It would be helpful to compare the candidates' views on health care. Yet it is nearly impossible to compare the Affordable Care Act with Mitt Romney’s health care “plan” because, while the reform is a complex, detailed piece of legislation, Mr. Romney’s plan is more of a notion sketched in broad strokes with too little detail to make a comparison (and with too little for the Congressional Budget Office to be able to estimate the costs of his plan).

Affordable Care was hammered out over many months with wide input (and backing) from physicians, hospital administrators, insurers and associations concerned with public health, like the Kaiser Family Fund and the Commonwealth Fund and the American Medical Association. Affordable Care was duly voted into law by Congress after protracted discussion, media attention and public debate. (Tragically, the debate was quickly fouled by the misinformation of detractors and never effectively refuted the Obama administration.)

By contrast, it is unclear exactly who was consulted in the sketch that is Mitt Romney’s plan. Media can still barely discern what the plan entails, which leaves the public clueless and unable to comment. Ironically, the last health care reform Mr. Romney was associated with was the Massachusetts plan while he was governor, on which much of the Affordable Care Act was modeled. Yet he has vowed to repeal Affordable Care, if elected president.

The goals of the Affordable Care Act and Mr. Romney’s plan also are very different.

The Affordable Care Act sought to obtain nearly universal coverage, adding some 30 million people to the ranks of the “insured.” (The great exception is illegal immigrants, who are not covered by the A.C.A. and would remain uninsured.) The reform law endeavored to solve a real problem: millions of uninsured families, including chronically ill adults and children, Americans too sick for insurers to cover at a price these families could afford. The uninsured also included many young, healthy, working Americans who took a risk in not paying for insurance, even though many could afford it. Part of the goal was to include them among the insured as well, to enlarge the insurance pool in order to keep premiums down for everyone.

Mr. Romney’s plan aims to reduce the size of government and its role in health care. That is why he has repeatedly said he would repeal Affordable Care. But repeal would mean undoing popular benefits. These include the reform law’s “fix” of the pharmaceutical subsidy to those elderly in what is known as the “doughnut hole”; parental coverage of young adults through age 26; making it illegal for an insurer to refuse coverage to someone with a pre-existing medical condition or to drop paying customers who become seriously ill. Repeal would mean undoing these benefits or financing them while cutting costs more deeply elsewhere.

Mr. Romney stresses the need for competition to lower medical costs, but private enterprise has ruled health care for decades. Competition has not solved the problem of millions of uninsured Americans, excessive use of hospitals for routine health care and ever-rising medical costs and insurance premiums. Even without the sickest people in the private insurance pools, premiums have gone up steadily.

Mr. Romney’s assumption that private health care is cheaper than government-provided health care has been repeatedly disproved by Medicare, Medicaid and the Veterans’ Administration. Affordable Care combines the work of private enterprise (physicians, insurance companies, hospitals and nursing homes) and government.

After repealing Affordable Care, Mr. Romney’s government would provide vouchers ($8,000 is an annual figure I’ve seen quoted) for buying health insurance—private or government (Medicare). (Paul Ryan’s plan, which is not the same as Mr. Romney’s, would have made private insurance mandatory, for he would dismantle Medicare/Medicaid). Private plans, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated, will cost more than $20,000 by 2022. Would the vouchers keep up with the rising premiums? If not, the elderly would spend an increasing portion of their income on medical costs—from less than a quarter of the average senior income now to half, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. And were the vouchers too meager, the result would be decreased insurance coverage—the very problem Affordable Care set out to solve.

 

Comments

Mary Sweeney | 9/28/2012 - 12:27am
''The Affordable Care Act also prohibits insurance companies from charging women higher premiums than men for the same insurance coverage and from denying women health coverage for such ''preexisting conditions'' as breast cancer, pregnancy and domestic violence.''
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/28/obamacare-women-supreme-court-contraception-pregnancy_n_1634480.html

I have to believe that any woman who opposes this legislation is not aware of all that is in it. How many women will stand up and say, ''I really think that my premiums should be higer because I am female.'' Have we forgotten that women were excluded from health care studies because it was felt that the ups and downs of their bodies were too complicated and that it was much easier to treat women as if they were men?

And how about the idea that domestic violence was ''a pre-existing condition''? Doesn't it sound like those recent references to ''legitimate rape''?
Molly Roach | 9/28/2012 - 9:54am
I think that health care has got to be taken out of the for-profit sector and treated the way we used to treat public utilities-as a commodity everyone has a right to and therefore needs to be regulated-I think it can be administered locally on a county by county basis and turn leadership back to the practitioners-doctors and nurses who provide the frontline care.
Bill Freeman | 9/28/2012 - 6:16pm
Romney's response is for people just to go to emergency rooms.  In this area (like so many) he just doesn't understand that ERs are the most expensive place on earth for healthcare.  That inappropraite use of ERs is a major problem.  That the only legal obligation an ER has for someone without health insurance is "stabilizaton."  That if you are treated at the ER and don't have insurance the hospital will send a band of bill collectors forcing a person into bankruptcy.  Six of out 10 U.S. bandruptcies are because of medical bills.  Once again, the GOP showss how increidlbe stupid it is.  But what do you expect from a candidate who has distain for 47% of Americans or who advice to a potential college student who cannot afford tuition is to "borrow it from your parents."
J Cosgrove | 9/27/2012 - 10:48am
Some comments/facts on rising health care costs.


http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/25/health-care-cost-growth-speeds-back-up.html


http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/and-this-morning-was-looking-so-promising/


Health care costs are a major reason why there is a jobs problem.  It is certainly not the only reason but it is definitely a big one.  Health care costs for a family is around $20,000 a year so if a business wants to hire someone, that is a cost to them before the new employee does one thing for the business.  It is a reason why many businesses will drop health care as a benefit for their employees, find ways to automate the jobs or ship the jobs overseas.
Marie Rehbein | 9/27/2012 - 12:15pm
Employment in the health care professions is at an all time high.