This is a complex issue, and Jeff makes some good points. Personally, I think the mandate was uniquely suited to solve the problem of uninsured people getting free care in emergency rooms. It was there to address a specific problem. The Obamacare mandate is quite different. It was designed to spread the aggregate cost of insurance across the whole population, and include those who are low risk, young people, who often go without insurance. NEW PARAGRAPH: A mandate may have some role in reforming health care. But for now, it is the only way opponents of Obamacare can challenge it in court. If this is what it takes to end Obamacare, then it is a worthy sacrifice. But a mandate may have been a useful tool if used with a more sensible, market based approach. But used with a mountain of taxes and regulations, as it is with Obamacare, is clearly a disaster. NEW PARAGRAPH: All this said, the politics are much different. Most voters do not understand the economics or the nuances of the matter, so Romney must keep it simple, direct, and clear: His election will mean the end of Obamacare.

Wow! $1260. I wonder how much it costs for an uninsured person to be treated at an ER for a broken limb or an MI? This is a rhetorical question because we all know that the people who decline to buy insurance never get sick or become injured. They're just lucky that way. I was also wondering about your comment that Obamacare remains far from popular. Do you think that it's the lucky people who dislike it, Mr Jacoby? My son is not one of those people. He has diabetes, but thanks to President Obama's legislation, he can complete his education and remain covered by my policy. When he graduates and joins the labor force, he cannot be denied coverage because of his unlucky condition. Obamacare is very popular with him and me, but we're not one of the lucky people who are never injured or become gravely ill.

"Most voters do not understand the economics or the nuances of the matter, so Romney must keep it simple, direct, and clear". Very astute observation. I get it now, Governor Romney has to dumb it down a bit so all of us simpletons can understand what he means. Except the lad/lass from Virginia, of course. Perhaps he/she should go to work for Governor Romney, given his/her keen insight into how Governor Romney's thinking goes. Perhaps he's/she's already working for him. Seems like a match made in heaven.

'Better yet would be a president who resisted, instead of encouraging, our overreliance on insurance to pay for routine health care.' Why would that be better? Why shouldn't 'insurance' (and I'd define it differently by suggesting single-payer coverage is the way to go) pay for 'routine health care?'

Your responses to my quotes are becoming a little creepy. I welcome debate about anything I have said, and I assure you, I can support my arguments deeply. Making personal assumptions about someone you do not know, just because you cannot refute their argument makes you look very small.