The problem rests squarely with the GOP establishment, which long ago made a Faustian bargain with these white-wing crackpots for the sake of securing election victories with white-only votes.

And now, these self-styled moderates have once again have maneuvered themselves into the uncomfortable position of having to choose between selling their souls by placating the crazy -- again -- for the sake of gaining their necessary poltical support, or being bold enough to flip the wackadoodles off and go their own way, even if that means aligning themselves with the Democrats for the time being.

I don't know if you saw this latest Quinnipiac poll, but it's pretty damning of Obama and the Democrats. (It's also pretty damning of Republicans, but their bar was already set so low that the contrast is quite stark).  

When see you see a question like:

35. Who do you trust to do a better job handling - the economy, President Obama or the Republicans in Congress?

and more people (45-41) say the Republicans (a trend that has been going up since July, despite the shutdown.)

Or when you see a question like:

36. Who do you trust to do a better job handling - health care, President Obama or the Republicans in Congress?

and more people (43-42) say the Republicans (a number that has turned on a dime because of the rollout)

then you know there's trouble brewing in River City.

Newt is an idiot, he is essentially stating that he believes a tiger can change it stripes.  Every person in the country knows the GOP has to include more people to win elections, duh.  It's called 3rd grade math and like their belief that poor people should just go out and make more money, if fails completely apart when reality kicks in.  Which is the GOP is not a multicultural party who, with a little coxing, will suddenly believe that minorities/gays/democrats/ aren't the scourge of America.

And mark my words, soon enough the R's are going to go after Pope Francis.  They can't have some idiot in Italy trying to change the very foundations of hatred and selfishness that their party depends upon to survive.

The state insurance commissions do not have to agree, and even if they do, the insurance companies are not required to do it.

According to the President's announcement, insurance companies will be allowed to renew policies that were in force as of October 1, 2013 for one additional year, even if they fail to meet relevant PPACA requirements. What is the legal basis for this change? The Administration has not cited any. (See, e.g., this letter to state insurance commissioners explaining the change.) According to various press reports, the Administration argues it may do this as a matter of enforcement discretion (much as it did with immigration). In other words, the Administration is not changing the law. It's just announcing it will not enforce federal law (while simultaneously threatening to veto legislation that would authorize the step the President has decided to take).

Does this make the renewal of non-compliant policies legal? No. The legal requirement remains on the books so the relevant health insurance plans remain illegal under federal law. The President's decision does not change relevant state laws either.  So insurers will still need to obtain approval from state insurance commissioners. This typically requires submitting rates and plan specifications for approval. This can take some time, and is disruptive because most insurance companies have already set their offerings for the next year. It's no wonder that some insurance commissioners have already indicated they have no plans to approve non-compliant plans.

Yet even if state commissioners approve the plans, they will still be illegal under federal law. Given this fact, why would any insurance company agree to renew such a plan?

You have to remember that the ACA was predicated on there being millions of young people, as well as older, healthier people, signing up for insurance.

At first blush, that does not appear to be happening.

The insurance industry has increasing cause for concern as early enrollment reports suggest a trend that could cause insurance premiums and deductibles to rise sharply. Along with the paltry enrollment numbers released this week, officials in a handful of states said those who had managed to sign up were generally older people with medical problems.

Insurers have warned that they need a wide range of people signing up for coverage because premiums paid by adults in the younger and healthier group, between 18 and 35, are needed to offset the cost of carrying older and sicker customers who typically generate far more in medical bills than they contribute in premiums.

The first set of enrollment data revealed that 106,000 people signed up for coverage nationwide, far short of the 500,000 initial sign-ups the Obama administration had expected. In states where officials discussed more detailed information, it also became apparent that the people who flocked to the exchanges after they opened Oct. 1 were those who were desperate for coverage.

In California, the state with the largest uninsured population, most of those who applied were older people with health problems, according to a state health care official. In Kentucky, nearly 3 of 4 enrollees were over 35. In Ohio, groups helping with enrollment described many of those coming to them as older residents who lost their jobs and health coverage during the recession.