Ad Implores Women To Break Up With Obama

[Rikurzhen]

I thought it was an effective ad.

I can see why libs don't like it.

Effective for whom?

It is primarily condescending. The only people it will sell to is the group that is already sold. So, for the group that already believes that you have a win. For everyone else, it was alienating.

Shaming people is a tactic which works. Liberals shame people who reject associating with homosexuals. It's fair for Republicans to shame women who voted for Obama because they imagined him as their cool boyfriend and that means most women. They need to be shamed into thinking with their heads, not their hearts.

Pfffttt............... You're an idiot.

Democrats captured 56% of the white single woman vote. Republicans captured 63% of the white married women vote.

Democrats have a greater hurdle to jump to push Republicans down to 49% of the married white women vote ( a 14% delta) than Republicans have in pushing Democrats down to a 49% share of the single white women vote (a 7% delta)

Go back and read your paragraph. Republicans have a much higher hurdle than you seem to think.

I reread my paragraph and I don't see the problem. Why not enlighten me?

 

[candycorn]

Women, as a voting block are firmly in the Dem camp.

That's a complete mischaracterization. It's primarily the independent women who don't need a man and who have thus married the government that are firmly in the Democratic camp.

Romney won the white women's vote and he won the married women's vote. The women who want government to tax men and married people in order to get "free" birth control pills, you know, the "independent" women are the one's who voted for Obama.

It's a good thing to focus on the hypocrisy of "independent" women and shame them for being so dependent on government.

You're the textbook example of why the GOP has lost the women's vote for the foreseeable future. And you're too dumb to realize it. That is the hilarious thing about you

There is no such thing as the women's vote. Republicans won 63% of white married female voters and they won 55% of married women voters of all races. Don't married women count as females in your world?

A superior % of a dwindling demographic.... Please humor me some more.

Thank you for conceding that there is no women voter bloc. Please be honest in the future.

Thanks for confirming you unsophisticated prejudices in the political sphere. Let's see, you lost the women's vote handly yet you claim because you won some shrinking subsets, this bodes well for the future when the presumptive nominee of the rival part is female...ahh...got it.

Will Hispanic women by and large go for the GOP? No.
Will Single women by and large go for the GOP? No.
Will Black women by and large go for the GOP? No.
Will College Educated women by and large, go for the GOP? No.

Hispanic women demographic....growing:

Single Women demographic: Growing

ps: Obama also won the votes of unmarried men quite easily

College educated women demographic: Growing by leaps and bounds

ps: With college degrees the amount of money contributed to candidates will increase too dumb dumb.

Now, as all of us (or most of us considering your ignorance) know, Presidential elections are all about state demographics. Texas, for the foreseeable future will be red no matter how much abuse the GOP wishes to heap upon them. Failing government, failing schools, dirty land, air and water but..it will stay red. Likewise for most of the south.

Thus far.

However, going forward there seems to be some hope on the horizon:

Will the 65% minority/majority in Texas turn it blue or purple in 2020 or 2024; I think yes.

In the future, try to be smarter. Class dismissed.

 

[guno]

That's a complete mischaracterization. It's primarily the independent women who don't need a man and who have thus married the government that are firmly in the Democratic camp.

Romney won the white women's vote and he won the married women's vote. The women who want government to tax men and married people in order to get "free" birth control pills, you know, the "independent" women are the one's who voted for Obama.

It's a good thing to focus on the hypocrisy of "independent" women and shame them for being so dependent on government.

You're the textbook example of why the GOP has lost the women's vote for the foreseeable future. And you're too dumb to realize it. That is the hilarious thing about you

There is no such thing as the women's vote. Republicans won 63% of white married female voters and they won 55% of married women voters of all races. Don't married women count as females in your world?

A superior % of a dwindling demographic.... Please humor me some more.

Thank you for conceding that there is no women voter bloc. Please be honest in the future.

Thanks for confirming you unsophisticated prejudices in the political sphere. Let's see, you lost the women's vote handly yet you claim because you won some shrinking subsets, this bodes well for the future when the presumptive nominee of the rival part is female...ahh...got it.

Will Hispanic women by and large go for the GOP? No.
Will Single women by and large go for the GOP? No.
Will Black women by and large go for the GOP? No.
Will College Educated women by and large, go for the GOP? No.

Hispanic women demographic....growing:

Single Women demographic: Growing

ps: Obama also won the votes of unmarried men quite easily

College educated women demographic: Growing by leaps and bounds

ps: With college degrees the amount of money contributed to candidates will increase too dumb dumb.

Now, as all of us (or most of us considering your ignorance) know, Presidential elections are all about state demographics. Texas, for the foreseeable future will be red no matter how much abuse the GOP wishes to heap upon them. Failing government, failing schools, dirty land, air and water but..it will stay red. Likewise for most of the south.

Thus far.

However, going forward there seems to be some hope on the horizon:

Will the 65% minority/majority in Texas turn it blue or purple in 2020 or 2024; I think yes.

In the future, try to be smarter. Class dismissed.

Sure looks like the uneducated white bible thumping trailer trash of the white christian party are going to lose big going forward

 

[candycorn]

You're the textbook example of why the GOP has lost the women's vote for the foreseeable future. And you're too dumb to realize it. That is the hilarious thing about you

There is no such thing as the women's vote. Republicans won 63% of white married female voters and they won 55% of married women voters of all races. Don't married women count as females in your world?

A superior % of a dwindling demographic.... Please humor me some more.

Thank you for conceding that there is no women voter bloc. Please be honest in the future.

Thanks for confirming you unsophisticated prejudices in the political sphere. Let's see, you lost the women's vote handly yet you claim because you won some shrinking subsets, this bodes well for the future when the presumptive nominee of the rival part is female...ahh...got it.

Will Hispanic women by and large go for the GOP? No.
Will Single women by and large go for the GOP? No.
Will Black women by and large go for the GOP? No.
Will College Educated women by and large, go for the GOP? No.

Hispanic women demographic....growing:

Single Women demographic: Growing

ps: Obama also won the votes of unmarried men quite easily

College educated women demographic: Growing by leaps and bounds

ps: With college degrees the amount of money contributed to candidates will increase too dumb dumb.

Now, as all of us (or most of us considering your ignorance) know, Presidential elections are all about state demographics. Texas, for the foreseeable future will be red no matter how much abuse the GOP wishes to heap upon them. Failing government, failing schools, dirty land, air and water but..it will stay red. Likewise for most of the south.

Thus far.

However, going forward there seems to be some hope on the horizon:

Will the 65% minority/majority in Texas turn it blue or purple in 2020 or 2024; I think yes.

In the future, try to be smarter. Class dismissed.

Sure looks like the uneducated white bible thumping trailer trash of the white christian party are going to lose big going forward

It's possible. It's possible (albeit not likely) that the institutions my overtake the minorities as well. This is why you see the push for voter ID at the ballot boxes. It has nothing to do with election security; just trying to stem the tide.
I happen to think the ID laws are good things myself but just like a chisel; it (the law) can be used to create masterpieces or to destroy.

I agree though that if I am a bitter old white woman/man and I look at this map...I'm politically scared shitless.

​

Obama won Arizona's women's vote by something like 7 points if I recall but lost the state. Texas won't be purple for some time but maybe sooner than I think. The Dems have a real chance in AZ though.

 

[Seawytch]

Ah so you meant to sat FULLY instead of just implemented because portions have been implemented since the President signed it into law. One of those provisions, the individual mandate, is causing the number of uninsured to drop.

ACA has not been implemented That is a fact Actually it will never be implemented because the administration has already changed key provisions in the law.
Be that as it may, the increase in insureds is due mostly to increases in employment. Of course when the mandate kicks in employers will dump employees on the public exchange and some will opt for paying the penalty.
Currently almost anyone can apply for an exemption to the penalty.

Yes, provisions of the ACA went into effect immediately. Others, like the individual mandate, went into effect this year...which has led to a decrease in the uninsured...just like Heritage said it would. You guys should be happy your plan works!

The numbers will drop further when the employer mandate goes into effect.

Boy have you got that ass-backwards.

According to the Federal Register up to 60% of all employer funded insurance policies will be dropped and have to file for coverage in the exchanges.

Link? You gonna post the Forbes opinion piece?

Federal Register. He said where it was from. What's your problem?

He didn't read the Federal Register because the Federal Register said no such thing. An oped in Forbes misrepresented what it said, but the Federal Register never said anything of the kind.

 

[jknowgood]

You're the textbook example of why the GOP has lost the women's vote for the foreseeable future. And you're too dumb to realize it. That is the hilarious thing about you

There is no such thing as the women's vote. Republicans won 63% of white married female voters and they won 55% of married women voters of all races. Don't married women count as females in your world?

A superior % of a dwindling demographic.... Please humor me some more.

Thank you for conceding that there is no women voter bloc. Please be honest in the future.

Thanks for confirming you unsophisticated prejudices in the political sphere. Let's see, you lost the women's vote handly yet you claim because you won some shrinking subsets, this bodes well for the future when the presumptive nominee of the rival part is female...ahh...got it.

Will Hispanic women by and large go for the GOP? No.
Will Single women by and large go for the GOP? No.
Will Black women by and large go for the GOP? No.
Will College Educated women by and large, go for the GOP? No.

Hispanic women demographic....growing:

Single Women demographic: Growing

ps: Obama also won the votes of unmarried men quite easily

College educated women demographic: Growing by leaps and bounds

ps: With college degrees the amount of money contributed to candidates will increase too dumb dumb.

Now, as all of us (or most of us considering your ignorance) know, Presidential elections are all about state demographics. Texas, for the foreseeable future will be red no matter how much abuse the GOP wishes to heap upon them. Failing government, failing schools, dirty land, air and water but..it will stay red. Likewise for most of the south.

Thus far.

However, going forward there seems to be some hope on the horizon:

Will the 65% minority/majority in Texas turn it blue or purple in 2020 or 2024; I think yes.

In the future, try to be smarter. Class dismissed.

Sure looks like the uneducated white bible thumping trailer trash of the white christian party are going to lose big going forward

There are more Christians than deniers like yourself. Why don't you try to get out of the ghetto before you call others trailer trash? Also by your logic your as uneducated as anyone can be. Get off welfare and quit being an ungrateful negro. Those Christians are paying for your welfare checks.

 

[candycorn]

There is no such thing as the women's vote. Republicans won 63% of white married female voters and they won 55% of married women voters of all races. Don't married women count as females in your world?

A superior % of a dwindling demographic.... Please humor me some more.

Thank you for conceding that there is no women voter bloc. Please be honest in the future.

Thanks for confirming you unsophisticated prejudices in the political sphere. Let's see, you lost the women's vote handly yet you claim because you won some shrinking subsets, this bodes well for the future when the presumptive nominee of the rival part is female...ahh...got it.

Will Hispanic women by and large go for the GOP? No.
Will Single women by and large go for the GOP? No.
Will Black women by and large go for the GOP? No.
Will College Educated women by and large, go for the GOP? No.

Hispanic women demographic....growing:

Single Women demographic: Growing

ps: Obama also won the votes of unmarried men quite easily

College educated women demographic: Growing by leaps and bounds

ps: With college degrees the amount of money contributed to candidates will increase too dumb dumb.

Now, as all of us (or most of us considering your ignorance) know, Presidential elections are all about state demographics. Texas, for the foreseeable future will be red no matter how much abuse the GOP wishes to heap upon them. Failing government, failing schools, dirty land, air and water but..it will stay red. Likewise for most of the south.

Thus far.

However, going forward there seems to be some hope on the horizon:

Will the 65% minority/majority in Texas turn it blue or purple in 2020 or 2024; I think yes.

In the future, try to be smarter. Class dismissed.

Sure looks like the uneducated white bible thumping trailer trash of the white christian party are going to lose big going forward

There are more Christians than deniers like yourself. Why don't you try to get out of the ghetto before you call others trailer trash? Also by your logic your as uneducated as anyone can be. Get off welfare and quit being an ungrateful negro. Those Christians are paying for your welfare checks.

You mis-used "your" there genius... it's "you're" or "you are".

 

[Rikurzhen]

Will Hispanic women by and large go for the GOP? No.
Will Single women by and large go for the GOP? No.
Will Black women by and large go for the GOP? No.
Will College Educated women by and large, go for the GOP? No.

You believe that trends only move in one direction?

The Democratic model is built on Top and Bottom against the Middle. There's going to be no atttraction for college educated women, they'd be slitting their own throats to align with a TOO-BOTTTOM party while they're in the middle.

Hispanic women demographic....growing:

Single Women demographic: Growing

As the Democrats become evermore the party of color, we'll see exactly what we see with housing - whites will flee the Democrats. Look at what happened in 2012 - Romney, staid old fuddy-duddy Romney, won the white youth vote, won the white female vote, won the white male vote.

The white vote is crucial for two reasons. Whites have the highest turnout, Hispanics have the lowest and Asians aren't much higher than Hispanics. Whites also have the highest mean incomes, which makes them the middle of America.

Republicans benefit more by capturing 1% of American's 65% white proportion than they do by capturing 3% from America's 20% Hispanic population. Whites have a broader base.

This is a demographically unsustainable trend. Women have a finite fertility window and by the time they hit 28 they begin the downslide and so age at first marriage can't keep increasing. Once women, of all races, get married they favor Republicans for marriage improves their chances of being in the middle class, so they're no longer willing to be married to the government because they see that the Democratic policies which they supported as single woman are now directly harming their family and husband.

ps: Obama also won the votes of unmarried men quite easily

A fad like Obama doesn't come around regularly. Democrats are widely seen as the party of losers, of outcasts. Men don't like that association. Back in 2004, 44% of men voted for Kerry, in 2012 48% of men voted for Obama. If Democrats nominate Clinton I can't see her capturing 48% of the male vote.

College educated women demographic: Growing by leaps and bounds

Back in 2004, Bush won the"some college" category 54%-46%, the college graduate category 52%-46%.

Democrats combine the TOP & BOTTOM against the middle - The middle class goes to Republicans. Democrats have nothing to offer them because Democrats need to to subsidize the underclass.

As demographics continue to change our underclass is only going to grow, thus increasing the appeal of Republicans.

ps: With college degrees the amount of money contributed to candidates will increase too dumb dumb.

Good. More support for Republicans. Again, Democrats have nothing to offer the middle class. They appeal to rich billionaires and the needy poor.

Texas, for the foreseeable future will be red no matter how much abuse the GOP wishes to heap upon them. Failing government, failing schools, dirty land, air and water but..it will stay red. Likewise for most of the south.

Except for the inconvenient facts of reality. Texas schools outperform schools in liberal bastions like California, Illinois, Wisconsin, etc.

In the future, try to be smarter. Class dismissed.

Now I remember you. It's your false bravado that's your calling card. I cleaned your clock in a similar debate and you ran away.

 

[The Rabbi]

ACA has not been implemented That is a fact Actually it will never be implemented because the administration has already changed key provisions in the law.
Be that as it may, the increase in insureds is due mostly to increases in employment. Of course when the mandate kicks in employers will dump employees on the public exchange and some will opt for paying the penalty.
Currently almost anyone can apply for an exemption to the penalty.

Yes, provisions of the ACA went into effect immediately. Others, like the individual mandate, went into effect this year...which has led to a decrease in the uninsured...just like Heritage said it would. You guys should be happy your plan works!

The numbers will drop further when the employer mandate goes into effect.

Boy have you got that ass-backwards.

According to the Federal Register up to 60% of all employer funded insurance policies will be dropped and have to file for coverage in the exchanges.

Link? You gonna post the Forbes opinion piece?

Federal Register. He said where it was from. What's your problem?

He didn't read the Federal Register because the Federal Register said no such thing. An oped in Forbes misrepresented what it said, but the Federal Register never said anything of the kind.

Link?

 

[Seawytch]

Yes, provisions of the ACA went into effect immediately. Others, like the individual mandate, went into effect this year...which has led to a decrease in the uninsured...just like Heritage said it would. You guys should be happy your plan works!

The numbers will drop further when the employer mandate goes into effect.

Boy have you got that ass-backwards.

According to the Federal Register up to 60% of all employer funded insurance policies will be dropped and have to file for coverage in the exchanges.

Link? You gonna post the Forbes opinion piece?

Federal Register. He said where it was from. What's your problem?

He didn't read the Federal Register because the Federal Register said no such thing. An oped in Forbes misrepresented what it said, but the Federal Register never said anything of the kind.

Link?

Yes, we will wait for Muddy's link.

 

[mudwhistle]

Boy have you got that ass-backwards.

According to the Federal Register up to 60% of all employer funded insurance policies will be dropped and have to file for coverage in the exchanges.

Link? You gonna post the Forbes opinion piece?

Federal Register. He said where it was from. What's your problem?

He didn't read the Federal Register because the Federal Register said no such thing. An oped in Forbes misrepresented what it said, but the Federal Register never said anything of the kind.

Link?

Yes, we will wait for Muddy's link.

Obama administration knew millions could not keep their health insurance - NBC News

 

[mudwhistle]

NBC no less.

 

[Seawytch]

Link? You gonna post the Forbes opinion piece?

Federal Register. He said where it was from. What's your problem?

He didn't read the Federal Register because the Federal Register said no such thing. An oped in Forbes misrepresented what it said, but the Federal Register never said anything of the kind.

Link?

Yes, we will wait for Muddy's link.

Obama administration knew millions could not keep their health insurance - NBC News

Fail. The words "Federal Register" do not appear in the linked article. Try again.

 

[Seawytch]

According to the Federal Register up to 60% of all employer funded insurance policies will be dropped and have to file for coverage in the exchanges.

Just so you remember what you said, Muddy. That had to come from somewhere.

 

[mudwhistle]

Federal Register. He said where it was from. What's your problem?

He didn't read the Federal Register because the Federal Register said no such thing. An oped in Forbes misrepresented what it said, but the Federal Register never said anything of the kind.

Link?

Yes, we will wait for Muddy's link.

Obama administration knew millions could not keep their health insurance - NBC News

Fail. The words "Federal Register" do not appear in the linked article. Try again.

Dumbass. This is a link from the Forbes article you mentioned which mentioned the Federal Register entry in question. I wanted to show you Forbes wasn't the only source.

Obama Officials In 2010 93 Million Americans Will Be Unable To Keep Their Health Plans Under Obamacare - Forbes

I sense desperation.

 

[mudwhistle]

Obama administration knew that Obamacare would disrupt private plans

If you read the Affordable Care Act when it was passed, you knew that it was dishonest for President Obama to claim that “if you like your plan, you can keep your plan,” as he did—and continues to do—on countless occasions. And we now know that the administration knew this all along. It turns out that in an obscure report buried in a June 2010 edition of the Federal Register, administration officials predicted massive disruption of the private insurance market.

On Tuesday, White House spokesman Jay Carney attempted to minimize the disruption issue, arguing that it only affected people who buy insurance on their own. “That’s the universe we’re talking about, 5 percent of the population,” said Carney. “In some of the coverage of this issue in the last several days, you would think that you were talking about 75 percent or 80 percent or 60 percent of the American population.” (5 percent of the population happens to be 15 million people, no small number, but let’s leave that aside.)

 

[Statistikhengst]

Link? You gonna post the Forbes opinion piece?

Federal Register. He said where it was from. What's your problem?

He didn't read the Federal Register because the Federal Register said no such thing. An oped in Forbes misrepresented what it said, but the Federal Register never said anything of the kind.

Link?

Yes, we will wait for Muddy's link.

Obama administration knew millions could not keep their health insurance - NBC News

He didn't read the Federal Register because the Federal Register said no such thing. An oped in Forbes misrepresented what it said, but the Federal Register never said anything of the kind.

Link?

Yes, we will wait for Muddy's link.

Obama administration knew millions could not keep their health insurance - NBC News

Fail. The words "Federal Register" do not appear in the linked article. Try again.

Dumbass. This is a link from the Forbes article you mentioned which mentioned the Federal Register entry in question. I wanted to show you Forbes wasn't the only source.

Obama Officials In 2010 93 Million Americans Will Be Unable To Keep Their Health Plans Under Obamacare - Forbes

I sense desperation.

Your NBC link does not have any information at all about the National Register or Forbes. So, what gives?

 

[Statistikhengst]

I can't believe you have the gall to call anyone else stupid.

Remind me how the employer mandates have been implemented. Or how the penalties have been enforced.
Yeah, I'll wait. Nah, I wont.
You're such an ill informed ninny.

Ah so you meant to sat FULLY instead of just implemented because portions have been implemented since the President signed it into law. One of those provisions, the individual mandate, is causing the number of uninsured to drop.

ACA has not been implemented That is a fact Actually it will never be implemented because the administration has already changed key provisions in the law.
Be that as it may, the increase in insureds is due mostly to increases in employment. Of course when the mandate kicks in employers will dump employees on the public exchange and some will opt for paying the penalty.
Currently almost anyone can apply for an exemption to the penalty.

Yes, provisions of the ACA went into effect immediately. Others, like the individual mandate, went into effect this year...which has led to a decrease in the uninsured...just like Heritage said it would. You guys should be happy your plan works!

The numbers will drop further when the employer mandate goes into effect.

Boy have you got that ass-backwards.

According to the Federal Register up to 60% of all employer funded insurance policies will be dropped and have to file for coverage in the exchanges.

You have a link to that "hard" information?

 

[mudwhistle]

Federal Register. He said where it was from. What's your problem?

He didn't read the Federal Register because the Federal Register said no such thing. An oped in Forbes misrepresented what it said, but the Federal Register never said anything of the kind.

Link?

Yes, we will wait for Muddy's link.

Obama administration knew millions could not keep their health insurance - NBC News

Link?

Yes, we will wait for Muddy's link.

Obama administration knew millions could not keep their health insurance - NBC News

Fail. The words "Federal Register" do not appear in the linked article. Try again.

Dumbass. This is a link from the Forbes article you mentioned which mentioned the Federal Register entry in question. I wanted to show you Forbes wasn't the only source.

Obama Officials In 2010 93 Million Americans Will Be Unable To Keep Their Health Plans Under Obamacare - Forbes

I sense desperation.

Your NBC link does not have any information at all about the National Register or Forbes. So, what gives?

It was the link I found in the original Forbes article.

I figured you guys wouldn't discount one from NBC.

 

[Seawytch]

He didn't read the Federal Register because the Federal Register said no such thing. An oped in Forbes misrepresented what it said, but the Federal Register never said anything of the kind.

Link?

Yes, we will wait for Muddy's link.

Obama administration knew millions could not keep their health insurance - NBC News

Fail. The words "Federal Register" do not appear in the linked article. Try again.

Dumbass. This is a link from the Forbes article you mentioned which mentioned the Federal Register entry in question. I wanted to show you Forbes wasn't the only source.

Obama Officials In 2010 93 Million Americans Will Be Unable To Keep Their Health Plans Under Obamacare - Forbes

I sense desperation.

Ta Da! I knew that's where he got it.

In the Forbes article, the author cites "an obscure" 2010 study in the Federal Register as support for his contention that:

Obama administration knew that Obamacare would disrupt private plans. If you read the Affordable Care Act when it was passed, you knew that it was dishonest for President Obama to claim that “if you like your plan, you can keep your plan,” as he did—and continues to do—on countless occasions. And we now know that the administration knew this all along. It turns out that in an obscure report buried in a June 2010 edition of the Federal Register, administration officials predicted massive disruption of the private insurance market.

The Forbes article bravely gives the reader a workable link to the study in the Federal Register and even goes so far as to quote and cite the study's contents by page:

The Departments’ mid-range estimate is that 66 percent of small employer plans and 45 percent of large employer plans will relinquish their grandfather status by the end of 2013,” wrote the administration on page 34,552 of the Register.

Have you ever spent time trying to read statutes and regulations issued by the federal government? My sympathy to those, like me, who have had to do so in pursuit of employment. (Frankly, if I never have to see another EPA rule on drinking water standards, I will die a happy camper.) It is well known that federal regulations have off-label uses for curing insomnia and driving mothers-in-law into long-term care in a sanatarium. The Federal Register document cited here is no exception.

If you visit page 34,552 of the 2010 Federal Register, what you will find is a page that's in the middle of an analysis to estimate how many grandfathered employer-provided health insurance plans would be retained or relinquished for new plans as a function of different market conditions. It looked at existing patterns of insurance plan turn-over, the availability of plans with more competitive pricing, annual increases in insurance costs and factors that might lead a small business to drop employee health insurance altogether, to name some of the variables examined.

It's worth looking at this section of the Federal Register document a little closer. Here's the section and sub-section titles:

Estimates of Number of Plans and Employees Affected
​

1. 1. . Methodology for Analyzing Plan Changes Over Time in the Group Market
   2. . Impacts on the Group Market Resulting From Changes From 2008 to 2009
   3. . Sensitivity Analysis: Assuming That Employers Will Be Willing To Absorb a Premium Increase in Order To Remain Grandfathered
   4. . Sensitivity Analysis: Incomplete Flexibility To Substitute One Cost-Sharing Mechanism for Another
   5. . Estimates for 2011–2013

In a nutshell, this analysis began by explaining how the estimates would be derived, looked at data from 2008 and 2009 as an aid in making estimates, pushed the data through two different scenarios to test how different market conditions would impact the numbers calculated, and then made estimates based on all of that. Forbes neglected to say anything about the character of this speculative analysis, and in fact, Forbes managed to leave off the first clause of the sentence it quoted directly. Here's the whole statement, including what Forbes left out:

Under this assumption

, the Departments’ mid-range estimate is that 66 percent of small employer plans and 45 percent of large employer plans will relinquish their grandfather status by the end of 2013.

Did you catch that? "Under this assumption..." This statement is conditional on an assumption. What assumption is that? Let's the Federal Register speak for itself:

Estimates are provided above for the percentage of employers that will retain grandfather status in 2011. These estimates are extended through 2013 by assuming that the identical percentage of plan sponsors will relinquish grandfathering in each year. Again, to the extent that the 2008–2009 data reflect plans that are more likely to make frequent changes in cost sharing, this assumption will overestimate the number of plans relinquishing grandfather status in 2012 and 2013.

Basically, this document looked at employer-provided insurance plan turnover data from previous years and then used it to extrapolate those rates for 2012/13.

This is a far cry from saying that Obama knew that 93 million people would have their insurance cancelled on them.
​

Here's the kicker, at least for me - the title of this Federal Register document is:

Interim Final Rules for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage Relating to Status as a Grandfathered Health Plan Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Right below this title you will find:

ACTION: Interim final rules with request for comments.

This analysis included in this Federal Register document isn't a "2010 Health and Human Services (HHS) report" as Coulter described it, nor an "obscure report buried in a June 2010 edition of the Federal Register" as it was described in Forbes. This analysis was the internal commentary of the proposed final form of the regulations governing grandfathered health insurance under the Affordable Care Act, complete with a call for commentary to be considered prior to the issuance of the final regulations.
​