Through
February 18, 2012 09:52 AM by Doug Powers
41 Comments
Taxing medical progress to death
February 17, 2012 09:01 AM by Michelle Malkin
96 Comments
Categories: 2012 Campaign,GOP,Health care,Mitt Romney
Sister Toldjah
» Quote of the Day: “There is no male equivalent for abortion”Redstate
» Obama the Tax Cutter? Think AgainHot Air
» Poll: Romney on the rise in Arizona?Redstate
» Daily Links – February 22, 2012Redstate
» Dahlia Lithwick Hates Medical Research
Good question. Here’s the answer: It just might be the most educational thing you’ll watch in your life. You might even stop the endless banging your heads against the wall about the useless GOP.
http://cutdc.com/2011/06/23/1923/
De-moralization, destablization, crisis, normalization.
You aren’t in America anymore.
?
There is a way to do it within the realm of the states. Here is a link to some good information on what is being worked on right now in regards to the issue.
http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Uploads/Graphics/171/05/171-0524045302-obama-borg-star-trek.jpg
Obama: I AM BARACK OBAMA OF BORG. RESISTANCE IS FUTILE. INDIVIDUALITY IS IRRELEVANT. FROM NOW ON, YOU WILL SERVICE….US.
Man, we need a Riker now.
He’s African…don’t tell Ota Benga! LOL
Uh oh. Michelle is being mean to GOP candidates again. Shhhh! Don’t tell Hannity!
It will discourage similiar activity in that area for quite a while.
Go AWAY Mittens
I am so ashamed that I thought so highly of you.
This is a scam job.
Massachsetts was getting Healthcare. MItt Romney made it as conservative as was humanly possible.
He did a miraculous job.
And he was lauded by all conservatives at the time.
This is revisionist history. YOu take it out of the context of time and place.
If Romney did this in Texas it would be horrible. But it was Massachusetts where it would have been far more socialist single payer just like Europe.
And the people of MA can get rid of it at any time.
The fact that Obama tried to copy Romney is not Romney’s doing. To blame him for that is preposterous!
What you have done amounts to a lie.
You are trying to convince people that Romney is a liberal which is as far from the truth as can possibly be.
You are lying. Plain and simple.
And if you are now supporting corrupt government by the communist Newt Gingrich you have no values, family or otherwise.
I am disgusted. Just disgusted at the dishonesty.
I have never thought I would find that Michelle Malkin is a corrupt person supporting more corruption in our government.
You are advocating a Newt Gingrich culture of corruption. Disgusting.
This is too shocking for words. And so disappointing.
Romney is a liberal; that is when he holds a position long enough for a determination to be made.
Well if Romney can work with the Democrats in Massachusetts then he can work with Democrats in Congress. Now is that what we want? See what we mean?
Hahahahaha….hahahahaha. Oh, my sides are hurting from laughing so hard.
And just what we needed. Another troll.
Hyperventilate much?
gladiola: Slow down, if it’s “too shocking for words”, you sure did a good job of compensating by writing a whole bunch of words.
Yep Tiger Lady another troll.
If I didn’t know better, I’d say this was a religious nut trying to play the guilt trip card.
flower child you may want to check the Barney Frank post over at HotGas and the many references to the citizens voting down gay marriage and having a judge overrule the election
Anyone else notice the new Republicans posting anti-Michelle comments all of a sudden? You can tell they are new and Republican because they are so uninformed, that “new to the neighborhood” awkwardness.
It’s happening at other blogs too. There seems to be a “get Michelle Malkin!” effort going in the conservative blogosphere at the moment.
I guess all of those DOS attacks aren’t working.
Pasadena Phil: I was on foxnews.com and in fact someone used MM instead of Michelle Malkin, talking about an article here a few days ago.
Gladiola: “You are lying.Plan and simple.”
I know this is a one shot deal for you, but would you explain my quote from your post?
Hmmmm. That sounds like an insider. Do we have a mole here?
Even on the state level, gov’t takeover of medicine is a criminally bad idea.
I think deep down, even Libb Romney supporters don’t really trust Libb Romney on anything.
Off topic, but I just can’t help myself.
An article I got from Yahoo.
Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Predjudice.
Seriously that’s in Ilmc teritory.
I don’t know who to vote for yet which is OK w/me.
All I can go on is what I/myself hear in the debates and since I trust Rush, what he says. (Generally what I read is changed within 24hrs of it being published.)
Romney stated his position on Obamacare in several debates. In the end, after giving a blanket(?) waiver to all states; any state wanting state-run (not Fed-run) healthcare would have the authority to work that out within. I’ve no problem with that (I might move to another state …).
Don’t we know enough about Romneycare and Obamacare by now?
Thanks for the information. So we Tea up enough states to join together to do that and demonstrate to the rest how to lower the costs effectively.
Seems like a much better concept. I shall read more and ponder on it as I rock another kid to sleep.
That would make me feel significantly better. I wonder about the Ryan budget–maybe there is a better one out there? What a great starting point! We will HAVE to elect more conservative fcongress critters though.
I really wish some of you advocating no insurance at all could have seen what I saw while working in EMS for 1/4 century. I will ALWAYS have insurance.
So Romney is fine with socialized medicine on the state level.Is he also fine with states deciding if they want to have Medicade of not? Is he fine if states have their own FDA and get rid of federal FDA? I am just wondering how far he wants to take this.
Old Goat you can join our team. We want Michele to propose this on her blog.
Its really a matter of responsibility and authority going together. I think all kinds of problems result from one party (the government) grabbing authority while leaving the other party (the individual) with the responsibility. Certainly every one needs to be responsible for their own bill (if at all possible) and certainly citizens should not be paying for those in this country illegally.
gladiola, you are not paying attention. Yesterday she had an Amnesty Newt column. Neither abandoning the rule of law OR socialized medicine are conservative. Newt’s for both.
Right now Romney seems to have changed from supporting McCain-Kennedy to supporting attrition through enforcement. That’s good, but it is a change. How do we know he won’t change back to amnesty?
Two coments:
1. Fortunately, MM controls Hotair.com, something she hadn’t been able do at the time of the ‘MM vs. Geraldo’ fight on the O’Reilly Show some years back. So if there was a mole/sabateur on Hotair whether staff or blog poster, she has options available to protect her public reputation.
2. This sounds a lot like the ‘Get Ron Paul and supporters’ effort to discredit opposition to the GOP Establishment Presidential Annointment process. It appears to be spreading to anyone who has serious reservations to Romney/Gingrich, as MM has been, but who otherwise are leery of Ron Paul.
Probably nothing but anyone notice that when they are pledging allegiance to the flag, Paul and Romney are both giving the Vulcan “live long and prosper” hand sign while Santorum and Gingrich are not?
Maybe, this is a crazy election.
Just take a look at the comments here and realize that Obama will be reelected.
That’s what I’ve been saying for a long time. The GOP establishment just doesn’t want to win the election. They just want to get rid of the conservatives once so as to clear the decks for Jebbie in 2016.
I’m sure that’s what you meant too.
Well, Newt does looks like Paul Comi who did play a Romulan Centurion in the Star Trek episode ‘Balance of Terror’… Ron Paul just has Old Man’s Hands, from what I see.
This stuff is kind of like finding shapes and patterns in clouds, isn’t it?
Why not? It’s the central theme of this field of polymorphic chameleons. This election is about seeing whatever you want to see. Romney and Gingrich have taken every side on every issue at any given time so you can argue anything about these guys and back it up with video proof.
Not exactly Phil. What I mean is that we are not going to be able to agree on who to support because none of them are worthy of our support. The election is over.
If Newt is Vulcan, he has my vote.
It would be logical.
Romneycare or Obamacare, the goal is the same. Single payer socialized medical care not only for Americans, but for every person who can get here to receive it. Our hopital emergency rooms are being bankrupted, our teaching hospitals are being bankrupted, and our people are being bankrupted by the single payer system we have now. When it truly is just the 53% taxpayers funding the bills without all the companies funding a portion of their employees insurance, we are really going to find our deficits exploding. Welcome to socialism, the ones left working will each have to carry at least one parasyte on his/her back.
Nice goin’, STUPID Party!?! Your Republicrat establishment has now infected the entire state of Florida with the dreaded LEMMING bacteria, MHIT-FOR-BRAINS!!! This deadly LEMMING disease, Mhit-For-Brains causes regular folks to follow the Republicrat establishment over the cliff!?! You know, the same cliff they threw Granny over!?! This dreaded LEMMING bacteria also causes regular folks to lose all manner of reason, and wipes out ANY capability to exercise ANY common sense!?! TEA folks in Florida!!! Imunize yourselves NOW, the same way the TEA folks of South Carolina took back their wherewithall!?!!!! Florida, protect yourselves from MHIT-FOR-BRAINS before it’s too late!!!!!
Quite interesting since he is adamantly not picking anyone, at least publicly.
Yeah, no kidding. Take the squishy moderate because you agree with them 60% of the time.
That’s how we got McCain.
Well, Santorum nailed Romney last night about the similarities of RomneyCare and ObamaCare.
Gringrich got his butt kicked.
Santorum won last night. Why not vote for Santorum?
Did Romneycare happen in a political process? Was there reasonable consensus? Was it Constitutional? If the answer is yes then what is the beef? I think it stinks so I don’t live in Massachusetts. An executive governs all the people in his jurisdiction not just his base. He governs in. Political process of give and take. He doesn’t fall on his sword for his base. Civics 101. Conservatives need to convert independents to conservatism not nominate sure losers.
There are a lot of pundits who specialize in energizing the base. Mark Levin, Laura Ingraham and others come to mind. They share useful information and points of view that we wouldn’t get from the MSM. For this we are grateful. But what bothers us is the shrill “take no prisoners” attitude that demands that politicians constantly fall on their swords. This friends is STUPID. It is pandering and demagoguery. It isn’t real conservatism. Conservatism never turns on a dime. It doesn’t put it’s boot in the face of its opposition. It isn’t grandiose. It is mature. It’s time for more maturity and more grown ups.
http://conservativesamizdat.blogspot.com/2012/01/fact-check-newt-gingrich-and-rick.html?spref=tw
No Republican president can presume they have the power to repeal Obama Care, without holding the House and gaining a majority in the Senate.
1. Are you doing your part to elect the most conservative electable Senator for your state?
2. I don’t blame Boehnor or even McConnell, the House and Senate have rules, and we don’t like them. Some of what we don’t like can be changed, other things that slow the wheels have to be there to prevent arbitrary changes made by individuals who don’t represent everyone. But, we need to talk about the rules now. They are not being properly used, in order that the democrats can quash things they don’t like before they come to the floor.
Who ever heard of negotiating a bill, taking out the bargaining chips ahead of time? That is where we blame Boehnor or McConnell. That needs to stop NOW, not next year.
3.
The headline here: Confirmed? about Romney insurance reform does not have enough facts in it.
Massachusetts derives its mandate from repeated votes for something they call Universal Health Care or Universal Access, which means all things to all people. To some it meant Single Payer, Euro style health care.
Only 8% max did not buy insurance in MA, so it is a ridiculous thought to require everyone to change to cover 6-8% of the people.
Only 8% of the people needed to be told to cover themselves, in order to have the Universal coverage met. I agree that a mandate is subject to abuse, but this was supposed to have an out for those who couldn’t afford it: If you were low income you got a subsidy, if you were not low income you could opt out by saying it was still to expensive for you.
Confirmed: There is no socialized medicine in MA, there is only gourmet private medicine, and a small number of people were “left out” and it caused haranguing every political season. They were always threatening to vote themselves free health care here. That would be socialized medicine.
Obama Care is not modeled on the private insurance aspects of Romney’s plan, but on the liberal state of Massachusetts, which no one has control over. Obama looked to the liberals in public health policy and the people who control health insurance in MA, NOT ROMNEY. He could not say what was in health insurance, it is removed from the governor’s office. The AG of MA has more say over the content of health insurance than a governor does.
So, they smirk and simper and say they modelled it on Massachusetts, because they hate Romney, because he took away a lot of things they held dear. But don’t join in with the leftist here.
The 80 pages was not about health care, just about how to get policies available that people could afford to buy. A lot of mini plans, health savings accounts and things that have been supercede in MA by Obama Care.
Especially – don’t think that Obama modelled his thinking on low income people on Romney’s insurance plan. Obama converts all the private payers to Medicaid that Romney made pay their own way. And he gives Duval Patrick 5 billion in Corn husking, Louisianna purchase funds so they can do it.
That was not Romney “care.”
As Santorum pointed out, Romney says those 8% have to “pay” if they don’t have their own insurance. ObamaCare says people without insurance have to “pay” a fine. SAME THING – individual mandate!!
In other words, it is time to get rid of progs who do all of those things.
Very disappointed with HALF of the TEA folks in Florida!!! FOX reported that 50% of TEA folks actually support RINO Romney (aka Obama-Lite)!?! How could it possibly be that ANY TEA folks support Willard anywhere??? I guess that 50% of Florida TEA folks have self-declared as members of the STUPID Party!?! Losing faith in the TEA movement when they support a LIBERAL with an (R)!?!?!
Those polls are dubious. How do you establish that those responding are actual Tea Party people? There are people from all camps claiming to have Tea Party support. There are lots of groups claiming to be Tea Party but are not. It’s not like you have to register anywhere. It’s all a crock.
In fact, Sarah McPalin was out there presuming to speak for the Tea Party a couple days ago and messing up the message. She is probably doing more harm to the Tea Party these days (“I would vote for Newt”, e.g.) than good.
Several establishment tools(which includes McPalin who is either naive or a hypocrite) are seeking to persuade the Tea Party to support either Romney or Gingrich while continuing to keep us out of the party leadership or anywhere else in the process.
Ignore the confusion and continue to commit to smaller government, lower taxes and the restoration of the Constitution.
You’re forgetting a critical point. If Romney had simply gone along with what the Democrat-controlled legislature wanted out of political necessity, and acknowledged that it was something politically necessary if undesirable given the situation he was in, then by and large he would have been forgiven for it. But he defends this piece of legislation as a good thing. He even tries to call it a “conservative” approach, which is just plain ideologically illiterate.
Praising Ted Kennedy for his securing federal support doesn’t help his case much either.
A vote for Romney to the office of POTUS is heretofore a vote for Obamacare.
Elect this clown, and you have no justification for standing up against government-imposed healthcare.
None whatsoever.
The crowning jewel of the Obama campaign will live on, with or without Obama in office.
Do you hate Obama so much that you will put his Republican equivalent into the office?
I can’t stand the guy either, but I will not be supporting any effort to replace him with himself.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
There was an article from the Boston Globe from September/October 2008 I used to have bookmarked, but it was expunged for obvious political reasons. It reported that Ted Kennedy, using the bailout chaos as a shield (how I read it at least), secured an insane amount of federal funds to back up the MA healthcare program. I believe it was in the $6-7 billion range over a few years.
I’m guessing the only way to obtain the article now would be at a MA library.
Along another vector of ‘let big insurance do big government’s bidding’ – apparently there’s a new federal law that requires any insurance company paying anyone compensation to get the person’s SS number and report it to the government to check if that person owes child support, (and I assume garnish it if they do).
I have no problem with forcing people to pay child support but what happens to the SS number?
I asked that question and the insurance company said it remains on their file. So whenever you get in a car accident and collect damages, the insurance gets your SS number and keeps it!
It’s an outrageous invasion of privacy to begin but allowing the insurance company to retain the SS number just increases everyone’s exposure to identity theft via an entity that can claim they were ‘only following the law’- and for no other reason than getting in a minor car accident like I was, (I was rear-ended at a stop sign).
Government and insurance companies are simply out of control. The former does not seems interested in protecting our rights and the latter has absolutely ZERO obligation to do so.