A Reconciliation - How One Romney Supporter Justifies RomneyCare while Denouncing ObamaCare - part 1

As a Romney supporter, I am sometimes asked how I can support RomneyCare but desire to repeal ObamaCare. “Aren’t the two plans basically the same thing?” they ask. 

Governor Chris Christie said recently that it is “intellectually dishonest” to equate RomneyCare with ObamaCare. I agree with Gov. Christie and while I can’t speak for Mr. Christie, I would like to give you one of my own reasons for supporting RomneyCare but denouncing ObamaCare. 

#1) Costs - A Simple But Powerful Distinction

From simply a costs perspective, the two plans are quite different. RomneyCare was a “balanced bill” which means it required virtually no new spending or taxes. On the other hand, ObamaCare increases taxes by over a half a trillion dollars and requires a dramatic increase in government spending. The vastly different costs of each program represent a significant and major distinction.

Some ask “If they are similar plans, why is ObamaCare so much more expensive than RomneyCare?” ObamaCare is much more expensive than RomneyCare because it requires other states to fund their health care programs the same way Massachusetts did. But there is a major problem with that method of funding, namely, Massachusetts had a lot more money to pay for its health care program than any other state. Due to a special Medicaid grant that Massachusetts had been receiving for over a decade and a large pool of money set aside to pay for the costs incurred by the uninsured for hospital/medical care, Massachusetts had over one billion dollars in additional health care funding that no other state had. Because other states do not have such a large pool of funds to use for their health care programs, other states have to get the money for the program by raising taxes or cutting spending from other areas such as educational institutions to help pay for the new health care plan. Senator Marco Rubio of Florida summarizes it well by saying, “Even if ObamaCare was good policy, which it is not, we simply can’t afford more federal spending.”

Furthermore, lets not forget than Massachusetts had a balanced budget at the time RomneyCare was passed. The same definitely can’t be said of ObamaCare which was implemented during a time of record national debt levels. Romney showed fiscal responsibility by balancing the state’s budget first before passing any new laws that may affect government spending. Obama did no such thing.

In conclusion, from simply a costs perspective the two plans are polar opposites. RomneyCare was a “balanced bill” that required virtually no additional spending or taxes, while ObamaCare requires a dramatic increase in gov. spending and increases taxes by more than half a trillion dollars. The vastly different costs of each program represent a significant and major distinction. Our national debt is already at record levels. We don’t need to add any more to it.

Watch for part 2 of my continuing series on Romneycare versus Obamacare where I discuss the individual mandate.

Remember to visit our new “RomneyCare FAQ” page for more info here.

Tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.