Here's a source[1] for the sibling commenter. But there's a key difference - AFAIK Romneycare didn't start having to dig itself out of a hole of millions of people losing coverage as well.

[1]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/29/r...

Link? Would love to read up on that, if in fact it's true.

I agree that data is preferred, but we can also look at it another way. There is no incentive to sign up before December 15th. All plans signed up before then start Jan 1. With all of the talk about the technical limitations, I think people are right to wait a month until people aren't ranting about it being broken.

Not a good comparison. Romneycare was implemented in one state, Obamacare is nation wide.

So your assertion is that Massachusetts has an unusual aversion to signing up in the first month that the rest of the nation lacks?

My assertion is that the comparison made is not a good comparison.

And my question is, based on what? What makes Massachusetts a bad comparison? Why do you believe people would flock to Obamacare enrollment on the first day when that didn't happen in the state plan that Obamacare is based on?

Google the following: "was obamacare based on romneycare". Obama says yes, Romney says no. In this case I believe Romney.

Romney wouldn't even talk about Romneycare during the campaign. Taking credit for what the far-right wing of the Republican party deems "socialism" wouldn't have played well for him.

Politifact has a ruling: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/mar/20/...

Thanks for the link. And, I do remember Romney being on the defensive because his plan was being compared with Obama's plan.

A moderate sized state in population, 6.6 million as of 2012 or roughly 2% of the nation's population, with a high median home income and as I recall a way above average percentage of insured residents.