From The Corner:

Obama says we shouldn’t allow people to shop for insurance across state lines because some states allow health insurers to exploit nefarious loopholes.
Doesn’t this argue for, not against, letting people in shop across state lines to get more favorable coverage?
In other words, if you are trapped in a state where these dubious entities are duping innocent policy holders, shouldn’t you have the freedom to get on the Internet and escape to another plan?
Obama is in effect saying no. We have to be trapped in the tangle of our state’s regulatory mess even if there is a better deal just over the fence.
I would ask Obama if he supports generic prescription-drug importation. I suspect the answer is yes, in which case he is saying we can get our drugs from Mexico, but we can’t get our health insurance from Michigan. Pills from Canada “yes.” Policies from Connecticut “no.” Does that make any sense?

More:
The Cabinet of Dr. Obama: Dissecting the health care proposals of Obama and McCain
The Dems’ Health-Care Distortions: Seeing through the Obama smokescreen
Obama’s Glass House: It’s his health-care plan that would push people out of job-based coverage
ADDENDUM
By contrast, McCain in today’s Daily Standard:

McCain’s remarks on health care in his speech today are worth highlighting: “I will provide every single American family with a $5000 refundable tax credit to help them purchase insurance. Workers who already have health care insurance from their employers will keep it and have more money to cover costs. Workers who don’t have health insurance can use it to find a policy anywhere in this country to meet their basic needs.”

Few know how ironic it is that post-WWII government actions created the problem in the first place where health insurance was “owned” by your employer instead of the insured person.
Meanwhile, Don Boudreaux shreds E. J. Dionne’s equally stupid thinking on healthcare policy.