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

Former Gov. Mitt Romney has taken a libertarian turn since championing health-care reforms in Massachusetts, including an individual mandate to purchase insurance, which became the model for President Obama's signature law. Here’s a list of areas where the candidates differ.

2. How Americans get their health coverage

J. Scott Applewhite/AP/File
House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R) of Michigan leads a hearing on July 10 on Capitol Hill on the implications of the Supreme Court's ruling that the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act is constitutional.

For those who already get health coverage via their employer, Obama maintains the current system. Under the ACA, starting in 2014, those purchasing insurance on the individual market will be able to go to an online “exchange” – think Travelocity for health insurance – to shop for a plan that best meets their needs. Middle- and low-income people who don’t qualify for Medicaid may be eligible for federal subsidies to pay for insurance.

Romney would give a tax break to people who buy insurance on the individual market to create equity with people who get their insurance at work, which is a tax-free benefit. The added competition, his campaign says, would drive down costs and improve quality. But it’s not clear how he would pay for this expensive new tax break, if he intends for his reform to be revenue neutral.

On the issue of preexisting conditions, repeal of the health-care reform law would remove the guarantee of coverage. Romney says he would keep the guarantee for people with health conditions who have been maintaining their insurance. In a March 22 opinion article in USA Today, Romney stated that his reforms “give states responsibility for dealing with the uninsured.”

Repeal of the ACA would also mean an end to “community rating” – the concept of charging the same premiums across a population group without regard to age, gender, or health conditions.

2 of 6

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.

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