Faceoff: Election 2012

Many are quick to criticize former Gov. Mitt Romney’s opposition to the Affordable Care Act because they have failed to learn what changes he proposes to apply to the health care system in the future.

Health care accounts for one sixth of our economy in the United States. Naturally, a period of financial stress causes voters to consider the differences between equity and efficiency. Despite the fact that most people would consider a public health care system to be fairer than a private one, voters must educate themselves on the reality of a society dependent upon public health care.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, public health insurance would cost $2,500 more than traditional insurance. In a period of economic decline, the government should take action to decrease all expenses for the American population.

The government can only come up with money for Obamacare in a few ways: The first option is to increase taxes directly – making financial situations of U.S. citizens more challenging than they already are. The next option is that the government pays these higher expenses; this would only add to the extremely severe and growing national deficit.

Another element of Obamacare that Romney contests is the role of an unelected board forming decisions on what treatments individuals may or may not have. Under traditional health care, insurance companies may deny coverage of specific operations of treatments. Individuals, however, always have the choice to pay for these out of pocket. With the practice of public health insurance, everyone receives coverage.

In theory, this idea has the potential to be a positive change for our nation. The health care system, however, would become so saturated that the people who are denied treatments by the aforementioned board will not be able to pursue these treatments on their own.

One of the central reasons Romney is against Obamacare is because it defies the 10th Amendment, which demonstrates the importance of state sovereignty. As the United States of America, we are – believe it or not – many states that are united. Health care needs to vary from state to state, not be universal.

If the government is to best serve its citizens, it must be readapted to satisfy the different needs of different populations. For this purpose, Romney suggests that building multiple health care plans on a state-to-state basis is not only more effective but also essential to maintaining American ideals.

If elected, Romney plans to issue an executive order that enables the federal government to issue Obamacare waivers to all 50 states. He will then work with Congress to repeal the full legislation as quickly as possible.

In substitute of Obamacare, Romney will pursue policies that give each individual state the power to create a health care reform plan that is optimal for its own citizens. Romney also believes that for the health care system to improve, the patient must be placed at the center of the process. This will drive quality up and cost down, ensuring that services provide what the American people need and want.

Romney proposes that by building health care up to the federal level, we are tampering with a core belief in the foundation of the U.S.: The role of government itself is to allow the people freedom in choice, not to become our only choice.

Click here to read the Democrat viewpoint.