ANNOUNCEMENT

These 11 companies will be featured in the MedCity ENGAGE Innovation Showcase June 5-6 in Washington, D.C.

Five things that people who want Romney to repeal ObamaCare ought to know

October 8, 2012 1:22 pm by | 11 Comments

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has pledged to repeal ObamaCare promising to replace it with a healthcare plan of his own. But there are a few thingsthat people itching to repeal ObamaCare should pay attention to.

A recently released report from the Commonwealth Fund made a head to head comparison between President Obama’s Affordable Care Act and Romney’s proposals on everything from whether Romney’s plan will make health insurance more affordable to how many people will be left uninsured under each plan. And it found Romney’s plans lacking overall. Here are the five key points:

  1. The price for completely overturning Obamacare is a cool $109 billion. That’s how much it would add to the federal deficit over 2013 to 2022 if Romney won and decide to unravel the Affordable Care Act, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
  2. Under Romney’s plan there are far more adults and children that are uninsured – 12 million more people are projected to be uninsured compared with a baseline scenario where the ACA did not exist. The number of uninsured would balloon to 72 million in 2022.
  3. Under the ACA, By 2016, 20 million people are projected to be eligible to receive tax credits that can help pay for health insurance sold through state exchanges. The number of people receiving the credits is expected to be evenly split among those who already have insurance and those who had been uninsured until then. By contrast, Romney’s plan would benefit only 10 million and most people in this group are expected to be those who already have insurance. Even in dollar amounts Romney’s plan doesn’t go as far as the ACA given that the per person average tax deduction under RepealCare is only $1,900 to $2,600, compared with an average tax credit of $3,900 to $4,500 per person under ObamaCare.
  4. ObamaCare helps small businesses more than Romney’s proposals. When ACA is fully implemented, insurance companies would not be able to charge higher premiums from companies with a smaller employee base. In fact small, low-wage businesses are currently eligible for tax credits to pay for their premium costs and 170,000 small employers claimed credits worth $468 million for the 2010 tax year. Romney’s proposal to repeal ACA would remove these benefits. Instead, he proposes what are known as multiple employer welfare arrangements, but has not provided further detail. MEWAs allow small employers to pool their resources through trade and other groups to share administrative costs of health insurance plans. While MEWAs do allow their workers to access health care cheaply, these organizations often go bankrupt.
  5. Romney wants to tackle healthcare costs by providing block grants to people on Medicaid and what they call premium support and others call a voucher program for Medicare recipients. But the report found that managing costs using this approach not only shifts the cost burden on to low-income Americans and Medicare beneficiaries, but also to states. And states are the very entities that the Republican ticket has pledged to empower by wresting control from the federal government.

[Photo Credit: Tea Party Express from Big Stock Photo]

Copyright 2013 MedCity News. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Arundhati Parmar

By Arundhati Parmar

Arundhati Parmar is the Medical Devices Reporter at MedCity News. She has covered medical technology since 2008 and specialized in business journalism since 2001. Parmar has three degrees from three continents - a Bachelor of Arts in English from Jadavpur University, Kolkata, India; a Masters in English Literature from the University of Sydney, Australia and a Masters in Journalism from Northwestern University in Chicago. She has sworn never to enter a classroom again.
More posts by Author

11 comments
sbodiker
sbodiker

Why, oh why, doesn't the president or his surrogates get this information out? The GOP is deliberately misinforming voters and we are in real danger of seeing this act repealed and ending up in a worse state than before. 

MissFit2BTied
MissFit2BTied like.author.displayName 1 Like

Please.  The Commonwealth Fund is a known Liberal think tank headed by a former Democratic Staffer.  Perhaps you should site a non partisan source for your information....such as the CBO.  The NFIB is a lobbying group representing upwards towards a million small businesses, and they do not support the ACA.  This is a biased article and rife or your own personal leanings.  Repeal and Replace this Act.  It is not affordable and it does not provide care.

bobajoul
bobajoul

And your opinion is not biased?   Bias is a charge thrown around these days to facts or reports one does not like.  The "reports" from conservative think tanks are waay more biased and fanciful.  Instead of attacking the messenger, bring some facts to the table.

Arundhati Parmar
Arundhati Parmar

 @bobajoul I think this is a fair point too. What goes for objective journalism these days is putting out information from two sides that are biased and not connecting the dots to show which is closer to the truth. But the public is happy with this approach since they can pick the bias that they agree with and go on about their day. I wish we had more orgs like CBO that is truly non-partisan. Problem with economics is that it is not a true science in the way mathematics is. 

Arundhati Parmar
Arundhati Parmar

Hi, Actually the first point is from the CBO. And here is the actual CBO report - http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43471

MissFit2BTied
MissFit2BTied

Hello, and thank you. I will take a one time $109 Billion dollar cost as opposed to escalating costs, upwards to $2 Trillion  and rationed care.  http://washingtonexaminer.com/cbo-obamacare-to-cost-1.76-trillion-over-10-yrs/article/1175831

 

And, if you were truly to provide a balanced article, more than 1 out of your four points, would be non partisan.  Perhaps you can offer up your readers opposing viewpoints so that your readers can draw their own concusions as to the effectiveness, total cost, and deliverables.  If you are going to use The Commonwealth Fund as your "source of fact," why not provide a counter argument from say, The Cato Insitute, The Heritage Foundation, Forbes, and the like? This 2000 plus page piece of legislation, according to Nancy Pelosi, "we had to pass "it" in order to find out what is in "it."  And now that we as consumers and small/large businesses are finding out exactly what is in it....a majority of the American people STILL do not want it.

I am unsure if you are giving an opinion piece or being an objective journalist with this piece, but this is definitely not an objective article being that you primarily use one biased source as fact.

 

 

nshepherd
nshepherd

@medcitynews Thx for summary of the Commonwealth Fund's comparison of President Obama's ACA & the Romney proposal: http://t.co/h3bcgO5Y

AsepticCMO
AsepticCMO

@nshepherd : the commonwealth fund is not a non partisan organization.

Stay Up To Date

Recent Comments

Research Center

Jobs Board

Next Story
Biopharma with personalized cell therapy raises $45M in stock sale, forges collaboration deal
Close