Saturday, October 27, 2012

Obamacare vs. Romneycare in Massachusetts: Overview.

As an answer to an earlier comment, I decided to write a separate post on what are the differences between Obamacare and original Romney’s healthcare plan in Massachusetts. Below is a summary of a chart taken from diffen.com, that compares several aspects of these two health plans.



ObamacareRomneycare
Individual mandate:YesYes
Penalty for not buying insurance:Minimum of $695 a year. This penalty will be higher for those with higher incomes, but there are exemptions for people with low incomes and the total fee cannot be more than $2,085 per family. Minimum of $1,200 a year. Romney now opposes the individual mandate on a federal level, but has supported implementing tax breaks to encourage individuals to purchase insurance.
Employer mandate:Yes for companies with over 50 employeesYes for companies with 11 or more employees. However, Romney initially attempted to veto this mandate, and he opposes its use in federal healthcare policy. Romney’s current healthcare plans do not include the employer mandate.
Penalties for employers not providing insurance:At least $750 per employee for companies with over 50 employees$295 per employee for companies with over 11 employees
Subsidized insurance:Yes; for anyone earning up to 400% of poverty levelYes; for anyone earning up to 300% of poverty level. Free for anyone earning up to 150% of poverty level. Mitt Romney now aims to encourage states to offer subsidies to the poor and to experiment with high-risk pools and insurance buying exchanges to harness the purchasing power of large groups. However, no state would be required to participate.
Young adults:Children stay on parents' plan until age 26Children can stay on parents’ plan until age 26 or until they have not been a dependent for 2 years – whichever is sooner.
Benefit limits:Forbidden on both annual and lifetime basisNot forbidden, although most MA insurers do not place limits
Retroactive rescinding of coverage:ForbiddenForbidden
Pre-existing conditions:Insurers required to coverInsurers required to cover, but can limit coverage of certain conditions to 6 months. If he becomes president, Mitt Romney plans to prevent discrimination against individuals with pre-existing conditions, as long as they maintain continuous coverage. However, insurers will be allowed to deny coverage to first-time customers.
Preventative care:FreeCo-pay, but must be covered without a deductible
Contraception:Included under free preventative careNot mentioned
Effective date:March 23, 2010, Specific provisions phased in through to 2020April 12, 2006
Funding:Obamacare is a federal program so its funding comes from new taxes. These include a tax surcharge on medical devices and a tax on "cadillac" health plans i.e. expensive, premium health plans that provide the best coverage. Supporters also cite savings in Medicare expenses to fund Obamacare. Romneycare depends upon hundreds of millions of dollars in funding from the federal government and so the plan did not raise taxes for Massachusetts residents.

2 comments:

  1. I liked the way this was presented because it shows a great deal of difference between the two candidates. It’s easier to see each candidate’s take and how they differ from one another. I found it interesting that some things were similar as well. The category of “Penalties for employers not providing insurance” was pretty amazing to me. Even though the amount of money that would be owed on Obama’s side is high, there would need to be a high number of employees. I think it is Romney’s whose proposal seems harsher which in my opinion is a bit better because it demand s employers to provide insurance. The only good side to Obama’s proposal however is that it won’t be too bad for small businesses and perhaps that is what Romney wants to do, get rid of small businesses by proposing this policy.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Although there are some significant differences, this comparison was meant to underline the similarities in these two programs. Precisely, the conversion to universal coverage. Cynthia, if you'll disregard the numbers, you can see that these plans are almost identical. Which makes Romney's repeal of Obamacare pointless.

    ReplyDelete