Via Reason, I see that the Boston Globe is arguing "yes" as is the New York Times, while CATO's Michael Cannon is arguing "no" (and some more "no" here). That probably gives conservatives and libertarians an inkling as to where they're likely to come down on the debate, but that aside, as someone who has historically been a big-time critic of RomneyCare, I think it's worth noting Michael Cannon's criticisms of the plan since I don't think it's beyond the bounds of reason to think that President Obama's much sought-after health insurance reform could wind up looking like RomneyCare, at least a little bit. Here's a large excerpt from Cannon's Providence Journal op-ed:
In 2006, Romney enacted a health-reform package strikingly similar to what Democrats are pushing through Congress, including individual and employer mandates, private health-insurance subsidies, broader Medicaid eligibility and a new health-insurance “exchange.” Lately, Massachusetts officials have been forced to raise taxes and cancel some residents’ coverage to pay for it all. Local headlines are decrying “the forbidding arithmetic of health-care reform.” ...
> Read more & share