Skip to footer

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.

6. 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., May 6, 2003, at a rally for tort reform to lower medical malpractice insurance rates in Pennsylvania. The rally ended a week-long work stoppage.

  • By Linda Feldmann Staff writer

Malpractice insurance premiums are often cited as a factor in health-care inflation and the reason some physicians stop practicing medicine altogether. Obama was reluctant to include medical malpractice reform in the ACA, but according to documents reported by The New Yorker, the president was willing to consider some reform if it was the only way to keep physicians on board, though he was unwilling to cap noneconomic damages. Ultimately, he was able to pass the ACA without any medical malpractice reform.  

Romney calls for reform of the “broken medical liability system,” per his website. It says that the current medical liability system encourages defensive medicine (read: unnecessary tests) and drives up health-care costs. In response, Romney would cap noneconomic damages in medical malpractice litigation. He would also provide “innovation grants” to states to try other reforms, such as alternative dispute resolution and health-care courts.

For a full list of stories about how Romney and Obama differ on the issues, click here.

6 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.