Beacon Hill Study on Romneycare Yields Misleading Results

Parker V 0 Comments

The first problem with the Beacon Hill study/attack on Romneycare it that it is limited to determining the impact of health care cost increases on the surrounding economy. It is not designed to determine what caused the increase in health care costs to begin with. The study, in other words, had no basis for concluding anything about Romneycare.

But it gets worse. The study makes this assumption because it defers to an earlier study which, in perhaps a Freudian slip, states at one point: “We employed the same mythology.” And, indeed, there is “mythology” in their methodology. Their trend numbers, which they use in comparing health costs under Romneycare with costs before Romneycare, are faulty. For instance, in Table 11 their “trend” numbers claim that costs in 2006 were expected to decline from 2005, but this is clearly a false trend since costs had increased every year since 1998.

They then subtract their false trend numbers from the actual cost increase, creating the impression that costs rose at a faster rate. The bogus numbers compound each year, as the false trend numbers get further off course. We can see this play out in each of their tables. Consider table 12, insurance premiums for an average single plan. From 2000 to 2005, costs increased by $1500; meanwhile, from 2004 to 2009, costs only increased by $1100. That’s a downward trend. Yet the study claims that the premium rate in 2009 was $215 higher than the trend.

This disqualifies both studies. The first study was based on the difference between actual numbers and false trend numbers. The second study is based on the first study.

Even with the flaws in Romneycare, the costly provisions added by the legislature and new governor, it has slowed the rate of many health care cost increases in Massachusetts – despite the aging population of baby boomers (eg. hip and knee replacements are up dramatically, as well as MRI/CT scans, and mobility scooters). In all, it is working. Think how effective it would be if Romney had been able to do it his way. As he said, “There is no question in my mind that our program could be significantly improved if it were managed by a conservative administration.”

Using the raw data contained in their own tables, let’s look at how costs have slowed. Keep in mind that Romneycare went into effect in 2007. To measure it’s effectiveness we start with the previous year, 2006, so as to contrast the status prior to the law taking effect with the most current status reflected in available numbers.

Table 9: State medicaid spending increased by $1.4 billion from 2003 through 2006, and by $1.5 billion from 2006 through 2009. Again, the slight increase is attributable to the aging population.

Table 10: Medicare Advantage monthly rate increased by $166 from 2002 through 2006, and by only $139 from 2006 through 2010.

Table 11: Medicare Personal Health Care expenditures increased by 1.4 billion from 2003 through 2006, and by only 1.3 billion from 2006 through 2009.

Table 12: Average Insurance Premium (Single) increased by $952 from 2003 through 2006, and by only $820 from 2006 through 2009.

Table 13: Average Insurance Premium (Family) increased by $2423 from 2003 through 2006, and by $2433 frp, 2006 through 2009. Only ten dollar difference between cost increases.

As far as comparing MA with other states, MA had the highest costs before Romneycare. They are higher now, they were higher then. However, Rhode Island and New Jersey are right behind MA. The obvious correllation here is that RI, NJ and MA are by far the three most densely populated states in the nation. When you receive an MRI scan, the hospital charge is primarily for their investment in purchasing the scanner in the first place, not the cost of the actual scan. Likewise, additional costs accrue in densely populated states. Land costs more, so hospitals cost more. Construction is more crowded, cumbersome and costly. The initial expenditure is higher, and so then are the costs to recoup that expenditure.

Massachusetts has both the second highest personal income per capita, and personal disposable income per capita, behind only Connecticut. Disposable income influences the health care decisions people make, such as how often to visit their doctor and to seek care at a hospital. This affects cost.

Past Elections Show a Weak Republican Field

Parker V 0 Comments

Michael Barone notes the weak field of all the Republican candidates:

Generally speaking, our two parties have wanted to nominate candidates who have shown special strength among the voters who know them best. None of the nine candidates who participated in the Fox News/Google debate in Orlando has really done that. Rick Perry and Mitt Romney have won elections by margins comparable to those of John Cornyn and Paul Cellucci, competent officeholders but not on anyone’s list of presidential candidates. Ron Paul ran well ahead of his party base in 2010 against weak opposition; Michele Bachmann has not done so in three races against vigorous opponents. Newt Gingrich’s record of running ahead of party is spotty; Herman Cain’s is nonexistent.

Rick Santorum outperformed the Republican base in 1992 and 1994, but woefully underperformed it in 2006. Jon Huntsman and Gary Johnson won solid majorities for reelection against weak opposition.

None of them has performed, at least recently, as Chris Christie did when he was defeated an incumbent governor by a 48%-45% margin in New Jersey in 2009, a year after it had voted 57%-42% for Barack Obama, or Mitch Daniels, who was reelected over a former member of Congress by a 58%-40% margin in Indiana on the same day the state voted 50%-49% for Barack Obama, or Paul Ryan, who has been reelected with between 63% and 68% of the vote between 2000 and 2010 in a district which voted Democratic for president by 49%-47% in 2000, 54%-46% in 2004 and 51%-47% in 2008. These are Republicans who have shown the capacity to overperform the party’s generic base.

 

Perry’s Fact Checkers mess up a 2nd time in prepared attack on Romney

Parker V 3 Comments

Rick Perry came prepared with an attack on Mitt Romney that in Romneys book No Apologies, he claimed that he wanted the Massachusetts healthcare model to be adopted by the rest of the country, yet in the paperback edition this was deleted. While one specific line may have indeed been edited from the paperback, a scan of the original book proves that the context was unchanged and that Romney did not in fact advocate the whole country having MA-care foisted upon them. The book, provided by pro-Romney site WhyRomney.com instead says the opposite of what Perry claimed.

Reposted from WhyRomney, with permission:

Critics cite differences between the paperback and hardcover editions of Romney’s book, “No Apology,” accusing Mitt Romney of subtly changing positions on Obama’s policies to harden his stance for political reasons. However, critics falsely lead people to this conclusion by taking excerpts out of context. For instance, critics claim that Romney called Obama’s stimulus plan “a failure” in the paperback but not in the hardcover. The truth however is that Romney wrote the hardcover during the initial phase of the stimulus and thus could not yet claim that it had “failed,” or elaborate on the effectiveness of details which had not yet been implemented. But Romney specifically said on page 145 of the hardcover that Obama’s stimulus had “already been far less than successful,” and Romney predicted “it will impose a heavy burden on the economy in the intermediate and long term.”

Critics also fail to mention that on page 31 of the hardcover, Romney says “the record and achievement of modern free-market capitalism” is “now at risk because of the economic policies of President Obama.” Romney goes on to say, “His effort to expand the size, reach and role of government is without precedent in our history. His plans would leave us with a crushing deficit and debt, far beyond anything we have ever experienced.” Also on page 31, Romney writes that “at a time when Europe is moving away from socialism and its many failures, President Obama is moving toward that direction.”

Likewise, critcs claim that in the hardcover Romney promoted Obama’s stimulus on pages 144-145 as something that would “accelerate the timing of the start of the recovery.” But in fact, Romney’s statement was alluding to the limited tax cut portion of the stimulus, having put it in that context in the previous line which critics leave out, by statinSupremg that congressional Democrats fail to understand “the crucial role played by tax cuts.” It is in this context that Romney said the stimulus would not help “as much as it could have had it included genuine tax- and job-generating incentives.”

In a similar criticism, critics accuse Romney of being soft on Obamacare in the hardcover because in the paperback he stated that it should be “repealed,” but in the hardcover did not call for a “repeal.” The truth however is that Obamacare had not passed when Romney wrote the hardcover edition and its passing seemed less likely at the time because of the election of MA Senator Scott Brown. With no law to repeal, a call for repeal would have made no sense. Furthermore, Romney had no pressing need to discuss Obama’s health care ideas in extended detail.

UPDATE: Glenn Kessler in the Washington Post writes on this

In fact, while Romney has a reputation as a flip-flopper (which this ad tries to exploit), he has been consistent in saying he did not want to import his plan to the rest of the country. When the Massachusetts law was passed in 2006, he appeared on MSNBC and was asked whether it would work for the rest of the country.

“Well, it will work for Massachusetts, and that’s of course the thing that I had to focus on,” Romney replied. “There are certain aspects of it that I think would work across the country, perhaps better in some states than others. Of course the great thing about federalism is you let a state try it and see how it works before you spread it out.”

Romney made a similar point in an interview with Dan Balz of The Washington Post in 2007, as he recalled during last week’s debate. “Instead of having the federal government give us one-size-fits-all, everybody-must-follow-the-same-plan, let states develop their own,” he told Balz.

We closely compared the chapter on health care in the two editions so you don’t have to. Essentially, it is clear that the hardcover edition was written when Obama’s health-care plan was still a work in progress. For instance, Romney spends some time denouncing the idea of a public option as “government-supplied insurance.” The paperback was published after the health-care law was passed, so the paragraphs on the public option — which had been abandoned by Obama — are dropped.

The main point: Romney has long said he did not view his plan as a model for the nation, and he has not wavered on that stance.

Thaddeus McCotter endorses Romney

Parker V 0 Comments

McCotter ran a brief and unremarkable campaign and has now dropped out and endorsed Mitt Romney:

Livonia Rep. Thaddeus McCotter told The Detroit News this afternoon that he is leaving the race for the Republican presidential nomination.

McCotter says he will give his support to former Massachussetts Gov. Mitt Romney, and will likely run again for the 11th District congressional seat he’s held since 2003.

McCotter began his long-shot bid for the White House in July, billing himself as the voice for a new generation of conservatives. He campaigned on a dramatic reform of Social Security, and a tougher approach to dealings with China.

However, in June McCotter called Romney Obama’s de facto running mate and in fact, the news of the endorsement sits right above the most recent news item about McCotter on FoxNews.com which was this very criticism leveled against the candidate he now champions.

Paul Ryan urged to join the Republican Race

Parker V 0 Comments

The things to consider about a Ryan candidacy:

There are two great risks to a Ryan candidacy. One: He’ll succeed in turning the focus of the primaries from economic growth to entitlement reform. We can argue about whether that’s a good thing — although Americans care much more about the former than the latter, it may be that this conversation simply can’t wait another moment — but if the party ends up with Ryan’s agenda, it had sure better have Ryan as its nominee too. The worst outcome would be if he shifts the discussion but then ends up losing the nomination, leaving the nominee stuck having to champion Ryan’s goals albeit less effectively than Ryan himself would/could do. And two: A run risks destroying Ryan’s brand. If he jumps in and gets Pawlenty’d in Iowa and New Hampshire, he goes back to D.C. knowing that his reform agenda was rejected even by ardent Republican voters. That would cripple him on the Hill; even if the GOP cleaned up on election day, a new Republican Congress would suddenly be reluctant to pass his budget. He’s taking a big risk on a very long longshot and it could end up setting back not just his political career but his cause.

Beyond that, where’s he getting the money to compete with Bachmann in Iowa, Romney in New Hampshire, and Perry in South Carolina? Having lots of prominent Republican pols behind him will help but more big donors are spoken for with each passing day. His best chance to mount a major campaign, I think, would be if both Daniels and Haley Barbour backed him, which would open up Bush contacts to him on Daniels’s side and RGA donors on Barbour’s end. That could swing parts of the larger GOP establishment from Romney to Ryan, but since the establishment prizes electability as a bottom line, I’m not sure even that would do it. Who’s more electable: Sixtysomething former governor Mitt Romney and his message of jobs and economic growth or fortysomething-going-on-25 congressman Paul Ryan and his message of overhauling grandma’s benefits (which of course isn’t actually his message)? I can kind of see how Ryan would beat Romney in New Hampshire if he rounded up well-heeled donors quickly. Where else does he win, though? How does he beat Perry and Texas’s sterling job numbers? Explain, please. I’d genuinely love to see a path to victory.

Why the “mainstream media” has a “bias” against Ron Paul

Parker V 0 Comments

The reason the media is not giving him equal billing in their coverage is more likely because he is a 3rd time presidential candidate that hasn’t raised the money, staff or organizational offices that his first or second time rivals who beat him in the scientific polls have. Not because of a bias against him as a candidate. The mainstream media would love to have a Republican nominee who is older than McCain (would be the oldest president ever) and who would need majorities in congress that are not projected to happen even by the most generous speculations in either of the next 2 elections in order to get anything done.

Huntsman Family donated $25,000 to Harry Reids Re-election

Parker V 0 Comments

The family of Jon Huntsman, recently announced GOP presidential contender, donated $25,000 to Democrat Harry Reid’s campaign in the last election cycle, bringing context to why Reid is so fond of Huntsman.

The Las Vegas Sun reported today:

Here’s a list of the donations from the GOP candidate’s family to Reid (with help from CQ MoneyLine):

Jon Huntsman, Sr., Karen Huntsman $9,600 (2/4/09)

Peter, Brynn Huntsman $9,600 (12/31/09)

James, Marianne Huntsman $4,600 (11/30/09)

Jon Huntsman, Sr. $2,000 (11/2/04)

the Las Vegas Sun reports:

[M]any members of the newly minted presidential candidate’s family, including his parents, chose Reid in the most important U.S. Senate race in the country last cycle. Indeed, the Huntsmans have long been Reid supporters, although the former governor, who is scheduled to be be in Nevada on Friday, has never given directly to Reid’s Senate campaigns.

But his parents and a couple of his brothers (Peter, James) and some in-laws have. And his Dad even helped the Nevada Democratic Party ($5,000) in 2008. I’m told Reid has known the senior Huntsman since the 1990s and is friendly with the son, too. …

Huntsman responded on [T]witter to this report: “I’ve never donated a dime to @HarryReid and wouldn’t. My record in Utah balancing budgets very different from his.”