freeman3 wrote:Let me know when you get a 2/3 majority in the House and Senate... Until then.. yawn...You're dreaming if you think Democrats are giving in on this. They won't. I could care less if 39 Democrats defected. Did you count the votes, DF? Even that vote in the House is not enough to override a presidential veto.
Listen, if you can get a 2/3 vote in both the Senate and House to override a presidential veto before or after the 2014 elections, more power to you. That is the only way to get rid of the ACA. President does not have to get reelected and there is a hard core of Democratic support for the ACA that the Republicans cannot touch. And once the hysteria drummed up dies down and most people realize that the ACA does not affect them and that is helping a lot of people, then Democrats will do just fine in 2014.

I find your delight in what is happening, amusing. Time will pass and the ACA will still be there. And you will rail and rail against it and it will still be there. You will understand the frustration that Democrats have with regard to the debt ceiling and government shut-down fights initiated by the Tea Party. I am sure Democrats, like the 39 who voted for that bill, will vote against the ACA to help them in the 2014 elections. But note that the vote did not get above the veto override. So Democrats can point to their votes against the ACA if they are in a tough election..but in reality nothing happened because of their votes. So keep dreaming, DF! The realization is going to be awfully tough when you realize that you ain't got the votes to get rid of the ACA now and until pretty much forever.

freeman3 wrote:Oh come on, Brad. Democrats take a lot of money from business and well-heeled folks. There are not a lot of radicals in the Democratic Party--it is mostly a party of moderates, unless you are looking at it from the vantage point of a far-right conservative. There are some, like Feinsten and Landrieu, who would have been classified as Republican moderates 30 years ago. We have plenty of moderates, we don't need Republican ones, too. In fact, if I recall correctly, Landrieu was one of those conservative Democrats who had to be given something in the first place to vote for the ACA. I would have told those five that they're out of the Democratic party, myself...

freeman3 wrote:And, by the way, if the ACA is tossed out then Hillary has no chance to win in 2016, either....so I don't think it makes a lot of political sense for Democrats to give in on this, either.

UnitedHealth Group dropped thousands of doctors from its networks in recent weeks, leaving many elderly patients unsure whether they need to switch plans to continue seeing their doctors, the Wall Street Journal reported on Friday.

The insurer said in October that underfunding of Medicare Advantage plans for the elderly could not be fully offset by the company's other healthcare business. The company also reported spending more healthcare premiums on medical claims in the third quarter, due mainly to government cuts to payments for Medicare Advantage services.

The Journal report said that doctors in at least 10 states were notified of being laid off the plans, some citing "significant changes and pressures in the healthcare environment." According to the notices, the terminations can be appealed within 30 days.

Tyler Mason, a UnitedHealth spokesperson, was not immediately available for comment when reached by Reuters.

The insurer told the WSJ that its provider networks were always changing and that it expected its Medicare Advantage network to be 85 percent to 90 percent of its current size by the end of 2014.

UnitedHealth is participating in about a dozen new state insurance markets that launched on October 1 to offer subsidized health coverage under President Barack Obama's healthcare overhaul.

The insurer said previously it planned to withdraw from some markets in 2014 because of the government funding cuts.

“If I had the problem, saying you’re sorry doesn’t help me worth a damn at the polls, unless I can staple your remarks to the ballot,” Rep. Charles Rangel (D-Manhattan) said.

(CNN)– Washington state resident Jessica Sanford was bursting with pride when President Obama mentioned her story during a Rose Garden event on health care reform last month at the White House.

"Who wouldn't?" Sanford asks. "I'm a nobody really to have him mention my story."

Back in October, Sanford had written a letter to the White House to share her good news. The 48-year-old single mother of a teenage son diagnosed with ADHD had just purchased what she considered to be affordable insurance on the Washington state exchange.

"I was ecstatic. I couldn't wait to call the doctor for an appointment on January 2nd," Sanford told CNN about the feeling she had when she first enrolled.

Her heartfelt letter made it to the President's hands and then into his October 21 speech.

"'I was crying the other day when I signed up. So much stress lifted.'" Obama said, reading from Sanford's letter.

The president said Sanford's story was proof, despite the technical problems with the healthcare.gov website, that the Affordable Care Act was working.

. . .

Then another letter from the state exchange with even worse news.

"Your household has been determined eligible for a Federal Tax Credit of $0.00 to help cover the cost of your monthly health insurance premium payments," the latest letter said.

"I had a good cry," Sanford said about her reaction to the latest news from the state.

As a self-employed court reporter, the new quote was simply out of her range.

"This is it. I'm not getting insurance," Sanford told CNN. "That's where it stands right now unless they fix it."

Sanford, an Obama supporter who voted for the president twice, is careful to say she blames the state of Washington's online marketplace for the mixed signals and not the White House.

She is sorry Obama mentioned her during the October 21 speech.

"I feel awful about it. I support (the Affordable Care Act)," Sanford said.

Barack Obama has been hammered by the botched rollout of the Affordable Care Act, with disapproval of his job performance reaching a career high, opposition to the new healthcare law up sharply and evidence of potential fallout in the midterm elections a year off.
The president’s job approval rating has fallen to 42 percent in a new ABC News/Washington Post poll, down 13 percentage points this year and 6 points in the past month to match the lowest of his presidency. Fifty-five percent disapprove, a record. And 70 percent say the country’s headed seriously off on the wrong track – up 13 points since May to the most in two years.
Other ratings of the president’s performance have tumbled as well. He’s at career lows for being a strong leader, understanding the problems of average Americans and being honest and trustworthy – numerically under water on each of these (a first for the latter two). His rating for strong leadership is down by 15 points this year and a vast 31 points below its peak shortly after he took office. In a new gauge, just 41 percent rate him as a good manager; 56 percent think not.
This poll, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates, finds that the president’s personal image has suffered alongside his professional ratings. Fewer than half, 46 percent, see him favorably overall, down 14 points this year to the fewest of his presidency. Fifty-two percent now view him unfavorably, a new high and a majority for the first time since he took office. It may matter: Personal popularity can provide a president with cushioning when the going gets rough. Losing it leaves the president more vulnerable.
ACA – Skepticism about the Affordable Care Act looks to be the driving force in Obama’s troubles. Americans by nearly 2-1, 63-33 percent, disapprove of his handling of implementation of the new health care law. And the public by 57-40 percent now opposes the law overall, its most negative rating to date, with opposition up by 8 points in the past month alone.

danivon wrote:I certainly agree that Obama's chances of re-election in 2016 look slim.

And the public by 57-40 percent now opposes the law overall, its most negative rating to date, with opposition up by 8 points in the past month alone.

freeman3 wrote:Some positive news on Obamacare to counter the catalog of doom from,DF. Fine, we can play your game.

From the LA Times piece:

Altogether, 106,000 people enrolled in health coverage nationwide last month, a figure far below administration projections.

danivon wrote:Point is, I'm far less interested in the effects on the fortunes of political parties than I am about the effects on actual people. Framing this as "ha ha, the democrats are gonna loose the election" may make you feel good, but it's beside the point.

An example from history - the party that introduced the NHS in the UK (Labour in 1947) lost power a few years later (1951) and did not return to government for 13 years. But the NHS survived.