Affordable Health Care?

In the WSJ's Opinion Journal, Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney explains his plan to make health care more affordable. Using a combination of punishing the freeloaders*, removing things like in vitro treatments** from being required benefits and redirecting money that previously subsidized hospitals for providing 'free' care to the uninsured to subidies to insure the poor, it looks like the state is moving to a system that provides not only more health care, but cheaper too.

I'll continue thinking about the subject, but I'm cautiously optimistic about this. Unfortunately, I seem to be the only one.

If you read the comments page, you'll see that many of the comments were strongly negative without really explaining why. Is it just because conservatives have a knee-jerk reaction to words 'universal health care', are pessimistic, or did they really try to evaluate the article?

* I just read a facinating article on the freeloader problem...but I don't know where. I'll try to find it, but the gist is that 2/3 of students, given a chance to play a game where they are either in a group that punishes freeloaders or one that doesn't, choose to be in the non-punishing group. However, by the end of the experiment, almost all had moved to the punishing group (which was doing much better) and, by the end, the threat of punishment was sufficient to make sure no one was cheating.
** A highly expensive treatment with a shaky success rate for something that is luxury, not a necessity (I realize that adoptions are expensive too, and I have sympathy for people who want children and can't have them...but they aren't going to die from not having kids and why should we all pay just so they can be parents?)