Researcher Kathleen Geier (@Kathy__Gee) Slams 'Very Privileged' Family Cancelled Under #ObamaCare

You'd think a "public policy researcher" like this Kathleen Geier, writing at the Washington Monthly, would do what public policy researchers are supposed to do: evaluate the alternatives, especially with a cost-benefit analysis. But Ms. Geier doesn't do that. She just slams this "very privileged" family covered at the New York Times for "whining about the ACA." See, "The New York Times and the ACA: the yuppie whine-athon continues." (Via Memeorandum.)

Well, okay. I hate whiners too. But you'd think Ms Geier might actually examine the complaints of the family, the Chapmans, to see if they're so unreasonable to warrant the very privileged whiners smear. It turns out that there's nothing particularly special about them. They're another family that's unfairly lost their health insurance because of the disastrous ObamaCare redistribution scheme, but reading Geier's post you'd never know it unless you clicked through to the New York Times, "New Health Law Frustrates Many in Middle Class":

Ginger Chapman and her husband, Doug, are sitting on the health care cliff.

The cheapest insurance plan they can find through the new federal marketplace in New Hampshire will cost their family of four about $1,000 a month, 12 percent of their annual income of around $100,000 and more than they have ever paid before.

Even more striking, for the Chapmans, is this fact: If they made just a few thousand dollars less a year — below $94,200 — their costs would be cut in half, because a family like theirs could qualify for federal subsidies.

The Chapmans acknowledge that they are better off than many people, but they represent a little-understood reality of the Affordable Care Act. While the act clearly benefits those at the low end of the income scale — and rich people can continue to afford even the most generous plans — people like the Chapmans are caught in the uncomfortable middle: not poor enough for help, but not rich enough to be indifferent to cost.

“We are just right over that line,” said Ms. Chapman, who is 54 and does administrative work for a small wealth management firm. Because their plan is being canceled, she is looking for new coverage for her family, which includes Mr. Chapman, 55, a retired fireman who works on a friend’s farm, and her two sons. “That’s an insane amount of money,” she said of their new premium. “How are you supposed to pay that?”

An analysis by The New York Times shows the cost of premiums for people who just miss qualifying for subsidies varies widely across the country and rises rapidly for people in their 50s and 60s. In some places, prices can quickly approach 20 percent of a person’s income.

Experts consider health insurance unaffordable once it exceeds 10 percent of annual income. By that measure, a 50-year-old making $50,000 a year, or just above the qualifying limit for assistance, would find the cheapest available plan to be unaffordable in more than 170 counties around the country, ranging from Anchorage to Jackson, Miss...

If you continue reading it notes that the Chapmans were paying $665.00 a month for their previous insurance, so they're looking at a $335.00 a month increase in premiums, which for their family is a big hit. They qualify for the "catastrophic" plans the administration is now making more widely available under its so-called "fix" to the insurance mandate announced Thursday night, but the up-front costs in those plans are huge, so there's little that's beneficial to them under the administration's reforms (despite the president's endless lies about how people will be better off under the ACA).

But for as long as I can remember, good public policy has been predicated on middle class support. Social Security, for all its flaws, has long been a popular program with Americans very resistant to removing its bottom-line old-age income guarantee for retirees. What the White House is discovering now is what most "public policy researchers" take for granted: that policy changes that impose massive costs on the largest voting demographic are likely to generate enormous political repercussions. To put things more plainly, ObamaCare doesn't work and the public's not pleased. We're watching the predicted "death spiral" unfold right before our eyes. Frankly, any "public policy researcher" worth her salt would know this, but when the pursuit of equality becomes a quasi-religious mission of emancipation for the poor and "underprivileged," facts and basic common sense --- to say nothing of basic decency --- no longer matter.

BONUS: As I mentioned last night, some progressives have responded to the failure of ObamaCare by barking about nationalizing health care along the lines of Britain's NIH. And here's Atrios doing it in light of NYT's latest report, "Health Care Is Expensive In This Country."

The left has been pretty successful in destroying the private insurance market so far. The real solution to this mess is to scrap ObamaCare altogether and develop market-friendly reforms that increase competition and lower costs, and then some kind of national healthcare safety net should be created to protect those unable to afford coverage. The left's alternative, socialized medicine, is bad for America. Indeed, critics who accused the Democrats of pushing for stealth socialized medicine through the ACA now look prescient.

#ObamaCare's Radicalism Exposed

From Charles Krauthammer, at the Washington Post, "Story of the year":

The lie of the year, according to Politifact, is “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it.” But the story of the year is a nation waking up to just how radical Obamacare is — which is why it required such outright deception to get it passed in the first place.

Obamacare was sold as simply a refinement of the current system, retaining competition among independent insurers but making things more efficient, fair and generous. Free contraceptives for Sandra Fluke. Free mammograms and checkups for you and me. Free (or subsidized) insurance for some 30 million uninsured. And, mirabile dictu, not costing the government a dime.

In fact, Obamacare is a full-scale federal takeover. The keep-your-plan-if-you-like-your-plan ruse was a way of saying to the millions of Americans who had insurance and liked what they had: Don’t worry. You’ll be left unmolested. For you, everything goes on as before.

That was a fraud from the very beginning. The law was designed to throw people off their private plans and into government-run exchanges where they would be made to overpay — forced to purchase government-mandated services they don’t need — as a way to subsidize others. (That’s how you get to the ostensible free lunch.)

It wasn’t until the first cancellation notices went out in late 2013 that the deception began to be understood. And felt. Six million Americans with private insurance have just lost it. And that’s just the beginning. By the Department of Health and Human Services’ own estimates, about 75 million Americans would have plans that their employers would have the right to cancel. And millions of middle-class workers who will migrate to the exchanges and don’t qualify for government subsidies will see their premiums, deductibles and co-pays go up.

It gets worse. The dislocation extends to losing one’s doctor and drug coverage, as insurance companies narrow availability to compensate for the huge costs imposed on them by the extended coverage and “free” services the new law mandates.

But it’s not just individuals seeing their medical care turned upside down. The insurance providers, the backbone of the system, are being utterly transformed. They are rapidly becoming mere extensions of the federal government.

More at the link, and enjoy Paul Hsieh on Twitter:

It's. The. Law-unless-I-choose-to-exempt-you-from-it. pic.twitter.com/3v8y7OjlHs

— Paul Hsieh (@PaulHsieh) December 21, 2013

We're Witnessing the #ObamaCare Death Spiral in Real-Time

As always, the editors at the Wall Street Journal have nailed the administration's deceit and incompetence. See, "Obama Repeals ObamaCare."

Read the whole thing, but note especially these two paragraphs:

The only political explanation for relaxing enforcement of the individual mandate—even at the risk of destabilizing ObamaCare in the long term—is that the White House is panicked that the whole entitlement is endangered. The insurance terminations and rollout fiasco could leave more people uninsured in 2014 than in 2013. ObamaCare's unpopularity with the public could cost Democrats the Senate in 2014, and a GOP Congress in 2015 could compel the White House to reopen the law and make major changes.

Republicans ought to prepare for that eventuality with insurance reforms beyond the "repeal" slogan, but they can also take some vindication in Thursday's reversal. Mr. Obama's actions are as damning about ObamaCare as anything Senator Ted Cruz has said, and they implicitly confirm that the law is quarter-baked and harmful. Mr. Obama is doing through executive fiat what Republicans shut down the government to get him to do.

And as noted earlier, this latest "fix" creates huge incentives for individuals to avoid buying health insurance (and some of the already uninsured may create fake cancellation documents to take advantage of the changes), and thus we're really watching the opening moments of the much-predicted ObamaCare death spiral. See also Megan McArdle, at Bloomberg, "Obamacare Initiates Self-Destruction Sequence":

I’m not sure the administration is thinking that far ahead. The White House is focused on winning the news cycle, day by day, not the kind of detached technocratic policymaking that they, and the law’s other supporters, hoped this law would embody. Does your fix create problems later, cause costs to spiral or people to drop out of the insurance market, or lead to political pressure to expand the fixes in ways that critically undermine the law? Well, that’s preferable to sudden death right now.

However incoherent these fixes may seem, they send two messages, loud and clear. The first is that although liberal pundits may think that the law is a done deal, impossible to repeal, the administration does not believe that. The willingness to take large risks with the program’s stability indicates that the administration thinks it has a huge amount to lose -- that the White House is in a battle for the program’s very existence, not a few marginal House and Senate seats.

And the second is that enrollment probably isn’t what the administration was hoping. I don’t know that we’ll start Jan. 1 with fewer people insured than we had a year ago, but this certainly shouldn’t make us optimistic. It’s not like people who lost their insurance due to Obamacare, and now can’t afford to replace their policy, are going to be happy that they’re exempted from the mandate; they’re still going to be pretty mad. This is at best, damage control. Which suggests that the administration is expecting a fair amount of damage.

Still more at that top link (via Memeorandum).

The ObamaCare death spiral occurs when so few young people sign up for insurance that the system's structure of subsidies for older, less healthy consumers fails to operate correctly. This is why the Wall Street Journal argues, among others, that last night's "fix" will only cause insurance companies to jack up rates to cover losses. (And as McArdle notes, insurance companies will be even more entitled to a government bailout on their losses through the law's "risk corridors"). Folks have been warning about this "death spiral" for months.

It's still early, of course. But no doubt the White House is utterly panicked. It's a virtually certainly that more changes will be unveiled, perhaps more deadlines pushed back to minimize the Democrats' political losses next year. But by now only the most hackneyed ideological reprobates are defending the law anymore. Democrats can't run away from it fast enough and across the netroots regressive leftists are whining about how all they really wanted was "single-payer" (socialized medicine) in the first place. These people are idiots and moral retards. They deserve the political backlash now hammering them on the heads, and all the more that's likely over the next year. Screw 'em. God willing, the voters will crush the radical left for a generation or more.

Glenn Reynolds with Mickey Kaus on 'InstaVision': Obama's Hipster Douchebag Fail

Via Moira Fitzgerald, "INSTAVISION: OBAMA'S HIPSTER DOUCHEBAG FAIL."

Also at Instapundit, "NOW ON YOUTUBE, My InstaVision interview with Mickey Kaus: Obama’s Second-Term Disappointment: Reduced to Mafioso Behavior and Hipster Twitter Ads."

Extreme Hardship: White House Delays Portion of #ObamaCare Individual Mandate

The ACA includes a "hardship exemption" that allows individuals in worst case situations to avoid the requirements of the individual mandate. The Obama HHS Administration issued the relaxed rules yesterday afternoon, another delay in what's now nearly two dozen delays in this Democrat debacle.

At the Washington Post, "Obama administration relaxes rules of health-care law four days before deadline":

The Obama administration on Thursday night significantly relaxed the rules of the federal health-care law for millions of consumers whose individual insurance policies have been canceled, saying they can buy bare-bones plans or entirely avoid a requirement that most Americans have health coverage.

The surprise announcement, days before the Dec. 23 deadline for people to choose plans that will begin Jan. 1, triggered an immediate backlash from the health insurance industry and raised fairness questions about a law intended to promote affordable and comprehensive coverage on a widespread basis.

The rule change was issued in a bulletin from the Department of Health and Human Services. It is the second major response by the Obama administration to a public and political furor that erupted in the fall when several million people who bought their own insurance began to receive notices that their policies were being canceled because they fell short of new benefit standards. The cancellations prompted complaints that President Obama had reneged on an oft-repeated promise that, under the Affordable Care Act, people who like their health plans could keep them.

At a news conference in mid-November, an apologetic Obama relented to the criticism, announcing that the federal government would let insurance companies continue for another year to offer individuals and small businesses health plans that do not meet the new requirements. The decision, however , is up to each state’s insurance regulator, and not all have gone along.

This second change, prompted by a group of Democratic senators — most of whom face tough reelection campaigns next year — goes substantially further in accommodating people upset about losing their policies. The latest rule will allow consumers with a canceled health plan to claim a “hardship exemption” if they think the plans sold through new federal and state marketplaces are too expensive.

The ability to get an exemption means that the administration is freeing these people from one of the central features of the law: a requirement that most Americans have health insurance as of Jan. 1 or risk a fine. The exemption gives them the choice of having no insurance or of buying skimpy “catastrophic” coverage.

Until now, the law allowed people younger than 30 to buy catastrophic coverage if they couldn’t afford a better health plan. The exception was an effort to attract young adults who have been particularly prone to avoiding coverage in the past. The law also has allowed hardship exemptions for people 30 and older who could not afford the regular coverage.

It is unclear how many people facing canceled policies will choose no insurance, bare-bones coverage or a plan through the insurance exchanges that meet new federal standards. But the prospect that healthy people with canceled insurance might opt out of the new health plans set off immediate alarm among insurance industry leaders, who already have been worried whether enough people who are inexpensive to cover will sign up.

It's catastrophic alright. A catastrophic cascade of ClusterCare fail. Ezra Klein, of all people, indicates the incentives for further abandonment of the law:

"This latest rule change could cause significant instability in the marketplace and lead to further confusion and disruption for consumers," says Karen Ignani, head of the trade group America's Health Insurance Plans. They worry the White House is underestimating the number of people whose plans have been canceled and who will opt to either remain uninsured or buy catastrophic insurance rather than more comprehensive coverage....

This puts the first crack in the individual mandate. The question is whether it's the last. If Democratic members of Congress see this as solving their political problem with people whose plans have been canceled, it could help them stand against Republican efforts to delay the individual mandate. But if congressional Democrats use this ruling as an excuse to delay or otherwise de-fang the individual mandate for anyone who doesn't want to pay for insurance under Obamacare, then it'll be a very big problem for the law.

It's all f-ked up, but RTWT.

National Lampoon's #ObamaCare Vacation

A humorous editorial at the Wall Street Journal.

It turns out April Todd-Malmlov, the state director of Minnesota's MNsure exchange, resigned under pressure after taking a vacation to the Cayman Islands. And the editors snark, "Is Mr. [John] Podesta or Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius due for a holiday? A flap over an inopportune vacation might be the only thing that would force the White House to hold someone responsible for ObamaCare."

Read it all at that link. The editors slam far-left Podesta as a "hit man."

More here, "Podesta’s Non-Apology Presages More WH Lies."

NYT Poll: Majority of 53 Percent of Uninsured Disapprove of #ObamaCare

That's a bit higher than even those who're insured.

See, "Uninsured Skeptical of Health Care Law in Poll":

WASHINGTON — Americans who lack medical coverage disapprove of President Obama’s health care law at roughly the same rate as the insured, even though most say they struggle to pay for basic care, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

Fifty-three percent of the uninsured disapprove of the law, the poll found, compared with 51 percent of those who have health coverage. A third of the uninsured say the law will help them personally, but about the same number think it will hurt them, with cost a leading concern.

The widespread skepticism, even among people who are supposed to benefit from the law, underscores the political challenge facing the Obama administration as it tries to persuade millions of Americans to enroll in coverage through new online marketplaces, a crucial element of making the new law financially viable for insurers.

Continue reading.

Also at Weasel Zippers, "New CBS/NYT Poll Finds Only 15% of Insured Americans Think Obamacare Will Help Them…."

WaPo's Greg Sargent is 'Waiting for Barack'

Big Fur Hat posted this mock-up the other day.



And Memeorandum's got a thread with the idiot's latest ClusterCare ramblings, "The consequences of GOP opposition to Obamacare."

You might notice how, for the idiot shill Sargent, any and all problems with ObamaCare are to be blamed on Republicans. It's disgusting. Lonely Con has more on that, "Will The GOP Fall Into The Democrats’ Obamacare Trap?"

Also at AceofSpadesHQ, "Let's Go Cherry-Picking!"

#ObamaCare 'Disaster' Erodes Faith in Government

Emily Ekins breaks down the finding from the latest Reason-Rupe poll, via Reason, "Obamacare Launch Eroding Faith in Government as Problem Solver: Reason-Rupe Poll December 2013."

And going right to the poll, "Americans Want to Go Back to Previous Health Care System, Disagree With President Obama on Size and Power of Government."

Devastating.

The Decline of American Propaganda

It's an embarrassing time for Democrats. Ruthlessly embarrassing.

Here's Iowahawk on Twitter.

US government propaganda, 1943 http://t.co/x1lFdK9aUz US government propaganda, 2013 pic.twitter.com/UgEmUBtO1M

— David Burge (@iowahawkblog) December 18, 2013

Via Instapundit.

Embrace the Suck

Look, I keep signing off with "embrace the suck," so I might as well post the source for this hilarious ode to Democrat incompetence.

It's House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, of all people.

At the New York Post, "Pelosi on budget deal: ‘Embrace the suck’."



And while Pelosi's dissing the budget deal, it's embrace the suck all around for Democrats in 2014. And some of them aren't up for it. See Glenn Reynolds, "YOU DON’T NEED A WEATHERMAN TO SEE WHICH WAY THE WIND BLOWS: Rep. Jim Matheson (D-UT) resigns rather than face Mia Love again in 2014."

John Boehner Takes on Tea Party Conservatives

At LAT, "House Speaker Boehner lashes out at conservative groups":

WASHINGTON — In an uncharacteristically forceful tone, House Speaker John A. Boehner on Wednesday lambasted the conservative advocacy groups that helped bring his party to power, saying their opposition to a bipartisan budget proposal amounted to an effort to manipulate Republicans and the American people "for their own goals."

The rare outburst from the often poker-faced speaker, a reversal of his past approach toward influential conservative groups, underscored long-simmering tensions between them and mainstream Republicans, who appear to be moving to reestablish their control over the party's agenda.

The hard-line groups have bedeviled Boehner and his leadership team all year by opposing efforts to compromise with Democrats and influencing primary campaigns aimed at unseating establishment Republicans, whom they accuse of abandoning conservative ideals on controlling government spending.

Boehner's words also reflected his apparent confidence that the recently announced $85-billion budget deal will be approved by the House this week despite attacks by conservative groups like Club for Growth and Heritage Action. Even if as many as 100 Republicans vote against it, as some predicted, Boehner is counting on Democrats to make up the shortfall, something he has been loath to do in the past.

Only weeks ago, Boehner sidestepped questions about the influence of the outside groups, who promote limited government and are mostly funded by rich conservative donors and business leaders. When asked in late October how they were affecting his members, Boehner answered simply: "Pass."

Though tensions have been rising for the last two years, Republican leaders resisted airing the frustrations publicly. But on Wednesday, tensions boiled over. At a news conference on the budget plan, Boehner interrupted a question about the developing opposition from conservative groups to charge that they "opposed it before they ever saw it."

"They're using our members and they're using the American people for their own goals," Boehner said. "This is ridiculous. If you're for more deficit reduction, you're for this agreement."

The outburst was long in gestation, Republicans close to Boehner said, and stemmed in part from many of the groups' support for a strategy led by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) that triggered the government shutdown in October. Boehner and other GOP leaders believe, as polls show, that it damaged the party.

"Boehner had warned them, having gone through this before, that this was a route that would not reap the rewards that people thought," said David Winston, a Republican pollster who has advised the House GOP. "And he was correct."

Also, "Boehner criticizes GOP groups again, but also wants to move on."

And the GOP leadership is purging so-called traitors in the ranks.

See the Washington Post, "House GOP leader Steve Scalise fires top aide, Paul Teller, citing breach of trust." Apparently Teller was an inside source for outside conservative groups, who see his firing as a declaration of war. See the Heritage Foundation, "Conservative Leaders Voice Outrage at Firing of RSC Executive Director."

There's lots more at Memeorandum.

And at National Journal, "Why Boehner Can Thumb His Nose at the Right."

U.S. Debt Levels Surge After GOP Caves to Democrat Budget Deal

At the Wall Street Journal, "U.S. Debt Jumps to $17.076 Trillion":

Well, that didn’t take long. Congress’s deal to suspend the government’s borrowing limit on Wednesday night led to a sharp spike in total U.S. debt on Thursday. This is largely because the Treasury Department had been using emergency steps to prevent the debt from increasing since mid-May. Total government debt had hovered at close to $16.7 trillion for around five months.

Actually, right now we don't even have a debt ceiling. Things can just keep spiraling out of control.

More at iOWNTHEWORLD, "U.S. debt jumps a record $328 billion — tops $17 trillion for first time."

Obama Denies Death and Burial Benefits to Families of 4 Dead Soldiers

Clearly Obama relishes extracting pain from everyday citizens.

Absolutely outrageous.

At the New York Times:

You have to shake your head at the Obama death benefit snit. Beyond the gross immorality of it, it's just plain stupid. #caring

— Kurt Schlichter (@KurtSchlichter) October 9, 2013

Pentagon military and civilian personnel have largely escaped furloughs through legislation signed by President Obama and on orders from the defense secretary. But the death benefits — at least for the families of military personnel killed since Oct. 1, when the government shut down — are not covered by either move.

Last week, Congress quickly passed the Pay Our Military Act to ensure that active-duty soldiers and civilian support staff members were paid for their work. Over the weekend, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the Pentagon concluded that most of its 400,000 civilian employees were covered by the bill.

Some House Republicans have suggested, without citing specific language in the bill, that it also covered death benefits. “The intent of Congress was to permit D.O.D. to honor all payment and allowances to service members,” Representative Duncan Hunter, Republican of California, said in a letter to Mr. Hagel.

“The department’s decision to not make these payments is a matter of choice,” he added. “And until a correction is made to the law, it is up to you to make the appropriate judgment based on a more correct interpretation.”

The House Appropriations Committee is moving to get a bill to the floor to reinstate the benefits as early as Wednesday.

“Frankly, I think it’s disgraceful that they’re withholding these benefits,” Speaker John A. Boehner said in a brief news conference Tuesday afternoon. “But again tomorrow, the House is going to act specifically on this and I hope the president will sign it.”

'Clock is Ticking' — China Warns U.S. Over Budget Showdown

And like it's going to do any good.

At the Independent UK, "Get your fiscal house in order: China warns US as superpower expresses concern for $1.3tn of investments":

China, the biggest foreign creditor of the United States, has waded into the American budget crisis, warning Congress that it must resolve the political impasse over the debt ceiling without further delay.

The Chinese Vice Foreign Minister, Zhu Guangyao, told America’s deadlocked politicians on Monday that “the clock is ticking” and called on them to approve an extension of the national borrowing limit before the federal government is projected to run out of cash on 17 October.

“We ask that the United States earnestly takes steps to resolve in a timely way the political issues around the debt ceiling and prevent a US debt default to ensure the safety of Chinese investments in the United States,” Mr Zhu told reporters in Beijing. “This is the United States’ responsibility,” he added.

The American government entered its seventh day of shutdown on Monday, following the failure of Congress to approve the national budget a week ago. And there was little sign of progress on the still more crucial issue of the fast-approaching “debt ceiling” deadline.

Continue reading.

Senator Ted Cruz on 'The Kelly File'

At Fox News, "Megyn Kelly Asks Ted Cruz: What's It Like to Be the Most Hated Man in America?"

In Georgia, Urging Republicans to Stand Strong

At NYT, "Conservative Georgia District Urges G.O.P. to Keep Up the Fight":

FORT OGLETHORPE, Ga. — Just down the road from where Union troops suffered their worst defeat of the Civil War, Jeff Epperson sang the praises of his congressman, Representative Tom Graves, whose Defund Obamacare Act set the table for the partial government shutdown.

Even though business has been slow at Mr. Epperson’s sword and knife shop since tourists stopped visiting the historic Chickamauga battlefield, which closed on Tuesday because of the furlough of federal workers in the shutdown, he said the only thing that would weaken his support for Mr. Graves would be if the congressman caved in now. In that case, he might vote for a more conservative choice in the next Republican primary.

“If he backs off, then I would say absolutely I’d be inclined to look for someone else,” said Mr. Epperson, whose store flew a Don’t Tread on Me flag.

The Republican insistence in the House on tying financing of the federal government to dismantling the Affordable Care Act is being driven by a deeply conservative caucus from places like Mr. Graves’s 14th Congressional District, newly created by Georgia’s Republican-controlled Legislature.

Even as Republican elders warn that the party is risking a voter backlash that could cost it in future elections, interviews here indicate that hard-liners like Mr. Graves have more to fear, if they waver, from a potential challenger to their right.

Mr. Graves, 43, won 73 percent of the vote in November in a district that is 85 percent white and has a 16.6 percent college graduation rate. A journey through the district, which stretches from the exurbs of Atlanta to the northwest mountains on the Tennessee border, found many voters who, even if they were unfamiliar with Mr. Graves’s biography, strongly supported him.

“He represents the people,” said Tim Ferguson, a forklift operator who was waiting for a haircut at Paul’s Barber Shop in Calhoun. “He’s not going to commit political suicide by backing down.”

Voters here viewed the Washington stalemate just as Mr. Graves and many of his party members in Congress portray it: a tale of Republicans who have repeatedly shown a willingness to compromise, while Democrats petulantly refuse to meet halfway.

“Obama should not be so dogmatic,” said Julia Welch, 82, who runs an antiques store in Dallas, the seat of Paulding County. “He wants his way and no other.”

Jon Tripcony, a surveyor in Dallas, recalled a photograph of Republican leaders in shirt sleeves facing empty seats across a table. The photo, which Mr. Graves posted on Twitter, was staged to dramatize Republicans’ call for Democrats to discuss a budget passed by the House. It may have been dismissed as a publicity stunt by much of the news media, which noted that House Republicans repeatedly refused to join a conference on a budget the Senate passed earlier. But in northwest Georgia it was taken at face value.

“There was not one single Democrat,” Mr. Tripcony said. “They’re just spoiled little kids. I don’t get it.”

Mr. Ferguson, 48, said House conservatives should not shrink from the next fiscal deadline, raising the debt ceiling, even if it means defaulting on government bonds, a prospect that economists overwhelmingly say would bring down catastrophe.

“If it has to happen for the American people to get what’s best, defunding Obamacare, so be it,” Mr. Ferguson said. “Our credit rating’s going to go down, but it went down before. Did the apocalypse come?”

The number of hard-line House conservatives is estimated from two dozen to as many as the 80 who signed a letter to Speaker John A. Boehner demanding that he tie financing the government to defunding the Affordable Care Act, which he had initially ruled out. Their politics are shaped less by the national picture for Republicans, who have lost five of the last six popular votes for president, than by the demographics of districts like this one that were drawn by conservative legislatures after the 2010 census to ensure safe Republican seats.

That the president, who lost Mr. Graves’s district by 49 percentage points last November, is unpopular was no surprise. But the level of animosity from some was acute. He was compared to a tyrant preparing to end constitutional democracy, as in Germany in the 1930s. Peggy Newsome, 73, who was picking up bags of groceries at the Paulding County Helping Hands food bank, said, “Everything he’s put his hands on, he’s screwed up.”

Shoot, Ima move to Georgia. Damn, them thar's some conservative voters.

Harry Reid Rejects 11th Hour Compromise With Republicans – #BlameHarryReid

At the Hill, "Reid rejects House GOP offer to appoint funding conferees":

Senate Democratic leaders shortly before midnight rejected a House Republican request to appoint conferees to negotiate a short-term government-funding bill.

The move makes it all but certain there will be a government shutdown after midnight.

And the GOP press conference earlier:



Also, at Legal Insurrection, "The culmination of Democratic dysfunction – #BlameHarryReid."

Added: The latest at the New York Times, "Senate Rejects House Demands to Curb Health Care Law."

House #GOP Seeks Health-Law Delay as Shutdown Looms

Shut it down, I say.

Screw the Democrats. They'd rather negotiate with Iranian terror-sponsors than our own democratically-elected Members of the House of Representatives.

The Wall Street Journal reports, "House GOP Seeks Health-Law Delay: Condition For Funding Brings Federal Government to Brink of Shutdown Tuesday."

And at Lonely Con, "Harry Reid Says Senate Will Reject New House Bill Funding Government":

House Republicans are (surprisingly) not backing down on the Obamacare/continuing resolution fight. Unfortunately, neither is Harry Reid. The House has a new bill funding government and delaying the implementation of Obamacare for one year. They also have a bill that will fund the military in the event of a shut down. Reid says the Senate will reject the bill.

Yes, because "tea party anarchists."

Screw 'em. Prepare for the shutdown.

#ObamaCare: 'Working the Way It's Supposed to...'

Yes, working to destroy the American healthcare system.

From Reason TV, "5 Reasons Obamacare Won't Save You."



Yeah, it's all f-ked up. At the Hill, "DC Delays Key Pieces of Obamacare Exchange."

Also at Reuters, "Computer Snags Delay Parts of Obamacare In Some U.S. States," and Politico, "Obamacare Faces New Delay In Small-Business Enrollment."

Yep, failing the way it's supposed to!

PREVIOUSLY: "#ObamaCare's Uphill Battle in Colorado."