RomneyCare Vs. ObamaCare - The Big Differences

	RomneyCare	ObamaCare
Overall Size and Scope	1) Whole bill was 70 pages 2) Romney vetoed significant sections of the bill including the employer penalty for not providing health insurance 3) Romney favored an “opt out” provision from the mandate 4) Romney wanted no mandated benefits for health care coverage, 'catastrophic' coverage only 5) No federal gov. insurance option 6) Intended as a market driven solution to healthcare	1) Whole bill was 2,074 pages 2) Very broad regulation of the insurance industry including an employer penalty for not providing health insurance  3) No “opt out” provision 4) Many mandated benefits. Establishes a 15 member board of unelected bureaucrats with great control over health care benefits and risks rationing health care 5) Leaves open the option of creating single-payer gov. insurance in the future 6) Intended as a step toward gov. run insurance
Costs	1) No new taxes! 2) Romney balanced the state’s budget first, then passed healthcare law 3) No cuts to Medicare benefits 4) Modest cost to state (only added 1% to state budget)	1) Increased taxes by $500 billion -Taxes people who don’t buy insurance 2) Despite massive federal gov. debt, Obama still passed Obamacare 3) Cuts Medicare by $719 billion 4) Overall costs unknown!
Popularity	1) Very strong bipartisan support 2) Strong special interest support 3) Very popular among the public in Massachusetts 4) Strong consensus of approval was built in the state to support the law -Consensus was built to support an individual mandate	1) Absolutely no bipartisan support 2) Very controversial and divided special interest groups 3) Unpopular in nation overall 4) No consensus was built to support a mandate
Does the Constitution Define it as a “Tax” or “Penalty/Fee”?	1) Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts ruled state mandates are “penalties” because states have different authority and powers than the fed. gov. -Massachusetts constitution never considered this a tax	1) Supreme Court ruled that federal gov. only has the authority to enact this law by its ability to “tax,” and does not meet the required standards to be considered a “penalty.” -This tax will be enforced by the IRS -Breaks Obama’s promise that he would not raise taxes on the middle class
Federalism	1) A unique solution created by a state to solve its particular problems -Through collaboration and discussion, Massachusetts created a consensus among stakeholders to support the new law 2) Much easier to change and adapt a state law if problems arise. If MA doesn’t like the law, they can change it.  -ObamaCare, however, is a new federal/nationwide entitlement program (like Medicare & Social Security), thus extremely difficult to reform.	1) Federal gov. “one-size-fits-all” plan -Doesn’t take into account that each state is unique in important ways such as: A)Vastly different debt levels between states (some states can’t afford new spending on health care) B)Some states have twice the percentage of uninsured citizens (Much greater costs will be imposed on states with a larger percentage of uninusured citizens) C)Conservative states and citizens will reject implementation of federal gov. plan, including the individual mandate
Different Outcomes from Each Plan	1) 98.1% of adults and 99.8% of children have health insurance 2) The number of employers offering health insurance went up from 70% to 76% 3) Did not make doctor shortages worse 4) Overall, premium prices have gone down for most groups 5) No negative affect on job creation in the state 6) Created to help the poor afford health insurance	1) According to the CBO, 30 million people will still not have health insurance after fully implemented. Only covers an additional 6.3% of Americans. 10% of America will still be uninsured 2) The CBO estimates that fewer people will get health insurance from their employer  3) NY Times says it will make doctors shortages worse in some areas of the country 4) Since passage, premium prices have risen 9% per year 5) CBO estimates there will be less jobs as a result 6) Some states will have almost everyone in the state getting some form of subsidy to buy health insurance

Donald Trump Gets Trumped

Today, Karl Rove spoke out against Donald Trump saying that Trump should not be allowed to be moderator of a Republican Debate in Iowa at the end of December. Rove raises some good questions against Trump such as "Is it appropriate for someone who is going to endorse a particular candidate to moderate a debate?" And the even better point made by Rove "Can someone who is claiming that he (Trump) might run for president as a third party be allowed to moderate a debate?"

I give kudos to Mr. Rove for speaking out.

I am totally against a Trump moderated debate simply because Trump does not have the proper credentials to be moderator. The most recent moderating performed by "The Donald," was Trump judging the Miss America Pageant. And now he wants to judge a GOP debate? I don't think so. A debate moderated by Trump will create buzz for the network but will ultimately distract from the candidates on the stage and instead people will focus on the "sideshow" of Mr. Trump.

Unfortunately, many of the GOP candidates want Trump's endorsement (or more likely, Trump's millions of dollars deposited in a their Super PAC), so the candidates are reluctant to express their unhappiness with Trump as moderator. It is unfortunate so I am glad Rove took a stand on this issue.

What is funny to me is why the GOP candidates even want Trump's endorsement. Trump was totally discredited as a serious candidate last summer when Trump attacked Obama on "birther" grounds. Trump's false claim that he had people in Hawaii doing research on Obama's birth certificate and "they cannot believe what they are finding" is such a line of BS that when Obama finally released his birth certificate shortly after Osama bin Laden was killed, Trump's poll numbers dropped like a rock.

Trump frequently refers to Ron Paul as a "joke candidate," but the truth is Trump is the joke candidate and he should not be allowed to moderate a Republican debate.

Poll: Voters Like Much of Health Care Law — But Not the Individual Mandate

Here is the summary from the WSJ:

Expect campaign strategists to pay close attention to new polling data on the politics of health care out Wednesday from the Kaiser Family Foundation. With health care already a major issue in the 2012 election, the nonpartisan policy group’s latest poll has seven findings message-crafters might find interesting:

1. The law is still unpopular but not as disliked as it was in October. In the latest tracking poll, 44% of voters held an unfavorable opinion of it compared with 51% who said in October that they viewed it unfavorably.

2. Among the 44% who viewed the law unfavorably, more than three quarters said they felt that way at least in part because of their “general feelings about the direction of the country and what’s going on in Washington right now.”

3. Even though there are more voters who don’t like the law than voters who do, some 50% want to keep it, and only 38% definitely know they want to repeal it.

4. Almost every individual element in the package is popular with a majority of the public, especially the requirements that insurers provide easy-to-understand plan summaries (84% like that) and  provide coverage to people regardless of their medical histories (67% like that).  Even increasing the payroll tax on higher-income earners to help fund Medicare is acceptable to more than half of the respondents.

5. A majority of people – 63% — don’t like the requirement that they carry insurance or pay a fine.

6. The poll showed that when respondents were told about specific provisions, the tended to like them, but the often didn’t know they were in the law. That lack of information could hurt Democrats. Much of the law isn’t scheduled to kick in until well after the election — 2014.  But starting this year, insurance companies must cover preventive care  (including contraception) without a copay. Most respondents think that’s great.

7. There’s still some misinformation out there. Some 56% of respondents thought that the overhaul included a new government-run insurance plan to be offered along with private plans. (It didn’t.) And 35% of respondents thought that the law allowed for a government panel to make decisions about end-of-life care for people on Medicare. (Again, it didn’t.)

The full poll results are here.  It has a margin of error of three percentage points.


For Romney supporters, this is an interesting poll. The public, and especially independents,  definitely like certain parts of the new bill. The parts of the law that people like are:

1) being able to keep kids on their parents insurance till age 26
2) barring insurers from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions
3) barring insurers from having a maximum annual amount of money insurers will pay for catastrophic  or extensive care
4) requiring insurers to provide easy to understand summaries of health care plans
5) increasing payroll taxes on the wealthy to help fund Medicare
6) requiring insurers to cover preventative care without a copay

I think former Senator Bill Frist said it best when he said that about 70% of the new health care law is good. Most conservatives tend to forget that even if the Supreme Court rules ObamaCare as unconstitutional, the Supreme Court will only strike down the elements of the law that are unconstitutional leaving much of the law in place. If much of the law remains in place, who better to deal with the law than a man who has been immersed in a similar law for over six years? Of course Mitt Romney would be the most qualified. 

28 States Now Finished the First Major Threshold in Setting Up Insurance Exchanges

WSJ has the summary that 28 states have now cleared the first phase of implementing a Health Insurance Exchange.

Interestingly, many of the states that are currently suing the federal gov. to overturn the health care law are still implementing the law. Federal law states that if a particular state has not set up an exchange by 2013, then the federal gov. will step in and run the exchange for that state.

Mitt Romney's Health Care Consistency

It may come as no surprise to you but the press has gotten a bit lazy. All too often, the press spews out stories about how Romney has "flip-flopped" on an issue without doing their due diligence and actually finding out if the charges against Mitt are true.

Let's talk about health care. Despite what Romney's detractors and rivals would have you think, Romney's health care policies remain the same today as they always have. Romney's health care plan for America can be stated simply and succinctly: Romney wants each state to have the same freedom that he had in Massachusetts to innovate and design their own unique health care policies.

Byron York, chief political correspondent of the Washington Examiner, summarized it best when he said this:

On many, many occasions, Romney said he believes Romneycare is a model for some states to follow but would not be a model for all states and certainly not for a federal plan. 

"I think it's a great plan, but I'm a federalist," Romney said on "Meet the Press" in December 2007. "I don't believe in applying what works in one state to all states if different states have different circumstances." 

In that 2007 interview, Romney pointed out that a relatively small number, 7 percent, of the Massachusetts population was uninsured. "Texas has 25 percent," he said. "Given the kind of differences between states, I'm not somebody who is going to say, 'What I did in Massachusetts I'm going to now tell every state they have to do it the same way.'" 

But as much as he stressed federalism, Romney also stressed that he would be happy to see many states adopt his plan. "I think it's a good model for other states," he continued. "Maybe not every state but most." At the federal level, Romney said he would "give every state the same kind of flexibility we got from the federal government." That's the Romney position, then and now.

Romney wants the same kind of flexibility for other states that "he had" because Romney received special approval from the federal government (the Bush Administration at the time), to bring about the Massachusetts health care reform plan now known as "RomneyCare." The federal government allowed for Massachusetts to spend federal dollars in a totally different way than any other state was allowed to do at the time. Romney got approval to use Medicaid money to not just pay for health care services, but to help the poor buy a health insurance policy from a private insurance company. In order to give each state the same flexibility and freedom that he had, Romney wants to "block grant" all Medicaid funding to the states so that states don't have the excessive rules and regulations that typically come with accepting money from the federal government.

Since the passage of RomneyCare in 2006, Romney has been consistent regarding his plan for other states: States are free to adopt some, all, or none of the MA health care plan.

Here is an interview with Gov. Romney on NPR on April 8, 2006 where he said this:

Q: Stepping back, what impact do you think this will have outside Massachusetts?
A: Around the country, people are watching because they know this is big. Some on the far left don’t like it because it’s not a single-payer universal coverage program. Some on the far right don’t like it because they don’t like government telling people that they need to get insurance. But the great majority of people, both on the left and the right, believe that this is a step forward.
Q: Can this model be used in other states?
A: My guess is a lot of states will choose to adopt one or another of the measures we’ve put in place here. But most will give it a little time and watch to see what our experience is. That’s the great thing about having 50 states and the principle of federalism. Let us experiment ourselves. Let us learn from one another.

Romney believes that states should have the power to experiment and innovate by giving them Medicaid funds without all the regulations. Additionally, states can be encouraged to innovate by offering "innovation grants" to states that come up with the most promising plans on how to lower costs or increase access to health care in their particular state. These innovation grants would help pay for the cost of implementing the new policy.

Here is what Romney says in his book, No Apology:

"My own preference is to let each state fashion its own program to meet the distinct needs of its citizens. States could follow the Massachusetts model if they choose, or they could develop plans of their own. These plans, tested in the state ‘laboratories of democracy,’ could be evaluated, compared, improved upon, and adopted by others."

In summary, Romney's health care policies remain the same today as they have from the beginnning. Romney's health care plan for America is simply to give each state the same freedom that he had in Massachusetts to innovate and design their own unique health care policies by block granting Medicaid funds and providing "innovation grants." From the outset Romney has said that states are free to adopt some, all, or none of the Massachusetts health care law and that the MA health care model would not work in all states. Romney has always emphasized state-level initiatives to improve health care and certainly never advocated a federal plan.

In regard to the press, it's disappointing that the press continues to mindlessly repeat exaggerations and supposed flip-flop stories without doing the research to confirm whether the stories are true, or if a political opponent is behind the exaggerations. As Romney supporters, we can make a difference. If you read an article that falsely claims Romney has flip-flopped or distorted Romney's views, send them an email. Having sent many such emails myself, I can tell you that these emails are often read and considered. For example, there used to be a lot of stories in the press stating how RomneyCare was bankrupting the state of Massachusetts. We don't hear that story being told much anymore because most news organizations now see that it is false. Sending a short email where you back up your claim with links can make a big difference.

To find out more about RomneyCare, including a discussion about individual mandates, be sure to peruse our new "RomneyCare FAQ" page here.

New 'RomneyCare FAQ Page' Now Available on Mitt Romney Central!!!

After a lot of work, we here at 'Mitt Romney and Health Care' have teamed up with 'Mitt Romney Central' to produce the internet's first RomneyCare FAQ page!!! It is an exciting moment for us to be able to collaborate with the team at Mitt Romney Central to produce such a thorough and extensive analysis of RomneyCare.

Please take a moment to check out the page here.

Our goal in producing this FAQ page was to provide answers to many of the most common questions and misconceptions people have about RomneyCare. Because health care is such a complicated field, answers to difficult questions can be hard to find. We hope this page will serve as a resource to the public and Romney supporters when looking for answers about RomneyCare.

Of course it is impossible to answer every question, but if you have a burning question that doesn't appear to be answered in the FAQ page, please let us know.

Herman Cain Has an Oops Moment

The New York Times just released this video that portrays a stunning lack of knowledge Herman Cain has about Libya. In the beginning of the video, Herman Cain has to be reminded of what Libya is; he can't even recall what country it is that they are talking about. It is rather stunning.

Check it out here.

Supreme Court To Hear Case Against ObamaCare

The Supreme Court formally announced its decision to hear arguments against President Obama's new health care law. The Supreme Court has devoted a significant amount of time to hearing arguments for and against the health care law, the most time allotted in recent memory.

It is nice to hear that the Supreme Court has finally gotten around to "accepting" the case. I am a little frustrated by the slowness of this process however. The Supreme Court says that it will most likely make a ruling in late July. It is unfortunate that we have to wait 8 months before the ruling. In that 8 months, billions of dollars will be spend by the federal government and the states in order to implement the law.

Mark Halperin Discusses Romney's Unique Advantages

Mark Halperin brings up some great points about Romney's unique advantages in the upcoming race. Here are the 10 points that Halperin discusses.

Publishing on Mitt Romney Central

After much work, I have written a summary of RomneyCare for the good folks at Mitt Romney Central. There is a lot of new information about to be published there that I haven't written about on this blog, so be sure to take a look when we finally get the information out.

The information is going to be on a page called "RomneyCare FAQ."

The RomneyCare FAQ page is the kind of thing I wish the Romney campaign had written long ago to address misconceptions about Romney's health care plan. A thorough summary of RomneyCare that answers many of the common misconceptions is something that is badly needed. Because health care is such a complicated topic, misconceptions are extremely common, even pervasive.

I am sure the FAQ page won't answer every question out there that people may have, but it is my hope that it will answer some of the more common questions and help move the ball forward in informing people about the important advances Mitt Romney made to health care. Here's to hoping.

Romney's Medicare Proposal

Here it is in Romney's own words:

Our next president must protect Medicare, improve the program, and keep it sustainable for generations to come. Several principles will guide my efforts.First, Medicare should not change for anyone in the program or soon to be in it. We should honor our commitments to our seniors.Second, as with Social Security, tax hikes are not the solution. We couldn’t tax our way out of unfunded liabilities so large, even if we wanted to.Third, tomorrow’s seniors should have the freedom to choose what their health coverage looks like. Younger Americans today, when they turn 65, should have a choice between traditional Medicare and other private healthcare plans that provide at least the same level of benefits. Competition will lower costs and increase the quality of healthcare for tomorrow’s seniors.The federal government will help seniors pay for the option they choose, with a level of support that ensures all can obtain the coverage they need. Those with lower incomes will receive more generous assistance. Beneficiaries can keep the savings from less expensive options, or they can choose to pay more for a costlier plan.Finally, as with Social Security, the eligibility age should slowly increase to keep pace with increases in longevity.These ideas will give tomorrow’s seniors the same kinds of choices that most Americans have in their healthcare today. The future of Medicare should be marked by competition, choice, and innovation—rather than bureaucracy, stagnation, and bankruptcy. 

A conservative columnist from the New York Times, David Brooks, recently praised the plan:

Romney's Medicare proposal exemplifies the sort of big reformist vision that should be at the center of a serious Republican campaign. 

Brooks goes on to discuss the positives of the plan by saying that it allows for America to experiment with different health care reform options to see which ones are most effective.

Ohio Rejects ObamaCare's Individual Mandate

Today Ohio voters rejected ObamaCare's individual mandate that requires all persons to purchase health insurance or pay a tax penalty. Even with a large democratic turnout, 66% of Ohio voters rejected the idea of an individual mandate to buy health insurance.

Considering that Ohio is a large swing state, and that there was a heavy democratic turnout, this is a huge victory for the anti-ObamaCare crowd. The vote symbolizes how the individual mandate is unpopular nationwide and should not have been used as a federal plan imposed on all states. As Romney frequently said from the beginning, states should not be forced to use the individual mandate. What worked in Massachusetts may not work in every state, especially if the citizenry are opposed to the mandate approach. Romney always intended that states have an open dialogue discussing different health care reform options and then experiment with health care reform.

While the World Focuses on Cain, Romney Focuses on Obama

While the national press has been absorbed in the Herman Cain scandal, Romney's campaign remains disciplined and even elegant in its objective of attacking Obama.

It is interesting to watch the Cain scandal unfold and observe Cain's flat-footed and inconsistent response's to the media's constant questioning. Rick Perry also is struggling to regain his footing after a strange speech in New Hampshire where the candidate appeared as though he was under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

So while other campaigns are struggling just to keep their head above water, Romney's campaign is orchestrating an elaborate attack against Obama where Romney is using a political tactic know as "bracketing" against Obama. Bracketing is where a candidate follows his opponent and speaks at the same venues right after his opponent. Romney has been bracketing Obama in many of Obama's recent media appearances. A smart move for the front-runner that shows not only the Romney campaign's political acumen, but also the decisive edge Romney holds over his rivals. Romney even coined a phrase called "Obama's 4-4-4 plan" which says that Obama's strategy is "in 4 years to increase the national debt by 4 trillion and to have 4 million people out of work." The Obama 4-4-4 plan was so popular that it was even posted on some liberal websites such as Talking Points Memo.

So while Romney's rivals struggle just to keep their heads above water, Romney continues to stay on message and move forward with his goals. It is really quite impressive to witness such a stark contrast.

New York Times: Romney is the Inevitable Nominee

Check out this article in the New York Times stating that Romney is the inevitable GOP nominee. Of course, I hope they are right, but in my opinion I think it is still a little too early to for this kind of prophecy.


My favorite quotes from the article: 

When you have eliminated the impossible, as Sherlock Holmes told Watson, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. This rule holds for presidential contests as well as for whodunits: Romney is improbable, but his rivals are impossible, and so he will be the nominee. 

Romney’s path to the nomination is more wide open than for any nonincumbent in decades. He should win New Hampshire and Nevada, Florida and Michigan. He should dominate the Rust Belt, the Northeast and the Mountain West. And if need be, he can seal the nomination late, with wins in the New York and California primaries.

Herman Cain: Making It Up As He Goes Along

I was amused to hear that Cain has announced a significant change to his 9-9-9 tax plan. After coming under heavy criticism by his rivals saying that Cain's plan would actually raise taxes on the poor and middle class, Cain has decided to give a tax deduction to the poor; a new tax deduction, making his plan a 9-0-9 plan.

Of course Cain is trying to make it appear like this change was part of his plan the whole time, but I just don't buy it. The number of blunders that Cain has made recently underscore the fact that he is a novice who has never held political office.

Romney's Mormonism Takes the Stage

Unfortunately, the Republican race has taken a detour down "Religion Alley" in the last few days. I guess it was bound to happen at some point in the 2012 race, but it is unfortunate just the same.

As a response to the religious discussion that is playing out on all the major news and media outlets, let me draw your attention to the major speech Romney gave about his religion back in 2007 where he attempted to answer many of the same questions that are being asked today.

It is worth re-reading the speech to see where Romney stands on the issue and how he would govern.

Here is the link for Romney's 2007 speech.

ObamaCare to go to Supreme Court

Today the Obama administration announced that it is petitioning the Supreme Court to hear arguments on ObamaCare.

All I have to say is . . . FINALLY! Everyone has known it would come down to the Supreme Court but we have had to take the procedural steps to get to that point, and those steps have taken a year and a half.

Both the Obama administration and the opposing 26 states who are suing the federal government say that they are glad the case will be taken up by the highest court in the land. Both sides put on an air of confidence stating that they were sure their position would be upheld.

One article in USA Today said that a ruling by the Supreme Court would most likely happen before July of next year, putting it just 4 months away from election time. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out with the 2012 elections.

Did Ronald Reagan Support RomneyCare?

OK, OK, Ronald Reagan died two years before the passage of RomneyCare, so Reagan never said anything about RomneyCare. But I recently came across a letter written by Ronald Reagan on Nov. 13, 1979 where Reagan says he is considering a plan very similar to RomneyCare. Take a look and see what you think. (This letter is found in the book, Reagan - A Life in Letters, page 344, compiled by Kiron Skinner).

Background: During the 1980 campaign, Reagan writes to a Russian-American professor and supporter in response to questions on health insurance, Social Security, and the Soviet threat.

November 13, 1979

Dear Professor Nikolaev:

It was good to get your letter and have the benefit of your thinking on some very important subjects. I am most grateful for your generous words about my speech on the 13th.

With regard to the vice presidency, if it should fall to my lot to recommend a vice president, I assure you that it would be someone of my own persuasion.

Regarding national health insurance, you could reassure your student, Miss Lee Catcher, that while I am opposed to socialized medicine, I have always felt that medical care should be available for those who cannot otherwise afford it. I have been looking into a program whereby government might pay the premiums for health insurance for those who cannot afford it and, at the same time, make such premiums for others a tax credit or deduction, preferably credit to encourage more use of private health insurance. There is also the problem of insurance for those catastrophic cases where the medical care goes on for years at a tremendously high cost. I proposed a form of government insurance for that in California when I was governor, but we couldn't get any legislative support for it. I do believe this is a particular problem which must be faced and where the government could have a hand.

Regarding Social Security, I have simply said that the government must do something to resolve the actuarial imbalance which is going to have us finding the well dry down the road a few years. I have, however, always insisted that the first requirement is that those people dependent on Social Security must be assured it will not be denied them or taken from them.

I appreciate very much your views on the world situation and read them with great interest. There can be no question that we must not minimize in any way the threat to the free world by the Soviet Union.

And, last, but certainly not least important, may I thank you very much for your generous contribution to my campaign. I hope you have a very happy holiday season.

Best regards,
Ronald Reagan

I find it most intriguing that Reagan himself was considering a plan where the government pays the premiums for citizens to buy private health insurance. That is RomneyCare at its core; help those who cannot buy insurance by having the government pay all or part of their premiums, thus encouraging people to use private health insurance companies and not government health insurance. I find the two plans remarkably similar. Would Reagan have liked every aspect of RomneyCare? Probably not (and neither did Romney), but the core of RomneyCare, where the government helps citizens buy private insurance by paying for their premiums, is undoubtedly something Reagan would have been very supportive of.

Also, I love Reagan's sentiments of "compassionate conservatism" where he says "I have always felt that medical care should be available for those who cannot otherwise afford it." The GOP today, I fear, has become so concerned with cutting the deficit that they have lost that Reagan compassion to provide medical care for those who need it. We all were watching the last presidential debate in Florida where the moderator, Wolf Blitzer, asked Ron Paul what should be done if a 30 year old person who doesn't have insurance "gets injured or finds himself in a bad way" and needs expensive medical care, but the 30 year old has no way of paying for the care? Blitzer asked, "Should we just let him die?" And the alarming call from the audience was "Yeah!" We can't allow those kinds of sentiments to control our party, but unfortunately, those sentiments are becoming more and more common in the GOP, and it is just not right.

One of the reasons I support Romney is because he is a compassionate conservative, like Reagan, when it comes to health care. Romney has a record of reforming health care and making affordable health care available to everyone. As the Boston Globe calls it, "It was an amazing political feat. Who else on the Republican side had tried to do anything as difficult or ambitious - much less gotten it done?"

Hit or Miss

While the majority of ObamaCare remains unpopular, one provision of the law is quite popular and growing more popular with time. The provision that allows Young Adults under the age of 26 to stay on their parents health insurance continues to be popular and is making a big impact on the number of young people covered by medical insurance.

The number of young adults enrolling on their parents insurance plans has grown much faster than expected. It is estimated that nearly one million young adults have acquired medical insurance through their parents in the last year and a half since ObamaCare was passed.

So while some aspect of the law are popular, other aspects of the law remain slow to catch on and even unpopular in some cases. So it appears that the law is Hit or Miss so far.

State Mandates vs. Federal Mandates

In an interview with Bill O'Reilly, Romney made an interesting argument supporting mandates at the state level versus mandates made at the federal level.

Romney said that even though people may not realize it, the state government has lots of mandates on citizens, mandates that would be unconstitutional for the federal government to do. For example, state governments mandate that all kids go to school. The federal government can't mandate that all kids go to school because the federal constitution doesn't give the federal gov. that power.

I don't think most people realize that each state has its own constitution, and that the federal government also has its constitution. Too often when we talk about "the constitution," we only think of the federal constitution. But it is important to remember that each state has its own constitution as well, and that it is the state constitution that gives the state different powers than the federal government. The powers of the state constitution are much more broad and encompassing because it is meant to fill in the gaps where the federal constitution has been prohibited to go. The founding fathers wanted a limited federal government and as such, they gave it a very limited and narrow set of powers. It is the state governments that fill in the gaps with their own unique constitutions.

Also, state governments mandate that drivers must have auto insurance. The federal government can't do that either. Romney goes on to say that some people counter that auto insurance is only required if you have a car. And Mitt responds to that by saying "Well what state do you live in where you don't need a car?"