« When You've Lost.... | Main | Let the Judgement Begin »

October 31, 2013

When You've Lost the Women...

Another precinct heard from....

A majority of Americans – 52 percent – believe the health care law needs either a major overhaul or to be completely eliminated, a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finds.

Forty-four percent think it either needs minor modifications or that it’s working well as is.

The Obama administration maintains that the health insurance exchange website can be fixed, but acknowledges major problems.

“In these early weeks, access to Healthcare.gov has been a miserably frustrating experience for way too many Americans,” Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said Wednesday in testimony on Capitol Hill.

President Barack Obama addresses the issues facing healthcare.gov Wednesday during a speech at Boston's Faneuil Hall.

The number of respondents who said the law was a good or bad idea was relatively unchanged from earlier this month. But support for the law has slipped with one key group – women, who traditionally rank health care as a higher priority than men, and who are seen as an important plank in selling the law.

Posted by Cassandra at October 31, 2013 07:22 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:


Women are an important plank in selling the law? To whom is the law being "sold?"

Posted by: spd rdr at October 31, 2013 02:04 PM

I think the law is being sold to the electorate.

One of the points I wish the GOP had been better at making was that a lot of the Rethugs who got sent to the House during 2010 Congressional election were elected on promises to repeal ObamaCare. I thought it was incredibly surreal when Obama kept saying, "If you want to repeal the law, go out and win an election". How in the heck does he think there were ever enough Rethugs in the House to support all those repeal the ACA votes?

For the White House to portray what has been going on in the House as somehow "anti-democratic" is stunningly dishonest - that's the consequence of an election cycle. Regardless of what anyone thinks about GOP tactics, the House had a mandate and for once they actually tried to carry out that mandate.

ObamaCare was only passed in the first place with the slimmest of margins. If we hold onto the House and gain in the Senate, repeal or drastic cutbacks become a distinct possibility. And if the law loses support with the public and that lack of support (or even opposition) changes the balance of power in Congress even more, that changes the landscape considerably.

Not saying this will happen, but it could happen.

Posted by: Cass at October 31, 2013 03:28 PM

"When You've Lost the Women..."

Does that mean that men are no longer wrong when a tree falls in the forest?

Posted by: DL Sly at October 31, 2013 04:25 PM

Why does the electorate need to be "sold" on a law after it's enacted? It's the LAW, and it is to be OBEYED.

(I am not being difficult. No, actually I am being difficult, but only to point out the utter absurdity of the Affordable Cram Act as both policy AND "law.")

Posted by: spd rdr at October 31, 2013 05:56 PM

Despite the political theater from some time ago with Ms. Fluke, and the ongoing policy cancellations. We still haven't seen the 90% of the iceberg that is underwater.

What happens when health care providers walk out? The Catholic Church is a huge source of health care in this country, what if they just say no? You can keep your doctor, assuming your doctor wants to keep you.

Posted by: Allen at October 31, 2013 08:23 PM

I don't think this law was passed with widespread public support. It required a trick to pass it at all.

And Obama's claim that it's "settled law" (and that it's somehow unseemly or antidemocratic to talk about changing or even repealing the law is not a standard he'd want applied to every law). It's just silly.

I think that laws that don't have widespread public support do need to be sold even after passage precisely because public support for them is precarious and subject to change.

As for men being wrong, men only think that they are believed to have done something wrong whenever a woman disagrees with them. This drives me nuts - just because a woman doesn't understand a man does NOT mean he's done anything wrong (or is wrong).

It just means two adults have a different opinion about something - hardly an uncommon event regardless of the sex of the adults involved :p

How boring the world would be if I couldn't argue with/annoy my friends....

/running away

Posted by: Cass at October 31, 2013 08:25 PM

Allen, the effects on availability of care are my biggest fear, though I suspect that eventually the market will adjust. But I'm not sure we'll like those adjustments.

Having grown up with nearly impossible to get military medical care, I don't relish waiting weeks to get an appointment on those rare occasions when I need a doctor. The biggest problem with military medical care is overconsumption (because there's no out of pocket cost).

It's not a good thing, and the quality of care suffers in a seller's market.

Posted by: Cass at October 31, 2013 08:29 PM

"If you think healthcare is expensive now, just wait until it's free" - P.J. O'Rourke

"The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce if vigorously" - Abraham Lincoln

The more things change, the more things stay the same.

And even now, the full ruin of what is called Obamacare is not yet upon us. This is just a foretaste of what is to come. Wait until the employer mandate becomes effective on Jan. 1, 2015 (Conveeeeeeeniently after the 2014 midterm elections).

Who could have really thought that a bunch of government hacks and their cronies in the outside world would be able to get such a complex set of laws and regulations in place in such a short time? President "Bart" OBama (it wasn't my fault! I didn't do it!) just always seems to be frankly unaware of what his own government is doing.

We will be living under the tyranny of incompetence the rest of our lives because of this. I hope everybody is happy about it.

Posted by: Don Brouhaha at October 31, 2013 08:44 PM

If it's maddening that men think that women think that they're wrong when they disagree, does that mean they're wrong to think that?

If so, then they're wrong to think they're wrong, which means they'd be right to think they weren't wrong. But they are wrong, because they thought they were wrong, so they're right to think they're wrong. Which means they weren't wrong to think they were wrong, because they were wrong: and that makes them right after all. :)

Posted by: Grim at October 31, 2013 08:49 PM

well, at least Grim is having fun w/ this mess . . . ;)

and I am looking forward to watching Dems try to spin this sh*t into fleece . . . heh heh heh

Posted by: CAPT Mike at November 1, 2013 05:02 AM

If so, then they're wrong to think they're wrong, which means they'd be right to think they weren't wrong. But they are wrong, because they thought they were wrong, so they're right to think they're wrong. Which means they weren't wrong to think they were wrong, because they were wrong: and that makes them right after all. :)

Yes, dear :)

*running away!*

I think you win comment of the day, Grim.

Posted by: Cass at November 1, 2013 10:23 AM

I would point out that changing political fortunes make this very interesting, Cassandra. Remember, this mess was passed by "Reconciliation", and such items have a ten year limit. If the Republicans are in power when the ten years are up, they don't have to do anything, and the law goes away. The Democrats expected there to be millions trapped in the system when that time rolled around, guaranteeing their electoral success (what with the million of hostages.). But between the delays for elections, and the failures of the system, it's not looking good. What Fun!

Posted by: Robert M Mitchell Jr. at November 1, 2013 12:56 PM

Remember, this mess was passed by "Reconciliation", and such items have a ten year limit.

I had forgotten that, Robert (if I ever knew it in the first place!). Thanks for cheering me up :)

Posted by: Cass at November 1, 2013 05:11 PM

Robert, have you got a link for that? I'm familiar with the Byrd rule, but not with a sunsetting function.

Posted by: Texan99 at November 1, 2013 07:36 PM

Here's what Wikipedia says:

Reconciliation generally involves legislation that changes the budget deficit (or conceivably, the surplus). The "Byrd Rule" (2 U.S.C. § 644, named after Democratic Senator Robert Byrd) was adopted in 1985 and amended in 1990 to outline which provisions reconciliation can and cannot be used for. The Byrd Rule defines a provision to be "extraneous" (and therefore ineligible for reconciliation) in six cases:

if it does not produce a change in outlays or revenues;

if it produces an outlay increase or revenue decrease when the instructed committee is not in compliance with its instructions;

if it is outside the jurisdiction of the committee that submitted the title or provision for inclusion in the reconciliation measure;

if it produces a change in outlays or revenues which is merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision;

if it would increase the deficit for a fiscal year beyond those covered by the reconciliation measure, though the provisions in question may receive an exception if they in total in a Title of the measure net to a reduction in the deficit;


if it recommends changes in Social Security.

Posted by: Miss Ladybug at November 1, 2013 09:31 PM

This might be more what you're looking for: Budget Act and the Byrd Rule

Posted by: Miss Ladybug at November 1, 2013 09:48 PM

Right -- I see how there's a rule permitting a simple majority vote on a measure that has a maximum 10-year impact on the deficit. But that's not the same as an automatic "sunsetting" of a provision that was supposed to qualify under the rule and really didn't.

Posted by: Texan99 at November 1, 2013 11:07 PM