He Owns It: Obama Embraces 'ObamaCare' Label

It wasn't long ago Democrats sniveled over ObamaCare being used as a pejorative. Now the desperate Obama claims he cherishes the monkiker.

Sure.

President Obama is embracing the term “ObamaCare” on the campaign stump, attempting to turn the tables on critics who use it in a derogatory way.

“They call it ObamaCare?” the president told supporters at a St. Louis fundraiser Tuesday evening. “I do care! You should care, too.”

Earlier in the day, Obama told an audience in Dallas, “Folks go around saying ObamaCare. That’s right — I care. … That’s their main agenda? That’s your plank? Is making sure 30 million people don’t have health insurance?”

The president’s remarks are clearly part of a White House strategy to reclaim some lost ground on healthcare, taking the fight to Republicans.

“I have no problem with people saying Obama cares. I do care,” the president said in Minnesota, the first stop of his rural bus tour this summer. “If the other side wants to be the folks that don’t care, that’s fine with me. I do care.”

The second most senior Democrat in the House, Rep. John Conyers (Mich.), has been urging Democrats to embrace the term for months. He had even taken to handing out buttons with the words “I [heart] ObamaCare” as part of his campaign to rehabilitate the moniker.

Great strategy. I care, so therefore the other guys don't.

Good Thing They Passed ObamaCare So We Could Find Out What's In It

Just a minor glitch or something.

Older adults of the same age and income with similar medical histories would pay sharply different amounts for private health insurance due to what appears to be an unintended consequence of the new health care law.

Aware of the problem, the administration says it is exploring options to address a potential disparity that could mean added controversy for President Barack Obama's health care overhaul. The law expands coverage to more than 30 million uninsured people and would require most Americans to carry insurance.

The glitch mainly affects older adults who are too young for a Medicare card but have reached 62, when people can qualify for early retirement from Social Security. Sixty-two is the most common age at which Americans start taking Social Security, although their monthly benefit is reduced.

As the health care law is now written, those who take early retirement would get a significant break on health insurance premiums. That's because part or all of their Social Security benefits would not count as income in figuring out whether they can get federal subsidies to help pay for coverage until they become eligible for Medicare at 65.

"There is an equity issue here," said Robert Laszewski, a former health insurance executive turned policy consultant. "If you get a job for 40 hours a week, you're going to pay more for your health insurance than if you don't get a job."

The Obama administration says it is working on the problem.

"We are monitoring this issue and exploring options that would take into account the needs of Social Security beneficiaries, many of whom are disabled or individuals of limited means," Emily McMahon, a top Treasury Department policy official, said in a statement to The Associated Press.

Other officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because the issue is politically sensitive, said the administration is concerned because the situation could create a perception that some people are getting a worse deal compared with their less-industrious peers.

Yeah, nothing like mis-perceptions.

Good News: Obama Now Sending Out 'Mystery Shoppers' to Spy on Doctors

These people will not rest until every facet of our lives in run by the government.

Obama administration officials are putting together a team of 'mystery shoppers' to pose as patients, call doctors’ offices and request appointments to see how difficult it is for people to get care when they need it.

The move follows increasing alarm over the shortage of primary care doctors.

The administration says the survey will address the shortage and try to discover whether doctors are accepting patients with private insurance while turning away those in government health programmes that pay lower reimbursement rates.

Federal officials predict that more than 30 million Americans will gain coverage under the health care law passed last year.

'These newly insured Americans will need to seek out new primary care physicians, further exacerbating the already growing problem' of a shortage of such physicians in the United States, the Department of Health and Human Services said in a description of the project prepared for the White House.

Plans for the survey have riled many doctors because the secret shoppers will not identify themselves as working for the government.

Dr. Raymond Scalettar, an internist in Washington, said: 'I don’t like the idea of the government snooping. It’s a pernicious practice - Big Brother tactics, which should be opposed.'

According to government documents obtained from Obama administration officials, the mystery shoppers will call medical practices and ask if doctors are accepting new patients and, if so, how long the wait would be, the New York Times reports.

The government is eager to know whether doctors give different answers to callers depending on whether they have public insurance, like Medicaid, or private insurance, like Blue Cross and Blue Shield.

Dr. George J. Petruncio, a family doctor in Turnersville, New Jersey, said: 'This is not a way to build trust in government. Why should I trust someone who does not correctly identify himself?'

Dr. Stephen C. Albrecht, a family doctor in Olympia, Washington, said: 'If federal officials are worried about access to care, they could help us. They don’t have to spy on us.'

Dr. Robert L. Hogue, a family physician in Brownwood, Texas, asked: 'Is this a good use of tax money? Probably not. Everybody with a brain knows we do not have enough doctors.'

If they're concerned about a shortage now, just wait awhile, especially when you treat doctors like criminals.

An Obama stooge claims everything will be kept confidential. Sure, who wouldn't believe them?

In response to the criticism, a federal health official said doctors need not worry because the data would be kept confidential. 'Reports will present aggregate data, and individuals will not be identified,' said the official, who requested anonymity to discuss the plan before its final approval by the White House.

Liberals Finally Admitting Death Panels Exist

Cynthia Tucker, the Maureen Dowd of the south, in her column today admits that death panels will be fact of life under Obamacare.

This morning, my colleague Jay Bookman had a very thoughtful post on why rationing health care — “death panels,” if you will — is quite necessary. I wrote on a similar subject in my Sunday column.

If we keeping spending our health care dollars disproportionately on the elderly, we will have little left to spend on children. That makes for an upside-down society that cannot thrive for long.

Of course in Cynthia's world there will also be fewer children since she is also a passionate supporter of Planned Parenthood. It seems the liberals whole agenda is to place the human species on the Endangered Species List right along with polar bears.

Back in August of 2009 Ms Tucker of course called Sarah Palin's claim of death panels as a lie.

The Anchorage Daily News reported that Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski spoke at a public policy forum in Anchorage yesterday, where she rebuked the “deathers,” such as former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who have insisted that “death panels” would be created to decide whether to euthanize the elderly and the handicapped.

And once again here she called it a lie.

Politifact judged the term death panels to be the lie of the year in 2009.

Well gee Cynthia somebody was lying.

State-Controlled Media: CBS and Washington Post Receiving ObamaCare Slush Fund Money

I guess this is no big deal. After all, these two impartial bastions of the mainstream media have been entirely fair in their critique of the government takeover of your health care.

Oh, wait...

Two mainstream news organizations are receiving hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars from Obamacare’s Early Retiree Reinsurance Program (ERRP) — a $5 billion grant program that’s doling out cash to companies, states and labor unions in what the Obama administration considers an effort to pay for health insurance for early retirees. The Washington Post Company raked in $573,217 in taxpayer subsidies and CBS Corporation secured $722,388 worth of Americans’ money.

“It is fine with me if they continue covering the ObamaCare debate,” said Rep. Marsha Blackburn, Republican of Tennessee, in an e-mail to The Daily Caller. “When NBC used to cover energy issues, they identified themselves as a subsidiary of General Electric. CBS and Washington Post just have to disclose that they are subsidiaries of the Obama Administration.”

This is wonderful. GE, which owns NBC, isn't even paying taxes while their chairman is an Obama economic adviser, and now CBS and the WaPo are being subsidized by Obama. Apparently none of the rest of Obama's pom-pom media have any problem with this.

Yeah, About Those Lower Healthcare Costs

The cornerstone of the Dems' Obamacare scam is the tired old line about how it will reduce costs, increase access and put a unicorn in everyone's front yard. Well, here is an example of what happens when the government decides to pick winners and losers, and the loser in most cases winds up being the citizens. Now this is not a direct result of Obamacare, but rather an example of what happens when there is too much over-regulation from the federal government. By making this drug the exclusive property of one company--who I am sure if somebody checks some campaign finance records, will find that somewhere they made some good friends in the administration--they have now made it impractical and unaffordable for most people.

However, the FDA is empowered to monitor only the safety and effectiveness of drugs; it does not have the power to control how much KV Pharmaceutical charges for the compound. And KV Pharmaceutical has now announced that a drug compound that has typically cost $10 to $20 an injection will now cost $1,500 an injection. Over the course of a pregnancy, treatment that once cost as much as $400 will now cost $30,000.

In this case, a drug made in various ways was pulled back and forced to comply with a set standard and the contract was awarded to one company. The results are precisely what would be expected when you have only one source for a product. I did not see anything noted citing any ill effects from the other compounds, and since doctors were using them I could assume there weren't. So why did the FDA feel it was necessary to make KV Pharmaceutical the winner? Like they say, follow the money.

I differ with the writer of this article only in the last line of his piece.

In most other countries, KV Pharmaceutical would never be allowed to get away with such a thing.

The implied solution in his opinion is to have the government punish the very company they set up to be a monopoly. Wrong. The solution is to allow the free markets to once again work. Regulate the drug as far as safety, but get the hell out of the way as far as deciding how it gets into the hands of the consumer.

Hmmm: Obama Suddenly Willing to Give States 'Flexibility' to Opt Out of Individual Mandate

Never mind the fact that Obamacare's individual mandate was ruled unconstitutional several weeks ago by not one but two federal district court judges. That hasn't stopped the administration from proceeding apace with implementing the law, in clear contempt of court. Appeals are for suckers, anyway. Why bother, right?

But wait! King Obama is now generously considering allowing states to have the 'flexibility' to opt out of Obamacare's bipartisanly loathed individual mandate. The only catch: They must hop on the fast track to single-payer, the Socialist Holy Grail that Obama wanted all along but never had the votes in Congress to pass, despite huge Democrat supermajorities in both Houses.

Oh, goodie.

Seeking to appease disgruntled governors, President Obama announced Monday that he supported amending the 2010 health care law to allow states to opt out of its most burdensome requirements three years earlier than currently permitted.

In remarks to the National Governors Association, Mr. Obama said he backed legislation that would enable states to request federal permission to withdraw from the law’s mandates in 2014 rather than in 2017 as long as they could prove that they could find other ways to cover as many people as the original law would and at the same cost. The earlier date is when many of the act’s central provisions take effect, including requirements that most individuals obtain health insurance and that employers of a certain size offer coverage to workers or pay a penalty.

“I think that’s a reasonable proposal; I support it,” Mr. Obama told the governors, who were gathered in the State Dining Room of the White House.

“It will give you flexibility more quickly while still guaranteeing the American people reform.”

The announcement is the first time Mr. Obama has called for changing a central component of his signature health care law, although he has backed removing a specific tax provision that both parties regard as onerous on business. The shift comes as the law is under fierce attack in the courts and from Republicans on Capitol Hill and in statehouses around the country.

The bipartisan amendment that Mr. Obama is now embracing was first proposed in November, eight months after enactment of the Affordable Care Act, by Senators Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, and Scott Brown, Republican of Massachusetts. Senator Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana, a Democrat, is now a co-sponsor.

Quick side note to Scott Brown: I'd like my stinkin' twenty bucks back now, Senator. With interest.

Continuing...

The legislation would allow states to opt out earlier from various requirements if they could demonstrate that other methods would allow them to cover as many people, with insurance that is as comprehensive and affordable, as provided by the new law. The changes also must not increase the federal deficit.

Well, of course - Obama is a real stickler when it comes to the deficit.

h/t: Weasel Zippers. Cross-posted.

UPDATE: Ack, the dreaded inadvertent double-post. Oh, well. Does JAG's post feature a well-placed Snobby Obama photo?

Didn't think so.

Orrin Hatch: ObamaCare a 'Dumbass Program' and an 'Awful Piece of Crap'

Tell us how you really feel.

GOP Sen. Orrin Hatch (Utah) reportedly directed a few profane insults toward President Obama's healthcare law in a speech late last week.

During at an appearance at an event sponsored by the Utah State University College Republicans, Hatch was asked if he thought the nation's healthcare system needs serious reforms. He acknowledged that states have different problems when it comes to healthcare, but called the federal law Democrats passed last year a "dumb-ass program" that will not solve them. "Every state has different demographics, every state has different problems," Hatch said, according to a Utah Statesman report published Monday. "It's good to allow them to work out their own problems rather than a one-size-fits-all federal government dumb-ass program. It really is an awful piece of crap."

Hatch apologized for swearing, according to the Statesman. Hatch explained that "he does not swear often. He said he is passionate about the health care debate and would repent for using the words that he did," the Statesman wrote.

I suspect Sen. Hatch wouldn't be quite as blunt if he didn't face a possible primary challenge from Rep. Jason Chaffetz.

Imbecile Democrat Whines About ObamaCare Being Called ObamaCare

I'm starting to think these Democrats are suffering a collective nervous breakdown. That or an extended temper tantrum.

House Republicans and Democrats started Friday morning's debate over whether to defund last year's healthcare law, and as part of this debate sparred over whether members should be allowed to call that law "ObamaCare."

After two House Republicans called it "ObamaCare," Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) asked the chairman whether these "disparaging" remarks should be allowed on the House floor.

"That is a disparaging reference to the president of the United States; it is meant as a disparaging reference to the president of the United States, and it is clearly in violation of the House rules against that," she said.

Gee, it almost sounds as if she's ashamed to be associated with ObamaCare.

The indirect warning had no effect on Republicans. Rep. Denny Rehberg (Mont.), who sponsored the amendment to defund the law, said he refers to it as ObamaCare and said, "You would think he wants his name attached to his signature legislation.

"So we call it what it is," he continued. "It is ObamaCare. It's a travesty. It is big government. It is not controlling healthcare costs, and it needs to be repealed and today we're going to try to defund it to the best of our ability. And if we're not successful this time, we're going to try again and again and again until we either have a Senate that's willing to pass it or a president that understands that we cannot do this to the American people."

Finally: ObamaCare Explained in Comic Book Form

Thank goodness the Democratic Party base can now understand the joys of ObamaCare through the use of illustration and simple words even the dumbest Obamaton can understand.

The MIT economics whiz who crafted President Obama’s national health-care overhaul now plans to explain the complex and controversial plan to the masses — in one long comic book.

Jonathan Gruber, a nationally recognized health economist who devised the economic underpinnings of Obamacare (Gruber hates the term), said his three comic-loving kids encouraged him to use the hip format of the graphic novel — basically an expensive comic published in book form — to tell the story of the complicated plan to 300 million Americans.

Unlike most comic books, Gruber’s won’t have a superhero like Batman or Captain America or a villain like the Joker, he said.

“I’m going to use the facts to tell the story,” Gruber, 45, told the Pulse yesterday. “I’m the narrator guiding the reader through the law. It’ll have lots of pictures and text.”

Hill and Wang, a division of publishing powerhouse Farrar, Straus and Giroux, plans to release Gruber’s book, tentatively titled “Health Care Reform: What It Is, Why It’s Necessary, How it Works” this fall.

It’s an unusual venture for Gruber, a brilliant Massachusetts Institute of Technology academic and a key architect of Romneycare, who spent much of the last decade telling national leaders why the American health-care system is broken, and how to fix it.

Now Gruber is breaking down the president’s 2,400-page legislation into illustrated, bite-sized panels for non-wonks who either don’t understand or don’t like the national plan.

“There’s a fundamental lack of economic security in our country,” Gruber said. “If you don’t get insurance from your employer, you are one bad gene, or one bad car accident away from losing everything.”

And only the most beneficent one, Barack Obama, can save you. Surely the teacher's unions will be buying this in bulk so they can "teach" the kiddies about the joys of socialized medicine.

One can only imagine how cute and friendly the thousands of new IRS enforcement agents will be depicted as.

H/T Jules Crittenden.

Paul Ryan: "I Will Eat My Tie" If Obamacare Reduces the Deficit

Funny, I don't recall Obama making it interesting like that back when he was running around promising Americans that his healthcare monstrosity was 'deficit-neutral'.

Obama could have said: "I'll eat my golf glove if this bill adds one dime to the deficit!"

But he didn't. Hmmm...

So here is Paul Ryan on tonight's Mark Levin radio show, explaining for the umpteenth time that the CBO's output is entirely dependent on the data that is spoon-fed to them and the set of assumptions they are instructed to make.

In other words, they are robot slaves with green eyeshades.

Whatever you put in CBO - in front of them - they have to score what you put in front of them. They put this health care, we put the health care bill in front of them; the health care bill is full of gimmicks and spending tricks. Ten years of tax increases to pay for six years of spending, for starters. They double-count revenue for Social Security. They double-count revenue for this new CLASS Act program. They double-count Medicare cuts. They ignore the 'doc fix'. They did not include the $115 billion in spending that would be required just to set the bureaucracy up to run this new program.

"If you take out all the double-counting - if you add the counting they didn't count - it adds a $701 billion deficit. So, what CBO cannot do is tell you "we're not going to count the budget gimmicks that are in this legislation." They just have to estimate the bill as it's written, with all the gimmicks included. So, people around here know how to write legislation to manipulate the kind of cost estimate you're gonna get from the Congressional Budget Office. I sent a letter to the CBO, I asked them "Well, now look at these budget gimmicks, ignore these budget gimmicks. What then?" And it's what I just told you, this thing is a huge budget-buster. So, what they have is a piece of paper that they've manipulated to say this thing reduces the deficit.

I will eat my tie if that is the outcome of this law. But, they're trying to say by voting to repeal health care, we're going to raise the deficit - and we're just not gonna buy that economics. We're not gonna accept all these budget gimmicks, and that's why we're going to move ahead and repeal this thing anyway."

Transcripted from the audio at The Right Scoop. Cross-posted.

Gateway Pundit links. Thanks!

"Somebody's Got To Knock Some Sense Into That Idiot"

Via Mediaite

You have to watch this interview with mixed martial artist (MMA) Jacob Volkmann, who when asked who he would like to fight next mentioned Obama. The guy is a chiropractor in his day job. The good part comes right at the end.



Also notice the reporters condescending attitude towards Sarah Palin. For these people nothing seems to strike more fear in their hearts then a little five foot something hockey mom from America's last frontier.

Acronym Fail: House Republicans Propose Two-Page Bill to Repeal Obamacare - "RTJKHCLA"

That would be the Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act.

Well, at least it's blunt and descriptive. And at a mere two pages, even John Conyers could probably take a crack at reading it - without the assistance of a couple of lawyers. He might even comprehend it.


HR__-Repeal -

h/t Michelle Malkin. Cross-posted.

ObamaCare Ruled Unconstitutional

I imagine today will be the day that the left decides it doesn't like activist judges.

Just a hunch.

A federal judge in Virginia has declared the Obama administration's health care reform law unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson is the first judge to rule against the law, which has been upheld by two others in Virginia and Michigan.

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli filed the lawsuit challenging the law's requirement that citizens buy health insurance or pay a penalty starting in 2014.

He argues the federal government doesn't have the constitutional authority to impose the requirement.

Other lawsuits are pending, including one filed by 20 states in a Florida court. Virginia is not part of that lawsuit.

Hudson was nominated to the court by George W. Bush.

Claire McCaskill (Doomed-2012): Indulge Me While I Paper Over My Enthusiastic Support For Obamacare

I guess it's never too early to get a head start on 2012 - especially if you're a vulnerable Senate Democrat/Obamacare True Believer like Claire McCaskill.

Of course, she won't be running on her 'Obamacare True Believer' chops.

Facing a tough re-election campaign in 2012, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) tried to set herself apart from President Obama on Sunday.

Appearing on "Fox News Sunday," McCaskill said that she'd voted against the president on cap-and-trade, the second round of cash-for-clunkers, comprehensive immigration reform and every omnibus bill.

McCaskill said she'd also sometimes disagreed with Obama when he was a senator.

"My record of independence, frankly, stretches back for a long period of time," she said.

When asked to name an issue where Obama had fallen short, the senator said his move into healthcare legislation at a time when he should have been focusing on job creation was "very difficult," and therefore economic issues "didn't get the attention they needed."

Unfortunately, the "difficulty" of the bill's timing didn't stop her from rubber-stamping it - much to the overwhelming displeasure of her constituents.

Should be a fun election cycle for McCaskill.

Cross-posted.

Democrats' Scheme to Fund Obamacare By Gutting Medicare Like a Fish Proceeds Apace

Remember the $500 billion in Medicare 'waste and abuse' that Democrats promised was there to help pay for Obamacare?

It still hasn't materialized, if you can imagine that.

No worries, though. We're just slashing reimbursements to the dwindling number of doctors who still treat Medicare patients instead.

Pot o' gold, found.

Want an appointment with kidney specialist Adam Weinstein of Easton, Md.? If you're a senior covered by Medicare, the wait is eight weeks.

How about a checkup from geriatric specialist Michael Trahos? Expect to see him every six months: The Alexandria-based doctor has been limiting most of his Medicare patients to twice yearly rather than the quarterly checkups he considers ideal for the elderly. Still, at least he'll see you. Top-ranked primary care doctor Linda Yau is one of three physicians with the District's Foxhall Internists group who recently announced they will no longer be accepting Medicare patients.

"It's not easy. But you realize you either do this or you don't stay in business," she said.

Doctors across the country describe similar decisions, complaining that they've been forced to shift away from Medicare toward higher-paying, privately insured or self-paying patients in response to years of penny-pinching by Congress.

For some unknown reason, Obama remains extraordinarily proud of the mess he's made.



Cross-posted.

"Obamacare is Now in Jeopardy of Repeal Because of Her"

That is Sarah Palin's lawyer Thomas Van Flein, as quoted in an in-depth profile of the 'Cuda in this Sunday's New York Times Magazine.

Lisa Murkowski could not be reached for comment.

Van Flein, a boyish-looking 46-year-old employment-law specialist who majored in political science at the University of Alaska, receives a $10,000 monthly retainer from SarahPAC. In return, he dispenses more than just legal advice. Van Flein contributes research to some of Palin’s Facebook posts and speeches and is a staunch political advocate. (“Regardless of whoever else does or doesn’t say it, I’m saying that Obamacare is now in jeopardy of repeal because of her,” Van Flein proclaimed to me.)

Read the whole thing.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is undoubtedly one of the single most egregious, odious, and ironically-named bills ever to be passed in Washington, D.C. It's not even accurate to call it 'sausage' - it's more like mystery meat, and the more we find out about it, the worse it gets.

Nearly 6 out of 10 Americans continue to favor full repeal of the bill, 8 months after its passage.

Translation: If you want to get elected President in 2012, you better favor full-on, unequivocal repeal of this heinous piece of legislation.

h/t: Amanda Carpenter. Cross-posted here.

Gee, Maybe They Should Have Read the Bill

Couldn't listen to those frothing teabaggers at townhall meetings, right? Why, they didn't know any better.

A leading Senate Democrat vowed Friday to introduce legislation killing a part of the new healthcare reform law that imposes new tax-filing requirements on small businesses.

Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), chairman of the Finance Committee and a leading architect of the reform law, said a provision requiring businesses to report more purchases to the IRS will impose undue paperwork burdens on companies amid an economic downturn when they can least afford it.

Baucus, who had pushed legislation scaling back the requirement earlier in the year, now wants it repealed in full.

“I have heard small businesses loud and clear and I am responding to their concerns," Baucus said in a statement. "Small businesses are the backbone of our economy in my home state of Montana and across the country, and they need to focus their efforts on creating good-paying jobs — not filing paperwork."

Since the midterm election, Democrats have signaled a willingness to change the provision.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Friday that the 1099 requirement is one of the rare provisions of the healthcare law where the two parties agree that a change is needed.

"That's probably the first place we could go together," she told NPR's "Morning Edition."

Last week, President Obama also conceded that the filing provision threatens to put too much strain on businesses.

"The 1099 provision in the healthcare bill appears to be too burdensome for small businesses," Obama said at a White House news conference the day after Democrats were trounced in midterm elections. "It just involves too much paperwork, too much filing. It's probably counterproductive."

Gee, ya think?

Wasn't it Nancy Pelosi who said they had to pass ObaamCare before we could find out what was in it?

Oh yes, it was.

Obama Administration Backing Away From ObamaCare

Well, he did say nobody would lose their coverage, right? Uhh, just not the way it was intended, of course.

Maybe they should have read the legislation before it was shoved down our throats.

Nearly a million workers won't get a consumer protection in the U.S. health reform law meant to cap insurance costs because the government exempted their employers.

Thirty companies and organizations, including McDonald's and Jack in the Box, won't be required to raise the minimum annual benefit included in low-cost health plans, which are often used to cover part-time or low-wage employees.

The Department of Health and Human Services, which provided a list of exemptions, said it granted waivers in late September so workers with such plans wouldn't lose coverage from employers who might choose instead to drop health insurance altogether.

Without waivers, companies would have had to provide a minimum of $750,000 in coverage next year, increasing to $1.25 million in 2012, $2 million in 2013 and unlimited in 2014.

"The big political issue here is the president promised no one would lose the coverage they've got," says Robert Laszewski, chief executive officer of consulting company Health Policy and Strategy Associates. "Here we are a month before the election, and these companies represent 1 million people who would lose the coverage they've got."

The United Agricultural Benefit Trust, the California-based cooperative that offers coverage to farm workers, was allowed to exempt 17,347 people. San Diego-based Jack in the Box's waiver is for 1,130 workers, while McDonald's asked to excuse 115,000.

The plans will be exempt from rules intended to keep people from having to pay for all their care once they reach a preset coverage cap. McDonald's, which offers the programs as a way to cover part-time employees, told the Obama administration it might re-evaluate the plans unless it got a waiver.

McDonald's and Jack in the Box didn't immediately respond to requests for comment.

Democrat campaign aides also fared well.

The biggest single waiver, for 351,000 people, was for the United Federation of Teachers Welfare Fund, a New York union providing coverage for city teachers. The waivers are effective for a year and were granted to insurance plans and companies that showed that employee premiums would rise or that workers would lose coverage without them, Santillo says.

H/T Hillary.

Poll Shows 1 in 4 Democrats Want ObamaCare Repealed

They must be racist or something. No wonder so many endangered Democrats are fleeing Obama.

Healthcare reform is hurting the reelection chances of freshman Democrats in the House, according to The Hill/ANGA poll.

A majority of voters in key battleground districts favor repeal of the legislative overhaul Congress passed this year.

President Obama predicted in the spring that the new law would become popular as people learned more about it. But the poll shows Republicans strongly oppose it, independents are wary of it and a surprising number of Democrats also want it overturned.

Republicans have vowed to repeal the law if they take control of Congress, and the findings of Mark Penn, who led Penn Schoen Berland’s polling team, show that healthcare is a major issue for voters this year.

When asked if they wanted the legislation repealed, 56 percent of voters in the surveyed districts said yes. “Only Democrats were opposed to repeal (23 percent to 64 percent),” Penn said. “Undecided voters wanted the healthcare law repealed by 49 percent to 27 percent.”

In each district, a majority of those surveyed said they want the controversial law gone.

Sixty-five percent back repeal in Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick’s (D-Ariz.) district, while only 27 percent oppose such an effort. Kirkpatrick voted for healthcare reform.

Fifty-nine percent of those polled in Rep. Debbie Halvorson’s (D-Ill.) district back a repeal, with 29 percent against. More than one in four Democrats polled also favor repeal. Halvorson was a late yes vote on healthcare reform and is now 18 points behind her Republican challenger.

I recall Nancy Pelosi also declared there'd be an immediate surge of 400,000 jobs once they passed the bill they refused to read. How's that working out?

Freshman Democrats, meanwhile, face a bloodbath on November 2.