When Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusetts, he signed a comprehensive health insurance law – the first of any state in the United States. It was the finest achievement of his tenure as governor.
When Barack Obama became president, 50 million Americans did not possess medical insurance. Consequently, an estimated 45,000 Americans die each year because they lack insurance while 100.000 Americans go into bankruptcy as the result of medical bills. In an attempt to correct these horrors, President Obama, on March 23, 2010, signed his health insurance act into law – the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act. Some of the same people worked on both laws and “Obamacare” is modeled after “Romneycare”. There are many similarities in the two laws but also some important differences.
Mitt Romney is currently seeking the presidential nomination of the Republican Party, a party fiercely dedicated to overturning “Obamacare”. Romney has, therefore, attacked the President’s law as “socialized medicine” and has vowed to overturn it should he become president.
Similarities in the Two Laws
Both laws have mandates requiring individuals to purchase insurance but both laws excuse the poor from the mandate. In the federal law, households with incomes less than 200 percent of the poverty level are not required to purchase insurance. The federal penalty is $695 or 2.5 percent of income, whichever is higher. The state penalty is between $228 and $1,212 depending on family size and income. Both laws exempt people whose religion prohibits health insurance so, apparently, the 2 laws really do not have teeth.
The two laws fine companies that do not offer health insurance to their employees and pay for at least part of the costs. The state law applies to companies with 10 or more full – time permanent employees while the federal law impacts companies with 50 or more employees. The two laws provide subsidies to low income individuals and families.
Each of the two laws requires health care exchanges designed to create a competitive health insurance market giving individuals and small business consumers a choice of private plans. They demand ease of price comparison and plan transparency..
Differences in the Two Laws
The President’s plan has a stated goal of reducing health care costs. Governor Romney’s plan had no such goal. “Obamacare” includes a patients’ bill of rights and provisions to promote public health.
The Massachusetts law expands Medicaid coverage to more children. The national plan expands Medicaid to include poor, healthy adults without children in addition to poor children, the elderly, pregnant women and the disabled. The federal law permits young adults to stay on their parents’ policy until the age of 26. But the most important provision of the national law does not take effect until January 1, 2014. That provision prohibits insurance companies from denying coverage to individuals with pre – existing conditions.
Impact of the Two Laws
Governor Romney’s law has certainly achieved its goal of almost complete coverage. Currently, 98 percent of Massachusetts’ residents possess health insurance including 99.8 percent of children.
Since the federal law is relatively new and its most important provision has not yet been implemented, its impact can not be fairly evaluated. Thus far, the number of young adults (up to the age of 26) with insurance has risen substantially.
Raymond Spungin - I have analyzed the New York City metropolitan area for 33 years professionally. I was the author of many widely - read economic reports. ...
