What's Good Enough for Them

In Friday's edition of Left, Right, and Center, the representative for the Left, Robert Scheer was asked whether Obama or Romney was helped by the Supreme Court decision.  Robert Scheer's response (presented as a question directed to Romney by Obama)

(starting at 16:30) What you did for Massachusetts I did for the rest of the country. How could you disagree with that? How can you call that socialized medicine? How can you say that's an unfair intrusion into people's lives? If it was good enough for the people of Massachusetts, why is it not good enough for the rest of the country? And I've extended it to 30 million people. I think that's an argument Romney loses. I don't even know what the answer is.

The Right's representative, John Eastman, gave a political answer: it raised taxes, it takes away freedom, etc. Maybe the philosophical response doesn't poll well, but I wanted to make sure that people realize that people like me have a much stronger answer to this question.

The answer is that the people in Massachusetts aren't necessarily representative of the people in the rest of the country.  Whatever is the best solution for Massachusetts may not be the best solution for the nation as a whole.  That's why people like me are strong advocates of federalism.  Letting each state find its own solution.  A national solution for a problem as complex as health care will never be as optimal as different solutions tailored to different populations of the country.