Skip to footer

Obama vs. Romney 101: 6 ways they differ on health-care reform

In a different era, President Obama and Mitt Romney might have been completely in sync on health-care reform. Former Governor Romney, after all, championed a reform in Massachusetts, including an individual mandate to purchase insurance, which became the model for Mr. Obama's signature Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA). But times changed, and candidate Romney took a libertarian turn in going against the individual mandate and what he now calls a federal takeover of the health-care system. Now health care is a central point of contention in the presidential race.

Here’s a list of areas where the candidates differ: repeal of health-care reform, how Americans get their health care, controlling health-care costs, Medicare, Medicaid, and medical malpractice reform.

Carolyn Kaster/AP/File
Sherry Hoover (r.) from Carlisle Regional Medical Center and other doctors say the Pledge of Allegiance on the Capitol steps in Harrisburg, Pa., in May 6, 2003, at a rally for tort reform to reduce medical malpractice insurance rates in Pennsylvania. The rally ends a week-long work stoppage.

1. 'Repeal and replace' vs. holding firm

Charles Dharapak/AP/File
In the East Room of the White House, President Obama used 22 pens to sign the health-care reform bill, which became law on March 23, 2010. Multiple pens are used to sign legislation, and then distributed to supporters of the legislation.

  • By Linda Feldmann Staff writer

Romney has pledged to grant states waivers from Obama's health-care reform law on Day 1 as president, and to work with Congress to try to repeal and replace the law. That’s why keeping a GOP majority in the House and taking over the Senate are critical to repeal. With 50 seats in the Senate, Republicans can use a fast-track budget process known as “reconciliation” to repeal the law, avoiding the need to line up 60 votes to end a filibuster. (Should Romney win, Paul Ryan, as vice president and president of the Senate, would be empowered to break tie votes, thus allowing a unified GOP caucus to repeal the law even in an evenly split Senate.) 

Obama is counting on implementation to help win over skeptics and build public support for the law, but the law does not go into full effect until 2014. Come January, if Republicans control both houses of Congress but Obama is still president, repeal legislation may cross his desk. He would veto it, sending it back to Capitol Hill, where Republicans can attempt to override. Two-thirds majorities of both houses are required – an extreme long shot.

After the US Supreme Court upheld the health-care law in June, the president said he would “work with anybody who wants to work with me” to improve the law, but he offered no suggestions. Obama advisers say the idea of improving the law appeals to independent voters.

1 of 6
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.