It all starts and ends with the intense, ugly and vitriolic differences between our political parties and increasingly the country itself. Everyone, the public and the politicians, knew that some sort of healthcare reform was necessary. That's why, notwithstanding all the bitterly contested town hall meetings and dueling press conferences, the Affordable Healthcare Act (AHCA) was passed a couple of years ago.

Unfortunately, once the bill gained momentum before passage, everyone jumped on board. The lobbyists papered the Congress with contributions and the Congress, both sides of the aisle, introduced the amendments that the lobbyists asked for, plus stuff they dreamed up themselves. As I've described the Affordable Healthcare Act before, it's a Rube Goldberg of a bill. It as some very good parts, but some really questionable, unclear and patently special interest serving content as well. And it's pretty clear that it doesn't "bend the curve" of healthcare costs. It needs to be amended with some well thought out and debated changes. Some will have to be pretty major.

So why is Mitt Romney intensely campaigning that he'll seek the repeal of the entire bill? He claims if elected he'll repeal it "on his first day". But he hasn't provided any specifics about what he would propose to replace it. What would "RomneyCare" amount to? Does he really expect people to vote for him, as he sponsors the repeal of legislation that will touch everyone's lives in a big way--without offering an alternative?

Romney was a supporter of the AHCA initially. What's now bitterly called ObamaCare closely matches the healthcare reforms that Romney sponsored and pushed thru in Massachusetts. Now a few years later, that program is popular and seems to be working. In fact, Romney still maintains that the plan is good for Massachusetts--but bad for the rest of the country! And surely he knows that there's no chance that his party could gain enough control in Congress to actually repeal the Act.

So why is Romney so loudly campaigning, promising repeal, when he surely knows that total repeal is impossible and what's really needed are well-designed amendments? I think I know why.

The answer lies with the public's inability and unwillingness to understand the content of the law, what makes sense to change, and what are the alternatives for what needs to be changed? Few in the country understand it. After all, the bill has more pages than "War and Peace". Few in the Congress have actually read it. Offering up specific proposed amendments is way too complicated for Romney to present and defend in a fast-moving political campaign. Furthermore, by actually creating detailed proposed amendments, he could confuse the public as well as possibly offend some big campaign contributors. I think that's the reason that all you hear from his campaign is repeal, but no detail of any significance on what replacement legislation he proposes to achieve the badly needed reform of the American healthcare system. Loudly campaigning to repeal a law so clearly identified with the opponent he so bitterly opposes will probably have more success in inciting his base voters.

The strategy carries risk. Clearly, now that ObamaCare has been ruled Constitutional, Romney will be asked, repeatedly and intensely, "if you want to repeal the Act, what are the details of the replacement you propose?" He'd have to be supremely skillful to dodge that line of questioning thru a months-long campaign.

Whether Romney can successfully skirt those types of questions is doubtful. But if he is elected, I expect that reality will set in quickly. I believe he would quickly turn away from continuing to divide the Congress and the country by seeking repeal, and begin to propose well thought-out amendments that would make the Affordable Health Care Act a more effective, more affordable program. The amendments would be designed to both appeal and offend both political parties equally. His leadership qualities will be tested should that happen. Will he be able to come up with amendments which are both effective improvements and also acceptable to both the right and left sides of the Congressional aisle? Can he bring both sides, currently so widely divided, to a legislative solution somewhere in the middle?

We'll see. As I've said before, he'll get my vote. But the risk I take in voting for him is that he won't do what I think he will, that somehow he'll actually repeal ObamaCare. That would be a terribly divisive move, and really bad for the health and well-being of Americans.

I feel that changing my 2008 vote for Obama to Romney in 2012 is necessary for a couple big reasons. First, the President's leadership ability, of both the Congress and the country, has proven weak. Another four years of his service as president will likely divide our government and our country even further. Regarding ObamaCare, I don't think that any amendment of "his" bill will be anywhere on his political agenda, despite the obvious fact that such changes are desperately needed. All I can hope for is that Romney would be an improvement. But I'll admit that all it is is hope.

you made it very clear why I can't vote for him. Not even elected and saying things he cannot do. My major problem with Romney is he has no platform. What does he really stand for? Real leadership takes courage and I just do not see it in him.

A very thoughtful post VK. But you really need to reconsider who you will be voting for. Romney is but a puppet.