Yesterday’s revelation that former Aetna CEO Ronald A. Williams was compensated $72 million in 2010, including $14.3 million in stocks, wasn’t good news for Americans who had to forgo coverage because insurance is simply too expensive or the insured population dealing with ever-growing premiums and it established another argument against the GOP budget. The details of Willliams’ compensation package are rather impressive. Williams received “$50.4 million in value realized through the exercise of options,” “$1.1 million in salary, $2.75 million in incentive pay, an additional $2.3 million in pension value and other compensation of $299,838.”

These numbers are even more stark within the context of the GOP’s Medicare reforms. Under the budget plan introduced last week, seniors would be forced to enroll in a private health insurance plan by 2022 and, as the CBO has found, would actually end up paying more for the coverage they are currently receiving through traditional Medicare. That’s partly because insurers have to set aside a greater chunk of money to cover their administrative expenses and profits — including compensation packages like Williams’.

For instance, a comparison of traditional Medicare and private insurers in Medicare Advantage demonstrates that while both operate under the same rules and enroll the same population, traditional Medicare spends less than 2 percent of expenditures on administrative costs, while private plans in Medicare Advantage spend approximately 11 percent on additional expenditures like profits. Republicans want the taxpayer to subsidize these increased expenses through fixed vouchers and place seniors in a situation where they have to spend more on coverage every year so that CEOs like Williams can have a comfortable retirement.

This morning, Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) appeared at the Center for American Progress Action Fund and delivered a rebuke of Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) budget. “At its core the Republican budget is the same old tired formula of extending tax breaks to the wealthy and the powerful at the expense of the rest of the country, except this time it’s on steroids,” he said before specifically going after Ryan’s claim that his Medicare reforms would give seniors the same health plan as members of Congress:

VAN HOLLEN: This is not like the Federal Employee Health Care Plan that members of Congress are on…The Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan, which members of Congress are on has something called the fair share formula. You share equally in the risk of higher health care costs. There is a fixed percentage — it is premium support. As the cost of the premium goes up, the share between the employer and the employee remains the same. It’s the exact opposite on the Medicare situation. The way they make money is to take advantage of the gap between what they’re going to provide the senior and the risking health care costs.

Watch it:

Indeed, Ryan is constraining the rate of growth in Medicare by offering seniors a defined contribution, regardless of the rate of growth in health care costs. The federal government’s contribution in the FEHBP program, by contrast, reflects actual increases in premium levels. According to the Office of Personnel Management, the FEHBP formula “is known as the ‘Fair Share’ formula because it will maintain a consistent level of Government contributions, as a percentage of total program costs, regardless of which health plan enrollees elect.” The difference is that Ryan’s proposal provides seniors with a set amount of money that, in order to reach the kind of savings he’s advertising, would have to depreciate each successive year — even as health care costs increase.

As the CBO concluded, “Under the proposal, most elderly people would pay more for their health care than they would pay under the current Medicare system.” “[T]he beneficiary’s share in 2030 would be 68 percent under the proposal” but only “25 percent” under current law.

Today is the five-year anniversary of Massachusetts’ passage of comprehensive health care reform — a measure, that not only paved the way for the Affordable Care Act, but also greatly expanded coverage in the Bay state. More than 98 percent of Massachusetts residents now have health care coverage, including 99.8 percent of children — the highest in the nation. The percent of private companies offering health insurance to their employees has increased from 70 to 76 percent and in 2011, the state spent $405 million on uncompensated care, nearly $300 million less than before reform was enacted in 2006.

But Mitt Romney — who announced just yesterday that he is forming an presidential exploratory committee — has tried to downplay his role in enacting what he once defended as the “ultimate conservative plan” and has thus far stayed mum about the anniversary. This tone contrasts sharply with how Romney characterized the law five years ago, when he presented the measure as a bipartisan accomplishment that could, at least in part, serve as a model for the nation. The Massachusetts Democrats compiled this “Thank You Mitt” praising the law in 2006:

– “When I set out to get everybody health insurance, I couldn’t have cared less and I don’t care less about how it works politically.”

– “Well, it would work for Massachusetts, and that’s of course the effort I had to focus on. There are certain aspects of it that would work across the country, perhaps better in some states than others…there is not much question here, it works. ”

– “Ted Kennedy supporting a bill which I authored, that’s actually going to be a cure to global warming because hell has frozen over.”

Watch it:

Despite insisting that states must find their own solutions to the health care crisis, Romney has at times suggested that parts of the Massachusetts reforms could be applied nationwide. As recently as Oct. 2009, Romney told CNN’s Sanjay Gupta, “Massachusetts is a model for getting everybody insured in a way that doesn’t break the bank, doesn’t put the government in the driver’s seat and allows people to own their own insurance policies and not to have to worry about losing coverage. That’s what Massachusetts did,” he said.

Democrats and President Obama took this advise to heart and built the Affordable Care Act around the principles established in Massachusetts. In fact, Romney’s plan contains some policies that are more liberal (in its standard benefit design and employer responsibility provisions) than those found in the national health care law:

During an appearance on Fox News Sunday in March 2010, Romney highlighted his support for the plan’s individual health insurance mandate. “I think our plan is working well. And perhaps the best thing I can say about it, it’s saving lives. It is the ultimate pro-life effort,” he said. “We said people have to take responsibility for getting insurance if they can afford it or paying their own way. No more free riders.”