I don’t give a flying rip what Gruber says about anything.
My overall point is that Romneycare has very little in common with Obamacare. Comparing Romneycare to Obamacare is like comparing an ant to an elephant. I stand by those comments and I don’t care what Gruber says or thinks.
Well ... except for the overall concept of intrusive nanny-state government and empowerment of the State to oversee what it has ZERO BUSINESS overseeing.
Trapped, Romneycare was AS WRONG and BAD and TYRANNICAL as Obamacare because it was created on the same flawed premise. Saying Romneycare and Obamacare "have very little in common" is correct in the same way that Coke has very little in common with Pepsi.
As for the argument that states require people to have auto insurance -- the insurance is FOR OTHERS you might hit with your auto and if you decline to drive, you don't need insurance. With Romneycare or with Obamacare, this government ownership of your body REQUIRES that if you are alive, you purchase health insurance approved by government for yourself.
THERE is an example -- the one between required auto insurance and required medical insurance -- where the two really ARE as different as night and day.