It seems that nothing concentrates the mind like a hanging or an election in November 2014. A week after his public blubbering, Baucus threw in the towel on his re-election effort and, as National Journal's Josh Kraushaar reported Friday, plenty of his Democratic colleagues may be having similar thoughts: "In the face of intraparty criticism that implementation of his health care law will be a 'train wreck,' new polls showing support for the law near all-time lows, and even the Democratic nominee in next week's House special election calling the law 'extremely problematic' -- there's plenty of evidence piling up to believe health care will be a political millstone for Democrats in 2014."
Making the millstone even heavier was a study published this week by the New England Journal of Medicine. The study compared two large samples of low-income people. Roughly half of them got expanded health benefits through Medicaid while the other half did not. Megan McArdle summarized the results in the Daily Beast: "People who had more generous coverage consumed more health care. But they weren't healthier. In fact, the people who had less generous coverage reported being less worried about their health and taking less sick time, presumably because they weren't going to the doctor to find things to worry about."
That result was devastating news for Obamacare advocates, because, as The Washington Examiner's Philip Klein reported, "during the health care debate, liberals argued that government had a moral duty to enact legislation that expanded health insurance among lower-income individuals. This was rooted in the assumption that obtaining health insurance translates into improved health."
Read More: The Washington Examiner