Saturday, September 29, 2012

Which Path is Better?

I wrote this blog post to ask a person a question twitter.

PPACA was based on Romney's Massachusetts' health care plan. (ObamaCare was based on RomneyCare).

PPACA is a network of Health Exchanges implemented by the states regulated by the Federal Government. The government run health exchanges are setups in which the government defines and tightly regulates the administration of benefits while large politically capital pools speculate on the cost of care.

Mitt Romney has already announced that he intends to keep most of PPACA. So, he will have a symbolic repeal of PPACA. This repeal will leave the state run Health Exchanges in place. After the symbolic repeal of ObamaCare, the Republicans will write legislation to support the exchanges.

The new legislation will pretty much force states into running health exchanges.

In the current Republican Plan, the Federal Regulation of the health exchanges is being replaced by a "Health Compact." A compact is a non-elected extra-governmental entity created by the states that will coordinate the Health Exchanges.

Once the Republican Plan is in place, there will be this massive Health Compact scheme between the states that voters have little ability to influence that regulates the exchanges.

Romney will repeal Federal mandates that individuals buy insurance, but he will give the states the ability to mandate purchase of insurance. I suspect that the states will systematically pass mandates because if they don't they will have massive unfunded liabilities created by the exchanges.

In the Romney plan, states will have the ability to pass a public option and to create state run health insurance agencies. You will see the blue states adopt these measures in a move to fully socialized care.

If Romney wins the 2012 election, we will be further along the road to fully socialized health care than if Obama is elected.

I am opposed to the Health Exchanges and socialized medicine. I am absolutely livid that Republicans steadfastly refuse to debate the merits of the free market contrasted with government run health exchanges.

So, I decided to start this split the split the vote effort to encourage people to vote third party. I will be voting for Gary Johnson. But, you know, feel free to write in people of vote for any candidate except Romney or Obama.

Imagine if 10% of the people voted third party in this hotly contended race. Both parties would look at the vote and determine that their message and methodology fail. They will then go back to the drawing board to work on a new platform and election strategy. This is especially true if the third party vote in a swing state affected the outcome of the election. Imagine if the third party vote in Colorado was 10% while the vote for two primary candidates was close?

Imagine if Obama takes Colorado, while the vote total for Romney and Johnson was greater than Obama's? The Republican Party might realize that throwing the Tea Party under the bus was a bad idea.

Yes, I realize that a split vote will give Obama a lame duck term, but I ask: Which is better?

An election in which Obama is left as a severely weakened lame duck, or one in which Romney rebrands PPACA as a Health Compact and moves the Republican Party left?

I want to see a restoration of free market health care. I see the 2012 election as a choice between worse and worse. If Obama is elected because of a split vote, both parties would attempt to create free market platforms to attract the independent vote. If Romney is elected, he will impose the Health Exchanges while moving the Republican Party left. The Democrats will react to Romney by moving even further.

I am a free marketeer who dreams of a restoration of the American experiment in self-rule. From my point of view, we will be in a much worse situation in 2016 with Romney as president than with Obama as a lame duck president.

No comments: