Capitol Showdown: Are there any major differences, other than an individual mandate, between Romney and Obama’s health care plans?
In the heat of a very close presidential race between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, one of the pivotal questions to the campaign is healthcare and its consequences on the future of America.
The truth is when Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusetts, he was put in a tough position. With a legislative body that was predominantly Democrat he had to meet in the middle when it came to social issues.
What President Obama plans to use against Governor Romney during debates and ads is the fact that Mitt Romney’s healthcare plan for Massachusetts was the plan that framed President Obama’s National Healthcare bill, the Affordable Care Act. Although this is true, it has been taken out of context.
When Mitt Romney was Governor of Massachusetts he had many pressures to produce a statewide healthcare law that would cover everyone with healthcare costs.
The truth is that states, according to the constitution, can produce a healthcare bill that performs these very acts. There is no reason for states to make a statewide healthcare law that allows seniors and many others to proﬁt from a state-wide legislation to cover their medical bills. However according to amendment 10 of the constitution, “Every power not granted to the national government by the constitution shall be given to the states.” They have every right to create a statewide healthcare law. Considering his very democratic constituency, it is perfectly understandable why he would have such a mandate on such a pivotal issue. He was merely trying to arouse his voters to vote for him again for another term.
Unlike President Obama’s bill this is a state issue decided by the state. On a national level, united healthcare has no position constitutionally. There is no amendment that allows the national government to have a healthcare bill that covers all Americans. If we were to follow the constitution, which guarantees our freedom, our national government cannot be allowed to provide a national government sponsored healthcare system that will kill us economically.
We must bear in mind the fact that many earthlings come to America to get our system of healthcare and despite the fact that Mitt Romney sponsored a statewide healthcare bill the state has every right to do so, unlike the national government.
The fact that people want the national government to have more control over their lives means that I truly believe that the people don’t know what’s best for them.
Daniel Blakeney, Towson College Republicans
Healthcare reform is based on the principle that by expanding health insurance coverage, the cost for each individual policy is decreased. Both the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (commonly known as Obamacare) and the Massachusetts Act Providing Access to Affordable, Quality, Accountable Health Care (Romneycare) do this in two major ways. First, they expand state Medicaid programs to cover more people who cannot afford health insurance.
Second, they require everyone who can afford it to have their own insurance. After the law took effect in Massachusetts, the cost of health insurance rose annually at a lower rate than it was projected to rise, effectively saving everyone who was buying health insurance. Because the state government mandated a minimum level of coverage, benefits also increased. In addition to these benefits that aided the entire state population, the actual cost of healthcare decreased. Before the reforms took effect, there were hundreds of thousands of people in the state who were not covered for basic services such as annual checkups or preventative care.
The result of this was that instead of catching diseases early when they could be treated more effectively at a lower cost, they were frequently only discovered when the cost of care was high or, more unfortunately, it was too late. However, the best outcome of Romney’s healthcare reform law was that in Massachusetts many people were no longer dying because they did not have the means to pay for medical treatments. These monumental successes prompted President Obama and the National Legislature to implement a similar program that was in place in Massachusetts on the national level.
The most important difference is the effectiveness of the reform.
Whenever someone uses healthcare and cannot pay for it, the provider of that care has to offset their losses for treating the indigent persons.
They do so by charging more to people who can afford to pay for it. In Massachusetts, where Mitt Romney was governor, people frequently incurred costs that were beyond their control. Many people from neighboring states used the Massachusetts medical facilities without paying for them.
These freeloaders cause the cost of healthcare for Massachusetts residents to increase. Obamacare effectively nullifies this cost. As of 2014, people in states neighboring Massachusetts will also be required to have health insurance, which lowers the cost for Massachusetts residents.
Governor Romney wants you to believe that the federal government has no place in healthcare reform. He wants you to believe that it is better for each state to choose how to manage healthcare. However, as the case of Massachusetts shows, when we allow that kind of inconsistency, it costs everyone more.
Matt Sanford, Progressive Democrats of Towson