Yesterday, I made a post on Sarah's weaknesses, following the example of others who had done the same for their own candidates. That's one more post than I've made on other candidates' weaknesses, so I'm entitled to this one. :)

Professor Jonathan Gruber wrote a letter to WSJ defending MassCare and Obamacare. Here CATO responds.

-RomneyCare has not covered as many uninsured as its advocates claim; one problem is that uninsured residents conceal their lack of insurance.

-Gruber correctly notes that non-group premiums have declined in cost. But this was only because "RomneyCare shifted those costs to workers with job-based coverage."

-Gruber claims, "It is true that reform has not slowed the growth of group health-insurance premiums, which have continued to rise at exactly the same rate as in the nation as a whole." CATO responds, "The first part of this sentence is an understatement; the second part is false.  This report from the left-wing Commonwealth Fund shows that premiums in Massachusetts are growing faster than anywhere else in the nation.  And the only study that has tried to isolate the effect of RomneyCare finds that it increased premiums for employment-based coverage by 6 percent (see cost-shifting, above)."

In an earlier blog post, CATO noted that premiums in Massachusetts rose faster after the reforms than anywhere else, and that people get around the mandate by only buying insurance when they need medical care.

So, now what? Shoot the messenger?