[so_real]

If the "setting" is one in which each State decides for itself (which is what Romney has said and I'll believe him for now), that's a good thing.

Romney has said a number of things, on all sides of all issues. But the fact remains, the POTUS cannot implement a state-by-state-independent health care system from the Executive Office. That would fall under the purview of the state legislatures and governorships. Romney's intention at a federal level, therefore, must be a nationalized system. It can be no other way. And again, "a little" socialism is the same thing as "a lot" of socialism before it was given time to grow. If we repeal and do not replace, we do not nurture the little socialism. If we repeal and replace it, we give it time to grow.

[what's up]

Romney's intention at a federal level, therefore, must be a nationalized system

Not true.

Romney's intention may be to encourage a State-by-State approach by:

A) repealing Obamacare to give States room and

B) using the bully pulpit to encourage States to take up the project (along with other social programs I might add).

He can also do things like talk up tort reform and HSA's.

Obviously, a President can do much to increase freedom. Just because he's a Federal official does not mean his hands are tied in this regard.