The Wall Street Journal is noting Mitt Romney’s turn towards freedom in health policy. While there were some promising aspects of the plan the former governor shepherded through the Massachusetts legislature a couple of years ago, it contained far too many mandates and regulations. Now, Romney is pitching a national approach to the issue that relies on deregulation, tax reform, and innovative technologies and treatments. The explanation from the Romney camp is interesting:

As for why he would use a different philosophy as president than as governor, they say he would have greater powers in the White House. “Massachusetts didn’t have the federal tax code to play with,” said Glenn Hubbard, a former Bush administration chief economist, now advising the Romney campaign.

Another factor, however, is that at least for a time, Romney’s team in Massachusetts sided with the Heritage Foundation in a long-running dispute within the conservative movement about whether an individual mandate to purchase health insurance should be part of a market-based (or perhaps, more properly, a quasi-market-based) approach to the issue. Other groups such as the Cato Institute and the National Center for Policy Analysis have argued against such mandates. You can read more about the origins of the dispute in this 1993 piece.