Romney had expressed hopes that his plan would be adapted for a national plan. It’s not clear to me whether he truly meant federal, or simply that other states would imitate Massachusetts.
A state plan would not have any questions as to its constitutionality. A federal plan does, the cute “tax” of Roberts notwithstanding (the question hasn’t yet been brought, is this a constitutional TAX if it is a tax).
My point is that Romney’s plan was NOT identical or even close to Obamacare.
Even it it "rips off the Federal government for $400 million per year" to put it in Gruber's words?
Well, unless a state constitution doesn't authorize state socialism, ie taking money at the point of a gun and handing it to a third party as a gift.
"Constitutionality" doesn't just apply to the federal constitution.