Romney Acknowledges ‘Exaggeration’ On Health Care
Before this year, Mitt Romney was only too pleased to tout his health care reform law in Massachusetts as the basis for a national plan. He said he thinks his measure is “a good model for the nation”; he argued “we’ll end up with a nation that’s taken a mandate approach”; and he boasted that his plan “allows every citizen in America to get health insurance.”
All of this, however, was before 2011. Yesterday, in an interview with the editorial board of the Washington Examiner, Byron York pressed the former governor on this point.
YORK: But you wouldn’t recommend that any state adopt the plan that was adopted in Massachusetts in its entirety?
ROMNEY: In its entirety, no. But there are principles that I think that are helpful and instructive for the states to learn from and I think that there are other states that have picked up some portion of what we did. [emphasis added]
So we’ve gone from a Republican who believes his own plan is a good model for the nation to a Republican who wouldn’t even recommend other states follow his lead.
But in 2007, when Tim Russert asked about this specific point, Romney said, “I happen to like what we did. I think it’s a good model for other states. Maybe not every state but most.”
He was reminded of this yesterday.
YORK: Governor, on health care, you’ve often said that the health care plan that you’ve created in Massachusetts would be a good model for some other states. You said, “Maybe not every state, but most.”
ROMNEY: I don’t think I said “most,” but —
YORK: On “Meet the Press” in 2007.
ROMNEY: Oh did I? Did I make that exaggeration? [Laughs]
As Greg Sargent responded, “I get that Romney was joking, but still: He just described his own past assertion about the success of his signature accomplishment — one that’s now politically inconvenient for him — as an ‘exaggeration.’”
Imagine what the political world — specifically, campaign reporters — would do if John Kerry or Al Gore called their own rhetoric about their key policy priority an “exaggeration.” Voters would never hear the end of it.
By: Steve Benen, Contributing Writer, Washington Monthly Political Animal, December 8, 2011
New Study: Raising Medicare Eligibility Age Erodes Social Security Benefits
A proposal to increase the Medicare eligibility age, which the Super Committee is considering, would drive up health care costs to the point where they would consume almost half of the Social Security check of a middle-class retiree, according to a new analysis by Social Security Works.
In his testimony before the Super Committee yesterday, Erskine Bowles, a Morgan Stanley executive and co-chair of the President’s Fiscal Commission, recommended raising the Medicare eligibility age to 67 as a way to bridge the differences between Democrats and Republicans on the Super Committee.
Bowles explained his support for the policy on the grounds that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) made “other coverage available” to 65- and 66-year-olds, by providing subsidies to purchase health care in the private sector.
Bowles’ testimony in favor of raising the age comes on the heels of public endorsements by the American Hospital Association, the leading trade association for the nation’s for-profit hospitals, and the Healthcare Leadership Consortium, a consortium of health insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and other medical providers.
The Center on Budget & Policy Priorities, a center-left think tank, criticized Bowles’ compromise for being “to the right of Boehner’s offer to Obama in July.” They dismissed, in particular, Bowles’ reliance on the ACA to justify raising the Medicare eligibility age. Robert Greenstein, the Center’s President, wrote that without assurance that ACA will withstand overwhelming Republican political and legal opposition, Bowles’ proposal to raise the Medicare eligibility age “would risk leaving many 65- and 66-year-olds with no insurance at all at the very time of life when they are developing more medical conditions and problems due to their age.”
Even if ACA is successfully implemented, however, many experts believe raising the Medicare eligibility age would be poor policy. A study by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that raising the Medicare eligibility age to 67 would increase health care costs across the economy, saving the government little money. What money the government would save, the Kaiser study found, would come from shifting the costs of care onto patients — especially, but not only, individuals aged 65 and 66, who would no longer be eligible for Medicare.
A new analysis of the Kaiser study by Social Security Works shows that the increase in out-of-pocket costs for 3.3 million people aged 65 and 66 would take a large bite out of affected seniors’ already modest Social Security checks.
From Social Security Works’ analysis:
Of the 3.3 million people aged 65 and 66 who would pay more out-of-pocket for health care if they were no longer eligible for Medicare, the following two groups would be hit especially hard:
- Out-of-pocket health care costs would increase, on average, by $4,300 in 2014 for 960,000 people aged 65 and 66 who purchase coverage through a health insurance exchange and have incomes exceeding 400 percent of the federal poverty level ($43,560), making them ineligible for subsidies available to exchange participants with lower incomes.
- Under current law, these 65- and 66-year-old retirees’ average out-of-pocket costs would be $6,800 in 2014, out of a total Social Security benefit of $24,469. If forced out of Medicare and onto the health insurance exchanges, their average out-of-pocket health care costs would grow to $11,100, out of a total Social Security benefit of $24,469. [Figure 1] As a result, if the Medicare eligibility age is raised, out-of-pocket health care costs would go from consuming 28 percent to 45 percent of those 65- and 66-year-old retirees’ Social Security check.
Sources: Social Security Works analysis of estimates from Social Security Trustees, 2011, and Kaiser Family Foundation, 2011.
- Out-of-pocket costs would increase, on average, by $1,200 for 240,000 people aged 65 and 66 who purchase coverage through a health insurance exchange and have incomes between 300 and 400 percent of the federal poverty level ($32,670-$43,560). Under current law, these 65- and 66-year-old retirees’ average out-of-pocket costs would be $4,800 in 2014, out of a total Social Security benefit of $18,464. If forced out of Medicare and onto the health insurance exchanges, their average out-of-pocket health care costs would grow to $6,000, out of a total Social Security benefit of $18,464. As a result, if the Medicare eligibility age is raised, out-of-pocket health care costs would go from consuming 26 percent to 32 percent of those 65- and 66-year-old retirees’ Social Security check.
Costs to Social Security beneficiaries could be substantially higher than estimated here. The out-of-pocket costs discussed in Social Security Works’ analysis do not include the cost of medical services that are not covered by Medicare at all, including dental care and most kinds of long-term care, such as permanent residency in a nursing home. Accounting for these medical services would not have any bearing on the amount that out-of-pocket costs would increase if the Medicare eligibility were raised to 67. It would, however, show average out-of-pocket costs to be considerably larger under both current law and if the Medicare eligibility were raised to 67.
By: Daniel Marans, Policy Director, Social Security Works, Published in Huffington Post, November 4, 2011
The Truly Farcical “Jobs Through Growth Act”
I suppose Senate Republicans deserve at least some credit for making an effort. The congressional GOP has largely ignored the jobs crisis, so the fact that Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), John McCain (R-Ariz.), and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) have put together the “Jobs Through Growth Act,” is at least marginally constructive.
The problem is with the “plan” itself.
What do Senate Republicans want to do to give employment a boost? Cut taxes, approve a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution, eliminate the entirety of the Affordable Care Act, eliminate the entirety of Wall Street reform safeguards, blocking EPA enforcement of clean air measures, and a tax repatriation holiday for international corporations.
When President Obama unveiled the American Jobs Act, it had been deliberately crafted to include several provisions that Republicans have traditionally supported. Graham, McCain, and Paul didn’t bother. Try not to be surprised.
The GOP senators boasted their plan would create 5 million jobs. And how would that happen? Who came up with that number? How would Republicans pay for their plan? How quickly would it make a difference?
They didn’t say. In fact, unlike the detailed jobs bill presented by the White House, the “plan” from Senate Republicans is a wish list of far-right ideas, but it’s also lacking in the sort of substantive details that serious proposals require.
And that’s precisely why this nonsense is so farcical.
The premise of Obama’s proposal was that the two parties couldn’t agree on their long-term vision of government, but the economic emergency was too severe to wait until the election to settle it, so they should act immediately on short-term ideas that have bipartisan support. The GOP response is to issue a series of exclusively long-term proposals lacking any bipartisan support. There’s not much pretense of intending to address the current crisis when your plan has as its cornerstone the passage of a Constitutional amendment. […]
On jobs, the GOP simply will not engage with the premise of the entire macroeconomic forecasting field that the economy is suffering from a lack of demand. The purpose of this bill is to straddle that awkward divide, and provide a sound bite to answer Obama when he says he has a jobs plan.
That’s plainly true. In fact, McCain, who admits he doesn’t understand economic policy, told reporters yesterday he and his cohorts put this plan together in part as “a response to the president saying we don’t have a proposal.”
Senator, I’ve seen your plan. You still don’t have a proposal.
The intellectual bankruptcy of the Republican Party is just astounding. It has no new ideas, no constructive solutions, no creativity, no depth of thought, no intellectual consistency, no recollection of their own failures, no understanding of economic policy, and no access to calculators.
By: Steve Benen, Contributing Writer, Washington Monthly Political Animal, October 14, 2011
Women, Watch Your Back: Anti-Choicers Are Gambling With Your Life
In a medical emergency, the last thing we should be worried about is whether a hospital is going to put ideology ahead of the care we need to protect our lives and health. But if anti-choice lawmakers get their way, women and their loved ones will have to watch their backs.
Yesterday the House passed an unprecedented bill that would allow hospitals to let women die at their doorsteps. It sounds almost unbelievable — but utter disregard for the well-being of women who need abortion care has tragically reached new levels in the House.
The bill, the so-called “Protect Life Act” does anything but. Indeed, it gambles with women’s lives. It could allow hospitals to ignore the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) which requires that patients in medical emergencies receive appropriate medical treatment, including abortion care if that’s what’s medically indicated.
The bill’s proponents will first tell you that this is necessary to protect religiously affiliated hospitals, and then claim that there’s no such thing as emergency abortion care (which begs the question of why they’re so intent on overriding it). They’re wrong on both fronts.
First, the denial of appropriate medical care to a woman suffering from emergency pregnancy complications can be devastating. The following story recorded in the American Journal of Public Health is just one example:
A woman with a condition that prevented her blood from clotting was in the process of miscarrying at a Catholic-owned hospital. According to her doctor, she was dying before his eyes, her eyes filling with blood. But even though her life was in danger, and the fetus had no chance of survival, the hospital wouldn’t let the doctor treat her by terminating the pregnancy until the fetal heartbeat ceased of its own accord. She ended up in the I.C.U.
Second, even the Catholic Health Association, the leadership organization for Catholic hospitals — hardly an anti-religious or pro-choice lobby — has told Congress that they don’t “believe that there is a need for the [refusal] section to apply to EMTALA.” The very institutions on whose behalf this heinous provision has been proposed are saying “don’t do this.” But so far, the bill’s sponsors remain unmoved.
Every representative who voted for this bill should hear from you and be made to think about the woman, mid-miscarriage, bleeding and scared out of her wits, who rushes to the nearest hospital only to be told by her doctor that he’s not allowed to treat her. Think about that woman, and then tell us — what are you going to do?
By: Sarah Lipton-Lubet, Policy Counsel, ACLU Legislative Office, Published in RH Reality Check, October 14, 2011
The Tea Party Chronicles
Raising Cain
Herman Cain, the former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza is rolling in dough and rising in the polls. A new national survey of primary voters by the Wall Street Journal and NBC News has the Hermanator in first place ahead of Mitt Romney and all the other Tea Party types. The question is whether working families will support Cain’s plan for a national sales tax to pay for lower taxes for bankers and billionaires? I don’t think so.
Don’t Know Much about History
The Tea Party takes its name from the Americans who dumped British tea into Boston Harbor to protest taxation without representation in 1773. The Tea Partyers profess great reverence for the founders but the Tea Party candidates are clueless about the founding of our nation. Tuesday Rick Perry placed the American Revolution in the 16th century which would have given our founders only a few years to get things rolling after Columbus came to town. Previously, Michele Bachmann described the founders as abolitionists, a portrayal which would have greatly surprised the hundreds of slaves owned by George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. By the way, Representative Bachmann, the Boston Tea Party, like the battles of Lexington and Concord, was in Massachusetts, not New Hampshire.
Greed is Good
Greed is good should be the motto for the Party of Tea, the party formerly known as the GOP. Tuesday, Every POT member of the United States Senate opposed the president’s proposal to reduce payroll taxes and provide tax breaks for small businesses which hire people without jobs. Why did the POT spit the bit on the issue that Americans care most about? Because Democrats would pay for the tax cuts for working families and small businesses by making millionaires and billionaires pay their fair share of taxes. Greed is good for the Tea Partyers and their billionaire buddies who bankroll their big budget campaigns. Because the POT blocks action in Washington on jobs, thousands of Americans occupy Wall Street and streets across the country to protest corporate greed. Will the numerical advantage that the 99 percent have triumph over the money muscle of the 1 percent. Yes, it will.
ObamaCares
Time magazine released a new national survey yesterday that shows Barack Obama beating all his POT challengers. The secret of the president’s success is Obama’s caring. A clear majority (57 percent) of likely voters believe that Barack Obama cares about the problems of people like themselves. It’s not surprising that Americans feel that the president cares about them when the Party of Tea goes out of its way to cut Medicare and Social Security benefits for seniors but fights to the death to protect federal tax freebies for bankers, billionaires, hedge fund managers, and corporate jet setters.
It’s about Time
The same Time magazine national survey indicates that two of every three Americans believe the rich should pay more taxes. Which explains why more than half (54 percent) of the likely voters have a favorable opinion of the protesters against corporate greed while only one of four people (27 percent) have a favorable opinion of the Tea Party. The Tea Party has been replaced by the new kid on the block. Far be it for me to give advice to Republicans but they better quickly take back their party from the extremists before voters dump the old GOP into the harbor with the Tea Party.
By: Brad Bannon, U. S. News and World Report, October 13, 2011
Share This Blog
Unknown Feed- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
mykeystrokes.com 
You must be logged in to post a comment.