iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Ann Romney Wouldn't Find Free-Market Health Care Without Mitt Romney's Millions

Posted: 04/ 6/2012 1:11 am Updated: 04/ 6/2012 3:41 pm

Ann Romney
Like Ann Romney, Kelly Gaeckle, pictured with her husband Peter and their four children, has multiple sclerosis. Unlike Ann Romney, she's not married to a multimillionaire.

If Ann Romney weren't wealthy, she might have even more in common with Kelly Gaeckle.

Both women suffer from multiple sclerosis, a chronic neurological disorder that impairs motor function, cognitive abilities and vision and can cause uncontrollable muscle spasms, fatigue and dizziness. Patients eventually can lose the ability to walk.

Romney, whose husband is Mitt Romney -- the leading Republican presidential contender, the ex-governor of Massachusetts and a former corporate honcho worth as much as $250 million -- presumably doesn't struggle to pay for her treatments, even if she doesn't consider herself wealthy.

Romney, who turns 63 later this month and also has a history of breast cancer, would likely be in dire straits if she had to turn to the open market for health insurance -- without her husband's millions.

"Ann Romney would literally be unable to get health insurance in most states in America and if she could get it, she'd pay an unbelievable price," said Jonathan Gruber, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. And it probably wouldn't cover treatments for M.S. and cancer, he said. Gruber helped develop both the Massachusetts health reform law signed by then-Gov. Mitt Romney in 2006 and the national law enacted by President Barack Obama two years ago.

Kelly Gaeckle, a 35-year-old stay-at-home mother and a part-time fitness instructor who lives in Santa Cruz, Calif., is lucky enough to have a high-cost insurance plan, but it doesn't cover many of the medications she needs. She and her husband, who runs his own business, struggle to pay the $1,500 monthly premium on their plan, which covers the couple and their four kids. They put just about enough money into a health savings account every year to cover the plan's high $6,500 deductible, but the funds run out quickly. After they meet the deductible and their out-of-pocket expenses hit $6,000, the insurance pays practically the full cost of their medical treatments -- but only those that are actually covered. The couple worries that its insurer will raise rates to something completely out of reach, a perfectly legal move under California law.

"I am 100 percent certain that if we lost our health insurance we would lose our house. At this point we are living month to month," Gaeckle's husband Peter wrote in an e-mail. The family budget is squeezed because of a rough patch in his business; access to health care services for themselves and their four children, two of whom have heart conditions, is a pressing concern. According to the most recent data available from the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, the direct medical costs of treating M.S. were as high as $27,000 a year for an individual in 2007.

As the country waits to hear the Supreme Court's decision on health care reform, a look at the Gaeckles' health insurance offers a glimpse of what free-market health care means to those who are not receiving coverage through a company's health-care plan or lucky enough to live in Massachusetts. Reforms that former governor Romney put in place in the state would cover Gaeckle at a much lower rate than she currently pays. Much like the national health care law now before the high court, the Massachusetts law mandates that insurance companies cover everyone, sets limits on how much more they can charge people with pre-existing conditions, provides financial assistance for low- and middle-income people, and requires nearly everyone to get coverage.

Gaeckle tried a drug called Copaxone a few years ago but the side effects and the $2,600 monthly cost of the medicine, which the family had to put on its credit card, were more than she could bear. She also has avoided another M.S. drug, Avonex, because of the expense, and she puts off MRIs and other tests until later in the year when her insurance picks up the cost.

Still, she's happy to have any coverage. "M.S. is very unpredictable," said Gaeckle. "I could be okay and functioning right now, but you know tomorrow could be different so I definitely feel better knowing if I can get into the doctor."

Insurance companies in California aren't allowed to kick you off a plan if you already have insurance, but state law allows health insurance companies to raise rates on expensive customers, which can price them out of coverage, said Anthony Wright, the executive director of Health Access, an advocacy group in the state. "We in California are the wild, wild west for health insurance," he said.

California law also lets insurers deny applicants or provide them with a plan that doesn't cover their pre-existing conditions, Wright said. A family like the Gaeckles would have a hard time on the open market if they were to find themselves without coverage, he said.

Access to stable, reliable insurance varies for people with pre-existing conditions if they don't get it through work or a government program like Medicare or Medicaid. Some states require insurance companies to provide plans to people with pre-existing conditions but premiums can become unaffordable. Other states allow insurers to reject customers they believe would be too costly, or even decline to renew their policies after they receive diagnoses of ailments like cancer and M.S. Insurance companies also can offer plans to sick people that cover everything except their pre-existing conditions.

Starting in 2014 when the biggest parts of Obama's health overhaul take effect, people with pre-existing conditions will have access to coverage like what's available in Massachusetts.

These rules could be overturned by the Supreme Court or by Mitt Romney and Republicans in Congress if he wins the White House in November.

Mitt Romney's health care proposals would reinforce the current patchwork of state regulations, don't require insurance companies to offer plans to everyone and don't limit how much they can charge based on people's medical histories.

During a recent appearance on "The Tonight Show," Mitt Romney told host Jay Leno that he wanted to guarantee access to insurance for people with pre-existing conditions, but only if they're already covered. He didn't explain how he would help people who are uninsured because of their medical histories.

A Romney campaign spokeswoman didn't respond to three e-mails containing written questions about his national health care proposals or what kind of insurance he and his wife have.

Related on HuffPost:

FOLLOW MONEY

If Ann Romney weren't wealthy, she might have even more in common with Kelly Gaeckle. Both women suffer from multiple sclerosis, a chronic neurological disorder that impairs motor function, cogniti...
If Ann Romney weren't wealthy, she might have even more in common with Kelly Gaeckle. Both women suffer from multiple sclerosis, a chronic neurological disorder that impairs motor function, cogniti...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 10,048
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (138 total)
  1 of 10  
COMMUNITY PUNDITS
ThatsTheTheWayItIs 09:10 AM on 04/06/2012
"She also has avoided another M.S. drug, Avonex, because of the expense". Avonex is THC in a nasal spray, smoking marijuana works better anyway. Marijuana is the only viable treatment for MS, ask Montel Williams or millions of other sufferers. Marijuana is available and affordable everywhere, ask your kids. The average family medical policy costs $15K, a years supply of pot maybe 30% of  Read More...
09:10 PM on 06/20/2012
Classy Article....
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TheBestPatriot
Mitt is President of the first debate
05:16 PM on 05/30/2012
It will cost "Amercia" a lot of money insuring Ann Romney. Mitt should take a pledge, which he loves signing, stating that his wife will not accept tax payer funded health care.
photo
RepublicanDepression
Of the1% by the1% for the Gerrymandering One% =GOP
11:14 PM on 04/26/2012
"Ann Romney would literally be unable to get health insurance in most states in America and if she could get it, she'd pay an unbelievable price," said Jonathan Gruber, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. And it probably wouldn't cover treatments for M.S. and cancer, he said"

That says it all.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TheBestPatriot
Mitt is President of the first debate
05:17 PM on 05/30/2012
Why should tax payers fund her health insurance? God forbid Mitt becomes POTUS, her platinum healthcare will be on our dime.
12:26 PM on 04/10/2012
When you are filthy rich you have more time to enjoy the " little things " in life , the things money cant buy like Mrs Romney says. Working class people spend most of their time trying to figure out how to make ends meet , and less time traveling the US talking about how ' THEY DONT FEEL RICH" !!! and about how what matters most money cant buy. Mitt and his wife are so out of touch that when those words leave their mouths they still dont understand how offensive it is. Worth 250 million yet he says Obama doesnt understand the working class , this guy ( and his yappy wife ) need to go away. MAYBE TO ONE OF THE ISLANDS WHERE THEY HIDE THEIR MONEY !!
02:34 AM on 04/12/2012
You do realize that President Obama is rich too, right? There is nothing wrong with being rich. I wish I was rich. Don't you? Don't you want someone who is successful and knows how to get rich to help the rest of us be properous? No one ever got rich living off the government, which is what President Obama is offering. The more rich people we have in the country, the better, for all of us.
BTW, even though you are working really hard to make ends meet, I sure hope you are enjoying the things in life that money can't buy: family, health, love, etc. I think you know what Ann Romney meant by her comment. In order for Mitt Romney to run for office, he had to put all his investments in a blind trust which means he has no idea where his money is (otherwise he would have a conflict of interest). I personally saw Mitt Romney turn the olympics around. He really has the capactiy to turn our economy around. President Obama had his chance (he even a majority in the house and the senate). He is a great talker but I really don't think he has any idea how to be an effective president. You ought to give Romney a chance instead of spewing the rhetoric.
03:01 AM on 04/12/2012
Wake up , Obama has no where near the kind of money Mitt has. The Romney family is so out of touch its sick. Rich Romney has no clue how to help the working class but Im sure he has plenty of ideas how to help the rich get richer !! Go ahead and vote for the quarter billionaire , its your vote but he has zero chance of becoming President , sorry. He couldnt beat McCain who lost big to Obama , this election will be a landslide. Even your boy Hannity and Rush and the rest of the liars know theres no way Romney wins. Like I said maybe he will take his out of touch wife and head to the islands where he hides all of his money !! haha
photo
JoeyDee2
I know what just passed here
11:28 AM on 04/12/2012
Sorry, you must be one of those "temporarily embarassed millionaires." - John Steinbeck. There is virtually little difference between Romney and Obama. I voted for the latter and am sorely disappointed. Do you really think that if Romney wins, he's going to enact policies to make you rich?
12:01 AM on 04/10/2012
Worse yet, it isn't just Romney's millions of $$$$ that she can depend on for her health care. Don't WE, THE PEOPLE pay for the Cadillac insurance for our elected officials and their families FOR LIFE????
02:06 AM on 04/12/2012
President Obama is on the same pension plan....
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
john649
05:20 PM on 04/12/2012
he doesn't have MS which will cost us, the taxpayers, millions for life if she gets into that whitehouse!
photo
RepublicanDepression
Of the1% by the1% for the Gerrymandering One% =GOP
11:15 PM on 04/26/2012
So?
12:33 PM on 04/09/2012
Generally the people who say that money isn't important are the ones who already have enough of it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jason1953
Go green!
12:23 PM on 04/09/2012
It isn't just Romney, but the entire Republican Party which is out of touch with reality. The Republican Party is actually a danger to the United States right now, and must be defeated. Of course, that means the Democrats have to step up with some sound solutions. They haven't shown much in the way of forward thinking either, but their ideas, while not brilliant, are not going to destroy us.
02:43 AM on 04/12/2012
I am a republican. How are we a danger? It seems to me that 16 trillion dollars in debt (and that doesn't count the cost of Obamacare) is dangerous. We are paying 400 million a day in interest alone. What a waste. If our government continues to grow at this rate, then there will be no private sector to support it and the government will fail and then how will we care for our poor, our seniors and our disable? We do have to keep on caring for them, but otherwise, we need to tighten our belts and we need to GROW our economy. Obama had two years of total control (house and senate) to fix the problems and yet our economy is still in the dumps AND we have twice the debt that Bush incurred (in three years, rather than 8 years). You really ought to try our reality.....I think it is our only hope. I have no idea why you would hold onto four more years of this reality.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jason1953
Go green!
09:18 AM on 04/12/2012
Republican economic policies got us into this mess, and their economic policies is what drove me from the Party. Our deficit today is a direct result of foolish policies starting in the late 90s, but really going off the tracks starting in 2001. The Ryan budget, which Romney has fully endorsed, would be a disaster. We would increase the deficit and lose Medicare and Medicaid, and most of our social safety net, all to give the rich a tax break, and increasing military spending. That is just insanity. Repealing the Health care law will cost us hundreds of billions, and get us what? Look at what States with Republican controlled legislatures are doing. They are up to their necks in social issue legislation, and doing nothing to help their people. Picture that on a National scale. One saving grace is that Romney is actually sane. Too bad his Party is not.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
john649
05:28 PM on 04/12/2012
You lied.... Obamacare will REDUCE the deficit, according to the CBO.

You lied... the biggest financial disaster of all time happened when the Bushes gave the GOP Wall St EVERYTHING they could possibly dream of.
Bus tax cuts created the mega-deficit we have now because he never paid for them.

You lied...The GOP wrote over 1,1500 anti-women rights bills in 2011. Over 600 passed. Women are pissed at theGOP. The middle class is pissed at the GOP.

Thats why we have Obama 54%, Romney 34%
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
anne1stoftwo
American Woman
10:39 AM on 04/09/2012
But.............. Ann doesn't feel rich... LOL
10:23 AM on 04/09/2012
There is something about the conservative mind that is selfish and lacks empathy for their fellow human beings. Why do they not realize the basic golden rule? We are all in this together and if we cooperate together we will all be better off.
03:05 PM on 04/09/2012
In: http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2010/el2010-14.html, Stephen LeRoy, UCSB professor emeritus, Federal Reserve BoSF visiting scholar critiqued the Invisible Hand:

"The single most important proposition in economic theory, first stated by Adam Smith, is that competitive markets do a good job allocating resources. (...) The financial crisis has (...) prompted some scholars to question whether the conditions assumed by Smith...are accurate for modern economies."

Add this with the comment by Waltfl 09:10 AM on 04/06/2012.

Excellent, Jeffrey Young, to compare Kelly Gaeckle's dilemma with the wealth advantage of Ann Romney. Health care means money. Money is energy. The astrophysical economic reality in space is each day our Earth turns through hundreds of trillions of dollars worth of solar energy. LeRoy et. al. are correct. Modern space & information age technologies must be added into Smithian theory. A true conservative would be against pellmell burning through of fossil fuels.

I don't have M.S. but I have an in-law struggling with it. What world are we leaving to our grandchildren? I urge everyone to read from the Spring 2012 Strategic Studies Quarterly by Peter A. Garretson, Lieutenant Colonel, USAF:

http://www.au.af.mil/au/ssq/2012/spring/garretson.pdf

World leaders would pretend to power? Florida Governor Rick Scott said, "Let's get to work." Really? Talk to Colonel Garretson, Neil Armstrong, brave people about a new kind of work endorsed by Adam Smith: IMPROVEMENT!
02:13 AM on 04/12/2012
Most conservatives understand and follow the golden rule; we just don't believe the federal government is the best vehicle for taking care of each other. In my reality, I have never seen the government do anything efficiently or effectively, have you? I believe that there are real problems that Obamacare tried to address but at the expense of our children's future (16 trillion in debt equals 400 million in interest everyday....just think what kind of healthcare coverage we could buy with that wasted money) We have a neighbor who has a form for brain cancer. We are doing fundraisers to help them pay their bills. That is the golden rule and efficiency in action.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
09:00 AM on 04/12/2012
U.S. military seems like a pretty good example of an effective government institution.

Get over the total debt number, it's the deficit that matters. If I make a million a year and have a million in debt, I'm not worried. If I make $200k less than I owe, then I have a problem.
09:40 AM on 04/12/2012
A friend of mine has a young daughter that has a medical problem that would cost without insurance $240,000 per year. Do you think he'd be able to raise that money through charity? Do you think if he lost his job and health coverage he'd be able to pick up another insurance plan?
The government does a lot well: national security, roads, medicare, medicaid, social security....
We need an effective government in order to have a civilized and humane society. How we get there depends on cooperation.
09:47 PM on 04/08/2012
This entire site is full of superfilous news. All the important life altering news is buried.

http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/35-shocking-statistics-that-prove-that-things-have-gotten-worse-in-america
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tifosies
08:19 PM on 10/14/2012
omg hahahahaha! Buy your survival gear~ quickly! hahahahaha! funny site
09:45 PM on 04/08/2012
It's funny how you intellectuals have no concept of what insurance is.

When you go to Las Vegas, do you expect all cards to be shown and then only bet when you have a winning hand? You must.

Hpost should do an article on insurance and what it really is. Then maybe y'all won't sound so foolish.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
crumpets
06:26 AM on 04/09/2012
Dude what the the hell are you talking about? Are you seriously equating insurance to gambling? Which planet are you on?

It is not ok for insurance companies to be able to deny people cover either through changing their rates when they find out a person has a chronic/high cost condition or by simply excluding that from their policy altogether.

People in the USA are being screwed over by the health insurance market and you don't even see it.
02:49 AM on 04/12/2012
I think you are right that there are abuses to people who have always tried to stay insured but who get dumped when they change jobs or when they incur too many costs. I do believe those situations do need to be addressed.....best addressed by state government I think. However, Obamacare when too far and at far too high a price. I am mostly annoyed with people who don't carry insurance when they are well and then cry foul when they can't get insurance once they are sick. It is like wanting to buy fire insurance on your house after the house burns down.
10:21 AM on 04/09/2012
My statement stands and is proven by you.
Insurance IS gambling.
Insurance and health care are two different things.
Go back to college. Stay off the dope. Take a course on insurance instead of women's studies and try to pay attention.
05:32 PM on 05/30/2012
that's right...belittle and undermine the other person in order to make yourself look credible. and make them sound like an idiot for wasting their time on something as silly as "women's studies". that doesn't make you sound manipulative or sexist at all...
08:54 PM on 04/08/2012
Great article, Jeffrey. Excuse, please; Dear Kelly, I wish I could write you a check for 60 years of $50,000/yr, or a $3 million check. I have an in-law with M.S. I just multiplied the estimate of the world's population of 7 billion times $3 million. It's $21,000 trillion. When Apollo 8 astronauts saw the first Earthrise December 24, 1968, they read from Genesis that Christmas eve. Today, to everyone stressed over money, at $0.112/kWh, our Earth turns through $467 trillion a day in solar energy out in space. Stop and think about that . . . $467 trillion each day! There is a technological solution to economic problems of which people wish to ignore. Why?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Joseph LeCompte
The USA isnt broke.It was robbed.
08:49 PM on 04/08/2012
The GOP run House has repealed ACA twice. And it hasn't come up with any plan good or bad. The GOP plan is do nothing.
02:51 AM on 04/12/2012
Kind of like, no budget from the democratic senate for the last three years and budgets from the president that NO ONE votes for in congress (0 to 414 in the house; the senate didn't even vote on it). Talk about "Do nothing" when government spending is out of control.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
2milewidewatereachside
08:02 PM on 04/08/2012
It was not possible for Romney to explain. He and his party have no idea whatsoever
how to solve these issues. The main goal is to gain control and exploit all possible
means of return with the minimum investment. Social measures are secondary.

I do know one way to save lots of money. Be more friendly to the rest of the world. Its always more productive to collaborate than constant efforts to disintegrate.
07:52 PM on 04/08/2012
$15 trillion of debt, $1.3 trillion deficit (entire military makes up only 0.6), with obligations of $50 trillion going forward. 100% income tax on our wealthy does not pay our estimated bills... we need to do better if we wish to avoid bankruptcy... but maybe that's what we need.

America, the day has come, whether We want it to be here or not. The day when we can outlive our resources is at hand... and that is precisely what we are doing. The government can certainly tax to provide a base level of healthcare for all Americans (private or public our choice), but We simply cannot continue to borrow from our unborn to ensure our elderly or disabled live for 3 more years - or live better. This bankrupts our country, destroys our future, and is not in our collective interest.

I am not a millionaire, and I will die one day. However that comes about, I will not claim that you should pay for me, I will not ask my kids to pay for me, and I certainly don't want to force yours to. When I can no longer work in my community, no longer pay for myself, no longer pay for the medication I require, that's when I'd like us to have a party and call it a life. I hope to look back on a constructive life in which I put in more than I took out. Yours in Faith.
01:39 PM on 04/09/2012
Wow - really? So if you got cancer (or some other disease) that could be treated but you could not afford the treatment you think the sensible option is to die? And that should be the case for everybody in the country? Your primary concern is that executives and the wealthy are allowed to keep every last cent of their profits and not be inconvenienced with pesky taxes? Astounding.
02:39 PM on 04/09/2012
No, please don't take it to the extreme - we do enough of that these days. I'm for taxing our wealthy to pay our bills, it seems obvious to me that Trickle down doesn't work. But even 80% tax rates on our wealthy doesn't fix our deficit problem, so we need to do better than the finger pointing, putting words in people's mouths, then shaking our heads and saying "Astounding."

There are choices for how we allocate our limited resources, and refusing to choose is a choice... to borrow from our kids to help our unfortunate elderly. I'm just not sure it is the wisest one for the collective "us." What is your solution?

We can nurse a 30 week premie to birth, fight AIDS, allow my 95 year old grandma to get shoulder surgery (true story), or, in your example, allow someone who cannot afford necessary cancer treatment to get it anyway. Do we ever say no, or do our creditors have to do that for us?

Do we give the cancer treatment, or give a paraplegic the ability to use a computer, or a veteran a prosthetic limb, or a college grant to a hard working teen? We can't do all of it, we simply can't. If $15 trillion does not make that point to you, then what will?

We have reached the point where We, as a society of man, have to make difficult choices... or bankrupt our children. We're choosing the latter...
10:41 PM on 04/09/2012
It turns out that per person, EVERY civilized country that provides universal healthcare spends less than the U.S. Want to save money? Cover everyone, cover preventative care and health maintenance. Negotiate with drug providers. You will spend less on covering every single person in the US than we do now for the current mess of a system.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LILLYPUTT
04:20 AM on 04/10/2012
Bravo! F&F
06:51 AM on 04/10/2012
Yes, universal preventative care and health maintenance is my thought too. It appears we spend about 900 billion on Medicare and Health Services (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/02/01/us/budget.html).
It seems to me we could provide $3,000 to every citizen in an annual Health Savings account to cover basic check-ups, preventative care, and apply toward catastrophic health insurance. Such a universal method would allow every American citizen the opportunity for preventative care as well as cover catastrophic for our younger folks. As us older folks aged, our catastrophic costs would rise and, as such, we would need to work to supplement our HSA's. We would also need to plan for retirement and the additional health costs of our old age.
It seems to me this plan would 1) put the power back into the hands of the consumer as medical doctors and insurance companies compete for our dollars, 2) get around the current Supreme Court hiccup as no one is mandated to buy health insurance, but an HSA is provided for them to use, and 3) allow employers to shed health insurance mandates for hiring Americans and encourage domestic job growth.
Thoughts?