ruling upholding the constitutionality of the law, polls show the public is opposed to Obamacare by upwards of a double-digit margin. It's clearly an issue that could theoretically be used by Republicans, just as it was in 2010, when it played a central role in the GOP's takeover of the House. But the reason why health care isn't much of an issue is precisely because Romney is the nominee and can't credibly argue against Obamacare given his own record. Frum insists: It seems silly to let the party base drive a national campaign into places that are bad politics, bad policy, and untrue to the party nominee's own biography. Instead of allowing opposition to Obamacare to entrap Romney into repudiating his own healthcare record altogether, he should explain to a national audience what the Republican primary electorate did not want to hear: that Obamacare is flawed because it pays for itself with an especially destructive set of tax increases, because it expands Medicaid too much rather than relying on private insurance, and because it does not include enough cost-saving. Though I agree with these criticisms of Obamacare, all of them would be more difficult for Romney to make were he to embrace the Massachusetts health care law as a central part of his candidacy. Romneycare didn't have to rely on the same tax hikes as Obamacare, because about half of the law was funded by the federal government through the Medicaid program. Also, the passage of the Massachusetts law led