Mitt Romney just gave a more articulate defense of Obamacare than President Obama ever has. He continues to believe that the individual mandate is a good idea, despite the fact that the “free-rider” problem is a myth. His effort to make a distinction between Romneycare and Obamacare was not persuasive: If anything, he convincingly made the opposite case, that Romneycare and Obamacare are based on the same fundamental concept. 
 
 In recent months, Romney has claimed that Romneycare was a specific solution for the specific needs of Massachusetts. But in his remarks, he did not name one specific aspect of the Massachusetts health-care environment that is unique to that state. If there are no important differences between the Massachusetts health-care system and that of other states, why shouldn’t he believe that Romneycare should be the model for every other state? 
 
 Indeed, here is what Romney wrote in the Wall Street Journal on April 11, 2006, the day before he signed his signature health-care legislation: 
 
 How much of our health-care plan applies to other states? A lot. Instead of thinking that the best way to cover the uninsured is by expanding Medicaid, they can instead reform insurance. 
 
 The final straw, for me, was when Romney said that “there’s not a lot that I want to borrow from France and Switzerland.” I’m with him on France, but Switzerland (despite its own individual-mandate issues) has the most market-oriented health-care system in the developed world. I would love to borrow Switzerland’s exceptionally low levels of state-health spending, which they manage to achieve while providing universal coverage and high-quality care. Their tax rates aren’t shabby either. 
 
 — Avik Roy is an equity research analyst at Monness, Crespi, Hardt & Co., and blogs on health-care policy at The Apothecary. You can follow him on Twitter at @aviksaroy. ||||| TheWashingtonPost Romney’s speech: He digs deeper 
 
 This morning the Wall Street Journal editorial board accused Mitt Romney of being a technocrat and not a conservative. In his speech in Ann Arbor, Mich., today, Romney proved the editorial board correct. You could tell it wasn’t going to be a good outing when it became clear that a tiny room of about 100 invited guests was the setting. Message: Only handpicked friends could be counted on not to boo or laugh. 
 
 It was really two speeches. The first was a defense of RomneyCare. But it was one that will only deepen conservative criticism. Romney proudly defended his plan and the individual mandate that is now the object of the entire Republican Party’s ire. His explanation — mandates were designed to stop the free-rider problem — is exactly the justification for the same feature in ObamaCare. The mandate, conservatives believe, is an infringement on individual freedom. (It also didn’t work to reduce insurance cost in Romney’s state of Massachusetts.) 
 
 Romney trotted out the federalism argument once again, calling ObamaCare a “power grab.” But conservatives for nearly two years have been arguing that NO government should require individuals to purchase something they don’t want. That Romney still doesn’t understand this is a bit shocking. 
 
 The line of the day, and the one that will haunt him throughout his campaign, was “I believed I did what was right for my state.” Yikes. 
 
 The immediate Twitter reaction among conservative pundits and some keen-eyed liberal ones (I will include my colleague Greg Sargent in that second club) was withering. The consensus: If possible, Romney made things worse. If anything, Romney proved to be a far more articulate spokesman for the individual mandate than Obama. And if conservative pundits hated it this much, can you imagine what Tea Partyers will think? 
 
 Who thought up the idea of this sort of speech? I imagine the candidate did. No professional campaign adviser who knows the tiniest bit about GOP politics would have advised him to take this route. 
 
 The second part of the speech was a long discourse on what Romney would do for the country. Guess what? He says that it would be “different” than what he did in Massachusetts. He ran through a number of conservative ideas that have shown up in other plans ( purchase insurance across state lines, equal tax treatment for individual and employer-provided insurance, etc.) But, of course, the takeaway is he didn’t choose such a plan for his own state. 
 
 In the Q-and-A afterward he got mostly softball questions. But at one point he spoke admiringly of the French health-care system. I’m not kidding. 
 
 Romney is entirely lacking in self-awareness and understanding of the current Republican primary electorate if he thinks this speech is going to help. I’m sure his primary opponents, like many pundits, are dumbstruck that such a capable man could be so dense when it comes to his chosen profession. ||||| The Blog 
 
 The Weekly Standard reserves the right to use your email for internal use only. Occasionally, we may send you special offers or communications from carefully selected advertisers we believe may be of benefit to our subscribers. Click the box to be included in these third party offers. We respect your privacy and will never rent or sell your email. 
 
 Get alerts when there is a new article that might interest you. 
 
 In his book, No Apology, Romney admitted that getting “overall health-care costs for everyone [in Massachusetts] to actually go down…is the task that remains.” However, in response to Santorum’s critique, Romney stood by Romneycare: 
 
 Santorum argued that Romney’s Massachusetts health care overhaul is “pretty much a model for what Obamacare is going to look like: the highest health care costs in the country, 27 percent above the average...[and] 94 percent of the people in Massachusetts are now insured, but there was just a survey that came out and said one in four don’t get the care they need because of the high cost. So, you have a card, you’re covered, but you can’t get care.” 
 
 The exchange over Romneycare and Obamacare began when Santorum responded to a health care question from an audience member. He said, “Governor Romney was the author of Romneycare, which is a top-down government-run health care system which, [I] read [in] an article today, has 15 different items directly in common with Obamacare, everything from the increase in the Medicaid program…to [the] mandate you buy something [as] a condition of breathing, [the] mandate that you buy an insurance policy….” 
 
 More than anyone else during any of the previous Republican presidential debates, Rick Santorum took dead aim tonight at the similarities between Romneycare and Obamacare. Arguing that those similarities could pose great problems for the Republican party and for the prospects for repeal if Mitt Romney were to win the nomination, Santorum implored GOP voters to remember, “We can’t give this issue away in this election.” 
 
 “The system that we put in place in our state was something we worked out with the labor community, the health care community, business, and the citizens of the nation. We came together, it was voted [on] by a 200-person legislature. Only two voted no. 
 
 “Our system has a lot of flaws, a lot of things I'd do differently. It has a lot of benefits. The people of the state like it by about three to one.” 
 
 Romney didn’t mention that the people of that state also voted for Barack Obama by nearly two to one. 
 
 Without having said how Romneycare differs from Obamacare, Romney concluded by saying, “We consider it very different than Obamacare.” He then shifted his focus to Obamacare itself, saying, “If I were president, [on] day one I will take action to repeal Obamacare. It’s bad medicine. It’s bad economy. I’ll repeal it.” 
 
 He added, “I believe the people of each state should be able to craft programs that they feel are best for their people. I think ours is working pretty well.” 
 
 Santorum pounced: 
 
 “What Governor Romney just said is that government-run top-down medicine is working pretty well in Massachusetts, and he supports it. Now, think about what that means — going up against Barack Obama…you are going to claim, well, top-down government-run medicine on the federal level doesn’t work, and we should repeal it. And he’s going to say, wait a minute, Governor. You just said that top-down government-run medicine in Massachusetts works well. 
 
 Santorum added, “Folks, we can’t give this issue away in this election. It is about fundamental freedom.” 
 
 Romney then replied by issuing a defense of Romneycare that sounded a lot like the defense that Obama (who might have even been taking notes) is likely to give of Obamacare: “I didn’t say I’m in favor of top-down government-run health care. Ninety-two percent of the people in my state had insurance before our plan went in place.” (For Obamacare, it’s nearly the same percentage of people, only nationwide) “And nothing changes for them. They own the same private insurance they had before.” (As Obama likes to say, “If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.”) “And for the 8 percent of people who didn't have insurance, we said to them, if you can afford insurance, buy it yourself, any one of the plans out there, you can choose any plan.” (The same is true for Obamacare — except, as in Romneycare, for the large numbers of people who get shuttled onto Medicaid.) “There’s no government plan.” (There isn’t one in Obamacare either, as the public outcry caused the “public option” to be nixed.) 
 
 Referring to the individual mandate, Romney added, “We are insisting on personal responsibility.” 
 
 Santorum responded, “Does everybody in Massachusetts have a requirement to buy health care?” ||||| Santorum: “I greatly respect Governor Romney and admire many of his personal and professional accomplishments, but his work to institute the precursor to national socialized medicine is not one of them. Both Romneycare and Obamacare infringe upon individual freedom and exponentially increase the government’s healthcare cost burden. Romneycare has, in fact, not made healthcare better or saved costs in Massachusetts. It’s done just the opposite.”
– So did Mitt Romney help his cause with the right with his health care speech today? The early reaction isn't pretty for him on that front: Avik Roy, National Review: "His effort to make a distinction between Romneycare and Obamacare was not persuasive: If anything, he convincingly made the opposite case, that Romneycare and Obamacare are based on the same fundamental concept." Jennifer Rubin, Washington Post: "The consensus: If possible, Romney made things worse. If anything, Romney proved to be a far more articulate spokesman for the individual mandate than Obama. And if conservative pundits hated it this much, can you imagine what Tea Partyers will think?" Ezra Klein, Washington Post: The speech was "as thoroughgoing a defense of the individual mandate as I’ve heard in months. The White House would’ve been wise to take notes." Potential rival Rick Santorum, at Time: "Both Romneycare and Obamacare infringe upon individual freedom and exponentially increase the government's healthcare cost burden. Romneycare has, in fact, not made healthcare better or saved costs in Massachusetts. It's done just the opposite."