Romney argues that Clinton plan not like Bay State's

Is it or isn't it?

Mitt Romney insists that Hillary Clinton's universal healthcare plan is way different than the one he signed into law in Massachusetts last year.

He made his case again today on the op-ed page of The Wall Street Journal, arguing that unlike the Bay State reform, the Clinton plan would require additional tax dollars and would expand government-run insurance.

But independent analysts dispute that the Massachusetts plan didn't require more tax money and say that Clinton's proposals share many other key aspects, most significantly in that requires individuals to obtain health insurance. The Romney campaign says that a state mandate is different than a national mandate because healthcare markets vary across the country.

Democrats are also bashing Romney for distancing himself from the Massachusetts plan, calling it the latest flip-flop of his presidential campaign. "The harder he tries to convince the voters to ignore his past positions and real record on everything from health care to gun control, the more obvious it becomes that Romney will say and do anything to secure the Republican nomination," Democratic National Committee spokesman Damien LaVera said in a statement.

On the campaign trail, Romney is emphasizing market-based programs and encouraging states to develop their own reform plans.

"I like the plan I put forward in Massachusetts," he writes in his Journal piece. "But even so, I wouldn't do what Sen. Clinton does -- impose my way on every other state. Other states may borrow from what we did. Some will surely improve on it. But let's keep faith in federalism, in private markets and in individual responsibility."