Already, Obamacare is failing

  Actually if I were inspired enough to tire myself out writing  extensively in this blog post, I could cite many, many instances in which Obamacare is already failing. 
  But I'm lazy and bitter because the government says Northwest Ohio should expect a snowstorm tomorrow, so I'll just cite this article over at Daily Caller, which scratches the surface of some of the things that are wrong with Obamacare, not to mention the price hikes, etc., that we already know:

In “50 Vetoes,” a study released today by the Cato Institute, I explain the administration is so afraid of a sticker-shock fueled backlash that it is preparing to spend more than $600 billion that Congress never authorized to numb consumers to the costs of this law. Along the way, the administration will impose roughly $100 billion in illegal taxes on employers and individuals (including some legal immigrants below the poverty level), and deny millions of individuals the right to purchase low-cost “catastrophic plans.” 

To cement the law’s Medicaid expansion in place, the administration is also violating the Supreme Court’s ruling in NFIB v. Sebelius. The Court prohibited the federal government from coercing states into implementing the expansion. Yet HHS is still threatening every state with the loss of all federal Medicaid funds if they fail to implement parts of the expansion. These are not the actions of an administration that feels its health care law is secure.

  The full report is here. 
  About those 2014 elections. How rich for those weasly vermin to suffer the repercussions of yet another wrong forecast concerning the debacle known as Obamacare after using faulty government data, calculations and downright lies.
  As far as that storm goes, let's hope it turns out to be 3 flakes like the last forecast "blizzard."
UPDATE: Moe Lane, who is much more energetic than I, has more here. He says, please, Democrats, please embrace Obamacare.

Let’s put up a scale. On one side you put free mammograms, no restrictions on coverage because of pre-existing conditions, and kids being on their parents’ health insurance until they’re 26; on the other we’ll put across-the-board rises in premiums, people losing their existing coverage en masse because employers can’t afford the new requirements, people losing their jobs because employers can’t afford the new requirements, and of course the individual mandate. Which side of the scale do you think is going to be heavier, in terms of both number of people affected and how they’re going to be affected? Spoiler warning: it’s not the first one. Additional spoiler warning: the Democratic party leadership quietly agrees with me.