Obamacare ends corporate invasion of privacy.

[SunSeeker]

44. Heritage claims the mandate part. But not the other key parts (expansion of Medicaid, etc.).

That is why Romney vetoed everything but the mandate part from Romneycare and the Massachusetts legislature had to override his veto.

Obamacare covers 30 million Americans that did not have health insurance before. It saves 45,000 American lives each year. If McCain passed the same law, people would approve, but McCain didn't and said he wouldn't as President. That's one of the reasons he lost the election.

As noted elsewhere on DU (you're new, maybe you have yet to catch up):

Compare it to the MA health care law, which was a product of the MA Democratic legislature. Democrats made significant changes to Mitt Romney's proposal. In fact, Romney opposed those changes, and upon signing the bill into law, vetoed them. Romney's vetoes were overturned by the legislature.


In Fall 2005, the House and Senate each passed health care insurance reform bills. The legislature made a number of changes to Governor Romney's original proposal, including expanding MassHealth (Medicaid and SCHIP) coverage to low-income children and restoring funding for public health programs. The most controversial change was the addition of a provision which requires firms with 11 or more workers that do not provide "fair and reasonable" health coverage to their workers to pay an annual penalty. This contribution, initially $295 annually per worker, is intended to equalize the free care pool charges imposed on employers who do and do not cover their workers.

On April 12, 2006, Governor Mitt Romney signed the health legislation. Romney vetoed eight sections of the health care legislation, including the controversial employer assessment. Romney also vetoed provisions providing dental benefits to poor residents on the Medicaid program, and providing health coverage to senior and disabled legal immigrants not eligible for federal Medicaid. The legislature promptly overrode six of the eight gubernatorial section vetoes, on May 4, 2006, and by mid-June 2006 had overridden the remaining two.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_health_care_reform#Legislation


Here's how the veto was reported:


Mitt Romney health care vetoes overturned by Massachusetts House (Mitt Romney Archive, 2006)

By The Republican Newsroom

This story from The Republican’s archive is part of our look back at Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s years in Massachusetts politics: as Senate candidate, gubernatorial candidate and governor. It was published on April 26, 2006.

By The Associated Press

BOSTON — Sending a sharp rebuke to Gov. W. Mitt Romney, House lawmakers voted overwhelmingly yesterday to overturn his vetoes to the state's landmark health-care law, including the controversial $295 fee on businesses that don't offer insurance.

The predominantly Democratic House broke from debate of the state budget to begin the override process, first voting to restore a portion of the law guaranteeing dental benefits to Medicaid recipients.

The House overrides had been expected, and Senate President Robert Travaglini said yesterday that he expects the Senate will override all eight of Romney's vetoes. The Republican governor's spokesman said the differences were not essential to the larger goal of health care coverage.

- more -

http://www.masslive.com/mitt-romney-archive/index.ssf/2012/04/gov_mitt_romney_health_care_ve.html

Obamacare was the biggest expansion of Medicaid since the program was established.

Not only that, the health care law increased the Medicaid drug rebate percentage to 23.1 percent.

http://www.medicaid.gov/AffordableCareAct/Timeline/Timeline.html

The President has proposed the same rate for Medicare (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022670043 ), which would save even more than the Senate proposal (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022725266), $164 billion to $141 billion, respectively.

The RW hate Medicaid, and would never expand it.


The Benefits Of Medicaid Expansion: A Reply To Heritage’s Misleading Use Of Our Work

by Stan Dorn Stan Dorn

In a publication released in numerous states as well as a JAMA Forum article and a recent list of ten supposed “myths” about Medicaid expansion, the Heritage Foundation repeatedly cites our paper for the proposition that “40 of 50 states are projected to see increases in costs due to the Medicaid expansion,” and that expansion would force such states “to dig deep into their already overstretched budgets.” Even in the 10 remaining states, according to Heritage, the budget gains we projected to result from expansion were speculative and uncertain, since they supposedly relied on states cutting payments for hospital uncompensated care.

These claims distort our work. We identified 10 states in which Medicaid expansion would yield net savings based on just one factor—namely, unusually generous prior Medicaid coverage, for which states could claim enhanced federal matching funds. The modest additional gains resulting from uncompensated care savings did not tip any state from the red into the black.

<...>

For example, a report one of us prepared along with colleagues in Ohio found that, while a Medicaid expansion would increase that state’s Medicaid costs by about $2.5 billion from 2014 through 2022, it would also save Ohio $1.5 billion by reducing state spending on current programs in favor of the largely federally financed expansion. Such programs cover so-called “medically needy” adults, women with breast and cervical cancer, and adults who are waiting for disability determinations. At the same time, expansion would increase state revenue by as much as $2.8 billion, in part because of the economic activity galvanized by more than $31 billion in new federal Medicaid funds, but also because of prescription drug rebates and taxes on Medicaid managed care premiums. The overall result: at least $1.8 billion in net state budget gains.

We also found that Medicaid expansion would create more than 27,000 Ohio jobs, reduce the number of uninsured by more than 450,000, cut health costs for employers and residents by $285 million and $1.1 billion, respectively, and lessen budget shortfalls facing Ohio’s counties. Analysts in states like New Mexico, Oregon, Michigan, and Virginia similarly concluded that Medicaid expansion would yield state savings on high-risk pools, public employee coverage, and mental health care and substance abuse services for the poor uninsured. In fact, every comprehensive fiscal analysis of which we are aware has found that Medicaid expansion yields net state budget gains...Medicaid is far from a perfect program. In particular, spending constraints cause states to limit payments to Medicaid providers, reducing their willingness to serve Medicaid patients. That said, Medicaid expansion would improve access to care for millions of uninsured—including poor veterans and their families; create thousands of new jobs; provide significant revenue to hospitals facing significant Medicare cuts; lower health care costs for employers and consumers; provide fiscal relief to localities; and in substantially more than 10 states—perhaps even most states—yield net budget gains that could be reinvested in education, transportation, tax cuts or other priorities. Why would state leaders focused on achieving practical results for their constituents reject a policy that produces such benefits?

http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2013/05/03/the-benefits-of-medicaid-expansion-a-reply-to-heritages-misleading-use-of-our-work/


Krugman:


I Have Seen The Future, And It Is Medicaid

One of the papers at Brookings was an attempt at prognosticating the future of health care costs — for what it’s worth, their best guess was slightly below CBO’s, so it was consistent with CBO’s relatively not-scary long-term fiscal forecasts. But what struck me most was this chart, showing cost growth in different forms of health insurance:

<...>

That flat red line at the bottom is Medicaid.

Everyone who’s serious about the budget realizes that to the extent we do have a long-run fiscal problem — which we do, although it’s far from apocalyptic — it’s mainly about health care costs. And then there’s much wringing of hands about how nobody knows how to control health costs, so maybe we should just give people vouchers, and if they still can’t afford insurance, too bad.

Meanwhile, we have ample evidence that we do know how to control health costs. Every other advanced country does it better than we do — and Medicaid does it far better than private insurance, and better than Medicare too. It does it by being willing to say no, which lets it extract lower prices and refuse some low-payoff medical procedures.

Ah, but you say, Medicaid patients have trouble finding doctors who’ll take them. Yes, sometimes, although it’s a greatly exaggerated issue...But the problems of access, such as they are, would largely go away if most of the health insurance system were run like Medicaid, since doctors wouldn’t have so many patients able and willing to pay more. And as for complaints about reduced choice, let’s think about this for a moment. First you say that our health cost problems are so severe that we must abandon any notion that Americans are entitled to necessary care, and go over to a voucher system that would leave many Americans out in the cold. Then, informed that we can actually control costs pretty well, while maintaining a universal guarantee, by slightly reducing choice and convenience, you declare this an unconscionable horror.

- more -

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/21/i-have-seen-the-future-and-it-is-medicaid

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023707846

More on Medicaid and Obamacare:


Health Law Offers Dental Coverage Guarantee For Some Children

By Michelle Andrews

Tooth decay is the most common chronic health problem in children. By the time they enter kindergarten, more than a quarter of kids have decay in their baby teeth. The problem worsens with age, and nearly 68 percent of people age 16 to 19 have decay in their permanent teeth, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Starting in 2014, the Affordable Care Act requires that individual and small-group health plans sold both on the state-based health insurance exchanges and outside them on the private market cover pediatric dental services. However, plans that have grandfathered status under the law are not required to offer this coverage.

<...>

The changes in the health law apply specifically to children who get coverage through private plans. Dental services are already part of the benefit package for children covered by Medicaid, the state-federal health program for low-income people. But many eligible kids aren't enrolled, and even if they are, their parents often run into hurdles finding dentists who speak their language and are willing to accept Medicaid payments.

<...>

Under the health-care law, pediatric dental health coverage sold on the exchanges cannot have annual or lifetime limits on coverage.

- more -

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Features/Insuring-Your-Health/2013/011513-Michelle-Andrews-on-kids-dental-care-coverage.aspx


http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3715400