Romney has been having a hard time since the Supreme Court ruling that upholds the Individual Mandate and the ACA. The plan was modeled on Romney's health care program in Massachusetts, and is a carbon copy of a program first proposed by the Heritage Foundation. Of course, neither Romney nor Heritage wants to be seen as agreeing with Obama's use of their idea, and so they've had to abandon it.
In reality, the individual mandate is a strong conservative idea. After all, it lowers costs to the individual while promoting personal responsibility. And, as many have pointed out, the ACA does not reflect a government takeover of health care. Instead, it is a boon to the private insuranace industry, and will eventually be a huge help to the American People while continuing to promote personal accountability. All of this should be sitting well with Republicans.
The only reason it's not is because Obama got it passed instead of them. So, now they have to come up with a way to make this a bad thing. They've done a great job smearing the law already, and with the SC ruling, they have one more piece of artillery to try and ruin it: the Individual Mandate is a tax!
So, since Romney passed an IM in Mass, does that mean Romney raised taxes? Not according to Romney. No, according to Mitt, his IM was simply a mandate, not a tax, while under Obama, it was a tax, not just a mandate. The funny thing is, Mitt actually advocated for his Mass plan to be adopted nationwide, just as the ACA is; but since Obama presided over its passage, it's no longer a good thing.
Romney further shot himself in the foot when he tried to come up with a list of things he would have done "differently" than the ACA, which actually turned into a list of things the ACA already does. His only real change would be to not pay for it, which really wouldn't fly with all those deficit hawks and tea party people...would it? Probably not, but since it would be a Republican, maybe they'd let it slide.
So, Romney really has a problem with a consistent message. And, those like the Heritage Foundation who once backed an individual mandate are having to backtrack and say that it's wrong. Sure, they can nitpick language, jargon, and intentions, but the basics are there. This has led to more and more outrageous attacks, and bogus claims, about the law. We've already heard about "death panels" which don't appear anywhere in the law. We've also heard about people being forced to drop their employer-based health insurance. Here's the thing: no employer-based health insurance is taken away based on the language of the law. If an employer stops providing health insurance to its employees, and is able to do so under the letter of the law (they must have less than 25 employees, I believe), it's a personal choice for the company and is not reflected in the law itself. There's a lot of misinformation floating around about this, and many people are being taken in by it.
So, bear in mind the origins of the individual mandate. This is not a liberal ploy, a government takeover, or part of an agenda to destroy the US. It's about personal responsibility, affordability, and fairness for those who do the right thing. Romney passed this, the Heritage Foundation came up with this, and it's the right thing for America right now.