A couple of points: Is the bias of the Globe seen in its casual reference to "romneycare" vs its more deferential reference to the "Obama health care overhaul", as well as its credit to the authors of Romnecare, rather than to its prime mover, Mitt Romney? NEW PARAGRAPH: The system the Globe speaks of is a good way to harness market competition, and did not require the huge expense that came with Romneycare. The Obama version also comes with mountains of regulation (free birth control, coverage to age 26....). No amount of competition will keep these regulations from driving up costs.

The approach appears to be working in Massachusetts. Regardless of who gets the credit or blame, the health of the population as a whole benefits. /// But then, should we be surprised, isn't that the role of government? to serve the needs of we the people? Or instead, is it preserve the status quo, give advantage to a few, bolster narrow political agendas, and control the social interactions of 'others'?

So much diatribe versus people who try to rein in runaway health costs, with no credible alternatives suggested give new meaning to the term "brain dead".

I have read that insurers who do not spend at least 80% of their premiums on healthcare have to either give their insureds a rebate or reduce premiums. Over a billion dollars in rebates may be due. (see http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/health-care-law-will-prompt-changes-in-2012-unless-the-supreme-court-intervenes/2012/03/08/gIQA0WSz7R_story.html ) If health insurers are not spending at least 80% of their money on health care, then it must be spending that money on administrative costs and salaries. Those are costs that can be controlled; why should we pay higher premiums to support some CEO's salary boost?

In Massachusetts it is Romneycare. If Republicans get their way in Congress and overturn Obamacare I will not leave Massachusetts for warmer climates, but stay here where I was born. Before we turned 65 years of age we owned a small business and paid for just the two of us $1850 a month for medical. With Romneycare we pay $452 a month and everything is covered including RX with small co pays. Slight savings wouldn't you say? If the nation does not accept Obamacare I hate to think about all the people who are not as lucky as those in Massachusetts. Facts have never interferred with the spews of the Republican clown car. It is so sad that Romney has to knock Obamacare so he can appeal to the far right and the insurance industries. He is not a bad man nor was he a bad governor but he must bite his tongue everytime he has to diss one of his greatest accomplishments.

Since when are "free birth control, coverage to age 26..." considered "mountains of regulation"? They are benefits of the program which were previously denied. If anything Richmond, your posts demonstrate your bias more so than that of the Globe. After all, this is an opinion piece! Maybe you should try the Herald; it would be more in keeping with your own "bias"...

Richmond12, typically, you are predictable in your posts, but this one is bordering on incoherent. You need to stay on message, bro/sis! You are not getting paid for "mixed messages". Mandated healthcare is right or an unspeakable attack on all Americans: which is it?

Your repetition of the attack on keeping family members on the family policy until age 26 got me thinking. Got kids? Are they perfectly healthy? They don't need any health insurance because they're so healthy, right? And if something bad happens to them, they'll just roll into the ER at St Mary's, right? No insurance, no problem! No skin off your nose, mom/dad!

Massachusetts could save even more by folding the Connector into MassHealth (who does the work anyhow), and putting the $30M it takes to run this foolish agency into adult dental benefits.