That makes sense.
What, no mention of Bush being at fault?
Well, when you consider that AMERICANS never wanted any part of ObamaCare, this should have been expected. The only people who wanted ObamaCare were the ‘RAT politicians and their freeloading voter base.
This whole labeling thing needs to be reversed to label the commie/fascist/socialist states as "Red".
Hmmmm...I wonder if it's because their site's not working.
All that chart tells me is that we are hopelessly outnumbered and the Republic is doomed.
It isn’t a matter of if, it’s a matter of when.
If the Rats get the House back in November, well...
The problem that liberals are having to come to grips with is that not everyone is a liar who views things through a political lens.
When conservatives said ‘We don’t want the Affordable Care Act’, what liberals heard was ‘We are opposed to anything you propose’. What conservatives meant was ‘We don’t want the Affordable Care Act’.
What liberals expected was that once the law was passed, those conservatives really would want the act, because it was a good idea. (Of course they thought it was a good idea, that’s why they championed it.) What they didn’t expect was that conservatives, even after having lost the political fight, were being 100% honest in not wanting the law. So they aren’t signing up for it.
The idea of principles and beliefs beyond politics is something liberals don’t understand at all.
When the law allows for opting in or opting out, and states can choose between the two, and they choose to opt out of creating exchanges, how is that "holding back?" They are exercising their legal rights that were legislated by their representatives in Congress.
The same can be said for Article V conventions. If the states have two paths to control the federal government, sending politicians to Congress who can vote for amendments or convening a convention of the states to propose their own amendments, and the states choose to convene to propose their own, is that "holding back" (or the real word they wanted to use "undermining") the federal government?
Do people really expect us to follow some unwritten rule that certain "negotiated" or "compromise" amendments are added to bill, but we're not supposed to actually use them later on? They are only there for show, for the political expediency of getting the bill passed, but that nobody really expected anyone to actually want to DO it? And that we will delegitimize anyone who tries to?
-PJ
The Rat blue states make up numbers to help puff up the flailing Community College law instructor Prez..
Red states are resisting the tyranny of obamacare.
What’s with Romney’s state?
Cohn should stick to journalism.
Statistics is obviously not his bag. His analysis is riddled with selection bias. So-called blue states have more liberal voters who want more government intervention so that they can get insurance. They also elect more dims to state office who will line up in lock step behind the president. More of these liberal voters will sign up for Obamacare because there are more of them in these states.
It’s reverse for the so-called red states.
There’s not even a non-conspiracy conspiracy here.
Duh!
If I had any money to invest I’d buy stock in the big insurance companies. The taxpayers are about to write them some big checks.
I see the same old mantra. The left failed again miserably, and this time they are killing people. So like they always do, they try to blame the right.
Not working d@baggers....
Notice KY is the highest red state? It’s because there are a LOT of people here living off the system. They are mostly medicaid signups.
Hmmm... so, states do have rights
Most of the Obastardcare applicants are for Medicaid or heavily subsidized premiums. TNR reports most of the grabs for the Gibsmedat are in “Blue States” and this is seen as news?
Actually, it’s likely the states with larger percentages of enrollment were responsible for terminating existing plans thereby forcing folks onto Obamacare.
That makes sense.