As the presidential election in the USA draws nearer, one of the hottest topics being debated is medical health, in particular health insurance.

President Obama managed to get his Bill through both US houses but has since had many challenges by those opposed to his reforms. However, while the reforms are not due to be implemented till 2014, the Supreme Court recently found in Obama’s favour.

But that hasn’t stopped the Democrats from attacking the Republican candidate Mitt Romney. In a TV advert it was suggested that Mr. Romney was directly responsible for the death of an Indiana woman after she was unable to get treatment for her condition simply because she lacked health insurance.

However the Romney camp appears to have tried to use the advert to attack Obama by implying the advert is in fact a lie.

Analysts who have been looking at the ad say that it is certainly tough and probably very effective, but they disagree with the Republican Party which questions its honesty. For example, the advert doesn’t accuse Mitt Romney of murder, but it does accuse him of being indirectly responsible for the woman’s death.

Seemingly the facts are that the woman’s husband lost his job and hence his health insurance cover. In the meantime, his wife became ill with terminal cancer and since died because she was unable to get treatment.

Critics say the woman did have her own health insurance provided by her employer, but she lost it after she resigned her position. But those in favour of the reforms point out that if her husband hadn’t lost his job she would have been covered for treatment.

Cases like this are probably going to be highlighted more and more as the presidential election gets nearer. The question is whether the US people want to go down a different health insurance route proposed by President Obama and the Democratic Party, or remain with a system which has been in place for decades.