I agree with bensauer. Romney's post was reasonable, like most of what he says. What's missing is a loud and clear "I MADE A MISTAKE IN MASSACHUSETTS". Until then, I don't see how he will get enthusiastic conservative support, including mine.

Compared to Obama, Romney would make a terrific president. So it's frustrating that he won't just say that the Mass. HC reform was a mistake.

First of all, there's no question the Mass. bill is, in fact, a failure. HC premiums continue to rise (which results in less generous policies for those who remain insured), the costs to the Commonwealth are enormous, and the only "plus" is a negligible increase in the number of people technically insured (not necessarily better health for those people, BTW). So calling the Mass. reform a mistake wouldn't be a symbolic gesture, but simply an exercise in truth-telling.

Second, exactly whose support does Mitt imagine he would lose by calling Romneycare a mistake? Seriously, whatever support Mitt currently enjoys is DESPITE Romneycare, not because of it.

Third, Romney keeps talking about how states are supposed to be "laboratories" to try different things that may or not be appropriate for the country at large. OK, so if he believes that, then isn't there even a stronger obligation on his part to declare Romneycare a mistake? In a real laboratory, once an experiment demonstrates that the hypothesis is wrong, you toss out the hypothesis. You don't stubbornly adhere to it just because it was your idea. Mitt's refusal to explicitly repudiate the Mass. style of reform is even more baffling because he's now openly advocating "free-market" reforms of the HC system. At best, his position constitutes a mixed message.

Finally, everyone perceives that the only reason Mitt ISN'T disavowing is that he doesn't want to be seen as flip-flopping on what was once a big issue for him. But since everyone can see this is his real motivation, it just makes him look small to let that selfish concern dictate his position on such an enormous issue. It would be like a sincerely converted pro-life politician's refusing to take a public pro-life stance out of fear of being perceived as flip-flopping on his previous pro-abortion position. Flip-flopping can raise significant questions about a politician's judgment and make-up, but frankly it's a hell of a lot more important to wind up on the right side of an issue than it is to maintain a consistent position.

Mitt, please listen up: You need to sit down with an interviewer and openly acknowledge that Romneycare has turned out to be a bad deal for Massachusetts, and shouldn't be considered the model for any state or country concerned about reining in HC costs or expanding coverage. Feel free to go whole hog on market-based reforms. Then you need to fire whoever it is on your staff who has been advising you otherwise.

Smilin' Mitt will never acknowledge that he made a mistake with Romneycare, because in his heart of hearts he is a right-liberal, NOT a conservative. At the moment he is just politically pandering to what he thinks the Tea Party might want to hear. However, ultimately Romney wouldn't know what an underlying set of conservative principles was if it sat up and hit him in the teeth.

Thanks but no thanks... if you really want to change the direction this country is headed, and keep it from sailing off the progressive cliff, then do not vote for Mitt Romney.

Thanks Ms. Turner.

Until Mitt admits he made a pathetic liberal-minded mistake he can go fly a freekin' kite!!! His current "B.S." and rationalizations are proof that he would be no better than the current lib-progressive big government disingenuous thief that lives in the White House today. Good grief!!!

Gracie-Marie, it is you who doesn't get it. Maybe you cannot grasp it. Obama is not in favor of state solutions regardless of what he says. He wants a single-payer system and that cannot be accomplished by 50 different state solutions. Therefore, any waivers granted by Obama administration would have strings attached and retain many unfunded mandates upon the states.

Further, in addition to mistakenly believing Romney's waivers would be the same as Obama's waivers, you have fallen for the Obama/Axelrod ploy that Obamacare is the exact same plan as exists in Massachusetts. That is wrong and if it were, why would Massachusetts even want a waiver?

And if Romney could sign an EO granting waivers on day one, Obama if he truly believed in states rights, can do the same thing today. But he won't because it is a myth, a deceipt, that he favors states rights.

Use your head Gracie. You miss all this and so much more because you have bought the lies of Obama that Romney's plan is the same, and state waivers are too, but they are not.

Missing from this discussion are A) the implications to our consitutional form of government of granting blanket waivers, and B) the inherent temptation towards cronyism and corruption on the part of a president of either party in the position to grant such waivers by executive fiat. As horrible as this bill is and as corrupt as the process of passing it was, the fact is that it is the law of the land. Signing waivers, as Obama's appointees are doing now, simply alleviates the pressure to permanently kill this thing while putting in place the ultimate incentive for silencing dissent and contributing to the ruling party. The same would basically be true under Romney.