That's an interesting editorial, but only demonstrates that the writer would rather get into a morass of details about the plan than discuss the reason that it was enacted. I'm not carrying a torch for Romney or the Massachusetts legislature or either political party, but the dilemma faced by them all was the imposition on States, by the Federal government, of the obligation to insure a non-negotiable right to medical care by all who applied. That simply doesn't carry over to the Federal plan no mater how many similarities the author wants to point out between the two.