Why I’m voting for Obama in the upcoming election
Posted on Jul 25, 2012 in Opinion
Tianijao Zhang/Cartoonist
“Tell me, why are you voting for Obama in November?” my uncle—a Republican and chief-operations manager of Ashley’s Home Furnishings — inquiries over dinner. I set my fork down on the ceramic plate to signal the start of a debate.
Round One: Health Care Reform
“Some Republicans seem more interested in limiting the government’s share of health care expenditures than in slowing overall spending. And some Democrats seem more interested in just preserving existing government programs than in making the entire health care system more efficient. Christina Romer from The New York Times would agree,” I began.
The Affordable Health Care Act will provide universal coverage and slow cost growth. In 2010, America spent $2.6 trillion on health care. Health care spending has slowly been rising for decades. Naturally, shouldn’t spending more on our health care imply that Americans receive better care and coverage? Sadly, America does not rank highly in overall quality when compared globally.
For life expectancy at 65, the United States ranked 12th place for males and 16th place for females. The U.S. mortality rate for asthma is double the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development average and was 5th highest among mortality rates in industrialized countries.
Across the states, there is substantial variation in cancer survival outcomes. Compared to the OECD average, America performs about two times more knee replacements, cardiac catheterizations, cardiac stents, C-sections, cataracts and CT scans. Obama took a critical step towards stopping the downward spiral of America’s health care system. Health professionals and business leaders need to compromise and support change in order to stop the self-defeating system currently in place.
Round Two: The Economy
“We need a president who can make policies that unite the two parties, and Obama has not been a strong enough politician to establish a common ground. The economy has suffered more than in W. Bush’s days,” my uncle argued.
Generally, Obama spent four years of Democratic majorities in both houses and the Senate. Obama’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act stimulus plan passed the House of Representatives without a single Republican vote. While in office, Obama has done as much as he can to help the economy and would have made more progress if he hadn’t met so much resistance from the Republican Party.
A strong presidential candidate should be able to unite both parties on the common ground of a proposal that is unanimously agreed upon as a good idea. But the two-party system that runs our government is in dire need of revision. It has given rise to extremists with either left or right-sided views, which leave little margin in the middle. Although Obama has failed to unite both parties, the status of the current economy isn’t entirely his fault. An unreasonable statement is that Obama’s four years in office have done more damage to our economy than George W. Bush’s eight years prior. Paul Krugman argues the economy of the “Obama era is a Republican economy.”
“What do I mean by saying that this is already a Republican economy? Look first at total government spending — federal, state and local.
Adjusted for population growth and inflation, such spending has recently been falling at a rate not seen since the demobilization that followed the Korean War.”
A recent article published by Adam Gopnik of The New Yorker reminds us of Adam Smith’s proposal of the free-market theory in correlation with Obama’s policy proposals.
“Smith…thinks problems arise when the rich are able to make the government take their side. A healthy sovereign state is what serves the public against the producers…He [a citizen] is induced thereby to believe that they [producers] will usually not pursue their interests in grossly oppressive ways, and that they will usually wish to live in a society in which other people are not grossly oppressed or deprived…It’s always easy, Smith knew, to provoke a cycle of exploitation, rage, and revolution; that’s what most of history has been. What’s hard is to replace it with one of “mildness” — of public decency, progressive reform and shared prosperity. You couldn’t have a free market unless you had all the institutions of trust in place that only a sovereign state can guarantee. Everything we mean by a free market depends on a functioning, sympathetic state — a state rooted not in selfish individualism but in a social sympathy so broadly articulated and institutionalized that every man is confident that he can make an honest deal with his fellow man.”
Round Three: Trust
Mitt Romney has made promises that the nation will be better if entrusted in his hands, yet he has not said how he proposes to do so. Romney has lost the trust of many Americans by flip-flopping on his statements. He lost my vote when I read The Boston Globe’s discovery that he worked at Bain Capital three years longer than he had stated.
“Government documents filed by Mitt Romney and Bain Capital say Romney remained chief executive and chairman of the firm three years beyond the date he said he ceded control, even creating five new investment partnerships during that time…A Romney campaign official, who requested anonymity to discuss the SEC filings, acknowledged that they “do not square with common sense.” But SEC regulations are complicated and quirky, the official argued, and Romney’s signature on some documents after his exit does not indicate active involvement in the firm.”
Romney’s defense does not satisfy truth. I would rather have a president who is honest about cons on his track record versus lies to cover them up. If Romney is showing a tendency to be dishonest, I don’t find him capable of remaining loyal to serving the American people.
I concluded my side of the debate with the following statement, reminiscent of an article by Atul Gawande: “If your primary concern is how each candidate can one up the other by viewing their policy proposals’ as indicators of their political stance rather than the policies’ capabilities to aid the nation’s economy and people, I am disappointed.”
Cassandra Garbutt
Staff Writer
isag@uab.edu
Well written article, though I disagree with the conclusions. From healthcare, to the economy, we are fighting the wrong battles in the overall war to create a better America. We need to come at them from a different angle.
For example, I don’t see “taxing” the general population to provide healthcare for those who are unable to purchase it for themselves as the solution to the problem. Let’s focus instead on why it is so expensive in the first place, which helps those who can’t afford it, as well as those who currently pay. America is so used to just medicating and operating the problems away, pharmaceutical companies and hospitals can charge pretty much whatever they like since they are the only option. They are the monopoly of the healthcare industry. Instead, why don’t we as citizens and those holding offices place a bigger emphasis on true preventative care: eating truly healthy and organic foods, exercising, etc. Would we make the lobbyists from those industries unhappy? Yes. Decrease the cost so that more people could purchase coverage for themselves? Yes. Result in healthier Americans? YES!!
I’m not saying Romney is the solution, but Obama is not my idea of the answer.
I’m not sure that you have explained the “how” in you comment here. Like Gov Romney, you pose an alternative solution that sounds agreeable and does not contain any of the negatives of the ACA, but you haven’t explained how you would put this into practice. Getting from napkin sketch to reality is really the hard part here, and posing an alternative plan on the basis that it doesn’t contain any of the negatives of the current solution is unrealistic IMHO. ANY plan to reform ANYTHING is a balance of good and bad, ideally, good for the greater amount of people, bad for only a few. When I put this into perspective, especially given the partisanship that exists within government, Obama is the only solution.
Im voting for Obama he will help us in many ways in the next four years give him a chance you already did so lets give another four
I think people are so wrap up in what can the Obama or Romney can do for them personally
because that’s what the people feed on, It’s what is best for the USA our children and grandkids,
Both parties get off ther high horse make the tuff choices, No mater what no one give you anything in life youhave to work for it, work or live on the streets and be a bumm, that was my choice when I was young, the Goverment will never have enough money to take care of you at best you will live in a dump drive a junk car and stuggle every day do drug or drink and make the problem that much worse, get up off your butt and try everyday is a new day and God gives us free will.
I want the whole world to be safe comfortable and happy, but that not the way it is,
DON’T VOTE BECAUSE YOU THINK ONE OR THE OTHER IS GOING TO GIVE YOU SOMTHING PERSONALLY, THAT IS STUPID AND SAD TO THINK THAT WAY OLD
AND YOUNG ALIKE.
Russell
If you enjoy Socialism Obama is your man. Worst President in history. I have never seen a more arrogant “you’re gonna do it my way like it of not because I’m smarter than you” kind of person. He Can just bypass Congress if it doesn’t go his way. Romney Isn’t perfect but he doesn’t threaten the Constitution and our freedoms at every turn. Obama has no record to stand on and his backrooms is beyond sketchy. Who is he? No one seems to know.
Some of what Romney believes makes me uncomfortable.