« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Newt Gingrich on “Romneycare” in 2006

Presented without comment:

Center for Health Transformation E-Newsletters

Newt Notes

The most exciting development of the past few weeks is what has been happening up in Massachusetts. The health bill that Governor Romney signed into law this month has tremendous potential to effect major change in the American health system.

We agree entirely with Governor Romney and Massachusetts legislators that our goal should be 100% insurance coverage for all Americans. Individuals without coverage often do not receive quality medical attention on par with those who do have insurance. We also believe strongly that personal responsibility is vital to creating a 21st Century Intelligent Health System. Individuals who can afford to purchase health insurance and simply choose not to place an unnecessary burden on a system that is on the verge of collapse; these free-riders undermine the entire health system by placing the onus of responsibility on taxpayers.

The Romney plan attempts to bring everyone into the system. The individual mandate requires those who earn enough to afford insurance to purchase coverage, and subsidies will be made available to those individuals who cannot afford insurance on their own. We agree strongly with this principle, but the details are crucial when it comes to the structure of this plan. Under the new bill, Massachusetts residents earning more than 300% of the federal poverty level (approximately $30,000 for an individual) will not be eligible for any subsidies. State House officials had originally promised that there would be new plans available at about $200 a month, but industry experts are now predicting that the cheapest plan will likely cost at least $325 a month. This estimate totals about $4000 per year, or about 1/5 of a $30,000 annual take-home income.

While in theory the plan should be affordable if the whole state contributes to the cost, the reality is that Massachusetts has an exhaustive list of health coverage regulations prohibiting insurers from offering more basic, pared-down policies with higher deductibles. (This is yet another reminder that America must establish a cross-state insurance market that gives individuals the freedom to shop for insurance plans in states other than their own.)

In our estimation, Massachusetts residents earning little more than $30,000 a year are in jeopardy of being priced out of the system. In the event that this occurs, Governor Romney will be in grave danger of repeating the mistakes of his predecessor, Mike Dukakis, whose 1988 health plan was hailed as a save-all but eventually collapsed when poorly-devised payment structures created a malaise of unfulfilled promises. We propose that a more realistic approach might be to limit the mandate to those individuals earning upwards of $54,000 per year.

While the Commonwealth’s plan will naturally endure tremendous scrutiny from those who assert that the law will not work as intended, Massachusetts leaders are to be commended for this bipartisan proposal to tackle the enormous challenge of finding real solutions for creating a sustainable health system. I hope that Massachusetts’ initiative to provide affordable, quality health insurance for all continues to ignite even more debate around the subject of how to best address our nation’s uninsured crisis and the critical problems within the health system at large.

On a different note, I am pleased to report that our work on accelerating the Right-to-Know movement continues to build. Leaders in Washington are now demanding that Medicare disclose its data, and CHT is helping to carry the message to the states. During my recent trip to Sioux Falls, South Dakota, our work on accelerating the Right-to-Know movement played a key role. My host in South Dakota was state senator and majority whip Tom Dempster, who is the recognized leader in South Dakota healthcare policy.

Senator Dempster is responsible for passing legislation in 2005 that requires all hospitals in the state to post the prices of their 25 most commonly-performed procedures. The law takes full effect on July 1, 2006, and will be the first of its kind in the country. The Sioux Falls Argus Leader did a poll last year that found 85 percent of South Dakotans supported this law. Senator Dempster said he looks forward to working with CHT to develop transformational ideas relating to Medicaid, health insurance, and their state employee health plan.

Also, last month the Center held a two-day Pandemic Influenza Strategic Simulation with our partner and CHT member, Booz Allen Hamilton. The exercise, hosted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce at their Washington headquarters, was sponsored by MedImmune and Securitas. We were honored to be joined by 150 leaders of pandemic influenza preparedness planning drawn from federal, state, and international government organizations, as well as by business and health sector leaders.

Thanks both to Booz Allen’s excellent facilitation of the event and the insights shared by all who attended, participants have told us that they regarded the event as a great success. We expect to release a report of strategic simulation’s results and findings by the close of this month. (For more information, please contact Robert Egge, the director of CHT’s Health Preparedness and Homeland Security Project, at 202-375-2001 orregge@gingrichgroup.com.)

Finally, I want to take a moment here to challenge the Congress to put forth genuine effort to fix major faults compromising the quality of our health system. The House absolutely must pass a health IT bill this year. Hurricane season is fast approaching – how many lives will be lost this year to our disconnected, paper-based health system?

Source: http://web.archive.org/web/20060822061158/http:/www.healthtransformation.net/News/E_newsletters/index.cfm?newsletterid=20

COMMENTS

  • Ann_W

    We’ve got more flip-flops than Romney, and attacking Paul Ryan when he was trying to, finally, do something about entitlements, and I just DON’T get why conservatives like Newt. We may get to find out what “marry in haste, repent at leisure” means.

  • JSobieski

    The key problem with both Romneycare and Obamacare is correctly identified by Newt in the following:

    “While in theory the plan should be affordable if the whole state contributes to the cost, the reality is that Massachusetts has an exhaustive list of health coverage regulations prohibiting insurers from offering more basic, pared-down policies with higher deductibles.”

    Newt in fact predicted that Romneycare would fail, and he was correct as to why. By the way, what Newt is describing is an HSA/LPHD approach that is very much consistent with the Ryan Roadmap.

    Just because the legal case against Obamacare is focused primarily on the individual mandate does not mean that the individual mandate is the core problem with Obamacare. The core problem with Obamacare is that it regulates the insurance companies out of business.

  • Ann_W

    I didn’t notice that before. But I do still think that that shows the mind set that Romney also had at the time. MA was going to go whole hog and had a Dem legislature. Both these guys thought that they could do better than the Dem’s would do and were not opposed to big govt. action.

    In reality I’m sure it was better than the Dem’s would do, but it shows dangerous tendencies on both their parts. I see Newt continuing this when he wants to get in and tell a school district in NYC who they should hire to do their janitorial work.

  • JSobieski

    What is the difference between the government taxing you to pay for your insurance/coverage (Medicare) and the government reguiring you to buy it in the first place?

    We already have an individual mandate in healthcare—its called medicare taxes.

    The focus on mandates is legally necessary because of the Obamacare court cases, but policy wise, the most important part of Obamacare is the regulatory smothering of private insurance.

  • JSobieski

    Newt is advocating for a conservative market-based approach to healthcare when he advocates for low premium/high deductible policies.

    What Newt is saying is that he is willing to give on some type of mandate IF in exchange conservatives get the legalization/expansion of the kind of low premium/high deductible/HSA framework in exchange for that some type of mandate.

    You don’t have to agree with that assessment to conclude that Newt is significantly different on healthcare to Romney.

    I don’t agree with Newt, but I do understand where he is trying to move the country. Remember, Newt wants a country in which HCFA no longer sets prices—he wants the market to do it.

    Bottom Line: Newt can be fairly criticized on this point, but to just point to the word :”mandate” and start asserting that Newt and Romney are equivalent is grossly inaccurate.

  • http://www.plumbbobblog.com Plumb_Bob

    Ann_W wrote: “I see Newt continuing this when he wants to get in and tell a school district in NYC who they should hire to do their janitorial work.”

    Excuse me? Did I miss something?

    When a candidate says hypothetically “It would be better if we did X,” does it mean “I intend to pass a law requiring X?” I have never taken the words of conservative candidates to mean that. Democrats, yes; when they say “We,” they mean “the government.” But conservatives just mean “the people of the nation.” I don’t hear the Gingrich campaign advocating federally-run school work/study programs; I hear them advocating less federal involvement in schools.

  • http://www.plumbbobblog.com Plumb_Bob

    I’m glad I’m not the only one noticing this. The recitation of “he supported the mandate” is being used as a synonym for “he favors ObamaCare,” which is simply wrong. He expressed an opinion that the mandate may be legal. I disagree, but it’s a defensible statement. But Gingrich has always opposed government-run health insurance and favored free market approaches.

  • JSobieski

    Or Mitch Daniels and the word “establishment”

    Its like we just slap a label on something, and then move on—drive by punditry on our side, and it has led us to exactly where we are . .. . a campaign that has come down to two candidates with lots of flaws.

  • quill67

    the purchase of health care gets the government involved in what exactly is covered under health insurance and how that coverage must be provided. This is why Gingrich now opposes the individual mandate. It opens the door to the government regulating every aspect of health care.

    Either Romney as not figured this out OR he has figured it out and does not care.

    I believe the best way to handle those who can afford to buy health insurance but don’t is to say:

    1) If you do not buy health insurance and you expect the rest of us to pay for your treatment then we will use your Social Security funds to pay for it by either: delaying your age of retirement or by reducing your benefits when you retire (above some minimal level of assistance)

    2) If you cannot afford health insurance right now, we will allow you to voluntarily decide whether you want to use your Social Security funds to pay for it–knowing this may either delay your retirement or result in reduced benefits.

    This way the whole program is voluntary. Should a person who can afford health insurance but chooses not to be able to make the rest of us pay for their care? No. But should the government force that person to buy it? No. BUT we hold people responsible for their decisions.

  • Death_of_the_Donkey

    The reason Gingrich no longer supports the mandate is because he is running for the GOP nomination and he knows that supporting the mandate would be suicide right now. There is no other reason. Newt is a politician who wants to win.

  • JSobieski

    Newt has consistently advocated for directionally correct more market oriented healthcare. That fact is more important than any other data point on the health care issue.

  • JSobieski

    and note the following excerpt:

    the reality is that Massachusetts has an exhaustive list of health coverage regulations prohibiting insurers from offering more basic, pared-down policies with higher deductibles. (This is yet another reminder that America must establish a cross-state insurance market that gives individuals the freedom to shop for insurance plans in states other than their own.)

    So if in Ann Coulter’s world this means Romney is the right of Newt, Ann Coulter has officially become a cartoon character.