Healthcare: Romney V. Obama

Living in Massachusetts has granted me the prevledge to come under two of of the two hottly debated healthcare laws this election season. Obama-care V. Romney-care. Romney care which, has been in effect for several years now, I can safely say it has not me feel any better. I remember the debates when Romney was Governor of my fair state. One measure that seemed fair, to me, was a tax (or fine) on businesses that did not offer healthcare to employees (now the fine only applies to business of 10 fulltime employees). I mean, if indivuals were to be fined for not having healthcare it seemed fair to fine companies. I was all excited by this prospect, given that I work full time for a company that refuses to give their full time staff any benefits. I thought maybe this would motivate my employer to actually look around for some healthcare plans. Alas, that provision was thrown out, because Romney saw it as anti-business. Now I'm stuck in the donut hole, too rich to get state assisted healthcare, too poor to afford private healthcare. Thankfully, I don't have to pay the fine because I'm technically too poor to be expected to buy private health insurance. Oh, did I say fine, I meant tax (sorry Supreme Court). I'm likely to continue to sit in the donut hole under President Obama's legislation as well. Although, I'm unclear on that, namely because I'm not living under Obama care. Obama's plan has not even gone into effect, the only plan I know first hand is Romney care. Funny thing: Obama's plan is largely modeled after Romney's plan, a lot of similarities between the two. The GOP is screaming socialism and tryanny over Obama care and just don't discuss Romney care. Romney's plan was the center piece of his time as Governor of Massachusetts, it is litterally his biggest acchoplisment. Romney's offical portrait as Governor has the healthcare plan on his desk (see above photo), he himself thought it was the most important thing he had done. Given that Mitt has only held one elected position in government, and this was the biggest thing he did, wouldn't you expect him to be touting his accomplishments?
Of course Obama-care is unpopular, although we haven't even had to deal with it yet. Everything is speculation at this point. Not to mention there is a large and very well funded opposition to this legislation, who are giving it their all to smear and dismiss this law. Here is a big difference between the two: Romney-care covers abortions, unlike Obama-care. Romney has some numbers to boast about. 98% of all Mass. redsidents now have healthcare, and our spending on emergency care has dropped 40%. Imagine these numbers on a national scale. Obama-care might eliminate 2/3 of the budget crisis social security is facing. That's better then Paul Ryan's voucher system, which fails to recognise the natural inflation over time of healthcare costs.
Oddly enough, Romney-care is more popular than Obama-care. Although these plans are extremely similar, and only one is actually in effect. People complain about the short comings of the Massachusetts healthcare legislation, but they are not taking to the streets demanding its repeal; why? Because now that it is law we can ammend it, change aspects that are not working, advocate for inclusion that were first thrown out, we can work on it. This is my feeling of Obama-care. Although, I'd be the first one to give to a laundry list of what Obama care doesn't do,  I also regonise that this legislation can be change and updated. Overall, both Obama and Romney are correct in thinking that universal healthcare coverage should be a right. I feel as Obama-care proved a greater point, a need has been regonized. Now, the GOP can try to tear down this law, but many people like the kind of reforms Obama-care should bring (most people are just unaware of some of the more practical healthcare reforms in the bill). The law set a new president in this country when it was ruled constitutionally valid. This was the biggest hurdle to any national health care law. The GOP can try to widdle down or repeal the current law, but they know if similar legislation is proposed it is not unconstitutional. Political currents change and a need for decent healthcare will continue to exist. Obama-care may or may not survive the 2012 election, but universal coverage will come. After all it was Ronald Regan who signed into law the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act in 1986 which required hospitals and ambulance services to provide care to anyone needing emergency treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. As long as we are a nation that still thinks people have a moral obligation to save a dying man, we will continue to pay that price.

Mitt & Paul's big party.

Mr. small government Paul Ryan didn't mention the nearly 70 million dollars of tax payer money he and Mitt got to host their week-long self congratulatory party (read more). Is that what our tax dollars should pay for? That's about $140 million for both conventions, which happens to be the same amount it takes to buy 528,916 poor children in America breakfast before starting the school day. This was a week long tribute to fiscal policies, and why Obama and Co. have spent this country into near ruin. Meanwhile, Mitt and Paul held this completely unnecessary, week long advertisement. Why not lead your economic restraint message by stopping these conventions? There has not been a need for these conventions in quite sometime. One day, one of these major parties will wake up and cancel theirs. Whoever cancels first will win the gratitude of a lot of Americans, and be able to belittle their opponent for such wasteful spending. At one point these conventions were necessary to actually nominate the candidate, but those days are long gone; it's time to come back to Earth.

Well let us talk about the GOP's war plan. This year they are betting it all on the Mormon leader ( a Bishop & stake president) Mitt Romney. I have to say a Mormon for the GOP ticket seems like the best fit, not only do you have a conservative faith, you also have one of the wealthiest churches behind you. The church rakes in about $7 billion a year from their parishioners tithe. The church has been known to throw this money into a political fire in the past ( $17.67 million  to keep gays from marrying in California).  Oh, and the Mormon faith holds America as a holy place, one day Jesus Christ will return to Independence Missouri . America, Religion and Big Money, this is the holy trinity to the GOP, all wrapped up in a single candidate. It's amazing that the base of the party is so unexcited by Romney. 

The convention largely focused on the grammatical error of Obama, "You didn't build that!" Every other speaker chanted the mantra "we did build it!" I don't know if its more shameful to hold up this out of context quote as a central issue, or to accept this out context quote as the actual quote. Whatever, let them run that into the ground ad nauseum. Never mind the fact Romney's running mate Paul Ryan voted for the $700 billion bailout in 2008 (something I blogged about at the time). What was missing, and very unusually so, was foreign policy. Imagine a GOP convention with no mention of foreign policy (aside from Condoleezza Rice's speech). Seems as though the Democrats have actually out flanked the GOP on the war front. Or another way to look it, Romney and Obama are pretty identical on foreign policy, which isn't too far off George W. Bush's foreign policy.  The economy is the issue, plain and simple, all else is a side note, that's the GOP's message.

The problem with this message, is that it ignored another plank on the GOP platform, the tried and true focus on the family plank.  The right of doctors to refuse women birth control. The right of parents to force their child, against their will, to carry a child to term. The exclusion of people to tax and legal benefits based on their sexual orientation. Enhancing and expanding the "stand your ground" law of self defense. The outright and full ban on abortion, whether you've been raped by your father, or have a life threatening medical condition.  This isn't freedom, this the will of a religious people to force their morality on the non-believers. Whatever jobs Mitt & Paul are going to magically pull out of their top hats is hardly worth the sacrifice of these personal freedoms.

Mitt doesn't want to talk about the tenants of his faith. He's made that clear for a long time, questions about his faith are off limits. But we see some of his, and other religions beliefs on the GOP's platform. This is what they are running on, this platform matters. They aren't going to talk about it though because they know that every minute spent talking about these issues is a minute Obama is winning. Americans don't want a full ban on abortion, Americans want to buy birth control from their local pharmacy. America should stand up for the rights of homosexuals to enjoy the same tax and legal benefits has heterosexuals, chide any move to discriminate against gays. Mitt's faith and personal beliefs are off the table of discussion, but they are on the legislative table. Why are we allowing this? If his morality is part of the platform, his morality has every right to be discussed. A public discussion about the tenants of Mitt's faith is legitimate. If he can say that a 13 year old girl who has been molested and raped by her father as no right to abort that child, we can ask him about the Mormon church. 

Only one person spoke to us like adults: Condoleeza Rice. In case you missed it: