37 Consecutive Gallup Polls Show Majority Of Americans Want Abortion To Be Illegal In Most Cases

Two Decades Of Gallup Polls Show Majority Of Americans Want Abortion To Be Illegal In Most Cases – Breitbart

.

.
In 37 consecutive polls performed throughout the past 21 years on the issue of abortion, Gallup has found that a majority of Americans surveyed say abortion should be illegal in all or most cases.

“In the past 20 years, the percentage who say abortion should be illegal in all circumstances or all but a few circumstances has never dropped below 54 percent,” writes Terence P. Jeffrey at CNS News.com.

A review of the data over the last two decades may appear to be at odds with Gallup’s latest poll, conducted May 6-10, with the headline: “Americans Choose ‘Pro-Choice’ For First Time in Seven Years.”

“Half of Americans consider themselves ‘pro-choice’ on abortion, surpassing the 44% who identify as ‘pro-life,’” Gallup’s Lydia Saad wrote in her analysis of that poll. “This is the first time since 2008 that the pro-choice position has had a statistically significant lead in Americans’ abortion views.”

Saad continued:

The pro-choice view is not as prevalent among Americans as it was in the mid-1990s, but the momentum for the pro-life position that began when Barack Obama took office has yielded to a pro-choice rebound. That rebound has essentially restored views to where they were in 2008; today’s views are also similar to those found in 2001. Some of the variation in public views on abortion over time coincides with political and cultural events that may have helped shape public opinion on the issue, including instances of anti-abortion violence, legislative efforts to ban “partial-birth abortion” or limit abortion funding, and certain Supreme Court cases. While events like these may continue to cause public views on abortion to fluctuate, the broader liberal shift in Americans’ ideology of late could mean the recent pro-choice expansion has some staying power.

As Jeffrey observes, however, in that Gallup survey, a combined 55 percent of participants said abortion should be illegal in all circumstances or in all but a few circumstances.

The poll specifically found that 29 percent of respondents said abortion should be legal “under any circumstances,” and 13 percent “under most circumstances.” However, 36 percent responded that abortion should be “legal only in a few circumstances,” and 19 percent said it should be illegal “in all circumstances,” totaling 55 percent believing abortion should be illegal in all, or all but a few, circumstances.

Gallup’s data sheet for that poll shows results for this particular question of when abortion should be illegal for the 37 surveys it has performed since September of 1994.

“In every one of these surveys, the combined percentage of respondents who said abortion should be illegal ‘in all circumstances’ or in all but ‘a few circumstances’ exceeded 50 percent of those surveyed,” writes Jeffrey, adding that “the lowest these combined answers have ever been was 51 percent,” in both September of 1994 and September of 1995.

Gallup has also asked survey participants the question, “With respect to the abortion issue, would you consider yourself to be pro-choice or pro-life?”

In September of 1995, 56 percent of participants described themselves as pro-choice and 33 percent as pro-life, while in the latest survey, 50 percent say they are pro-choice and 44 percent pro-life.

The labels of “pro-life” and “pro-choice,” however, may not be aptly describing Americans’ beliefs about abortion.

In the most recent poll results, on which Gallup’s headline – “Americans Choose ‘Pro-Choice’ For First Time in Seven Years” – was based, 27 percent of “pro-choice” individuals say abortion should be mostly illegal, while only 9 percent of “pro-life” people say it should be mostly legal.

Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America, looked at the poll and tells Breitbart News: “While on the surface, it looks like more Americans are self-identifying as pro-choice than pro-life, when you look at the split in what exactly they favor, those numbers tell a different story.”

“Americans may be misidentifying themselves when it comes to the matter of abortion since a majority clearly support significant restrictions on abortion,” Hawkins continued. “We see students misidentifying themselves all the time on campuses across the country, which is why we no longer ask them if they are pro-life or pro-choice. They don’t know what the labels mean. Instead we ask if they support legal abortion or how long into a pregnancy they tolerate abortion.”

“As this pro-life generation continues to mature and technology continues to advance, more and more Americans will come to realize the great human tragedy of abortion,” she added.

Similarly, Maureen Ferguson of the Catholic Association tells Breitbart News, “This poll shows once again that most Americans oppose most abortions. Not only do the majority of people morally oppose most abortions, they want them to be against the law.”

“Polling numbers are even higher when talking about protecting babies from late-term abortion, so we hope the U.S. Senate will listen to the will of the people and pass the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which would ban abortions past 20 weeks of pregnancy,” she added.

.

.

Apparently, 46 Percent Of Americans Still Aren’t Convinced That Hillary Clinton Is Pure Evil

Hillary Clinton Unfavorable Numbers Highest In 14 Years – Politico

.

.
Hillary Clinton is seeing her highest unfavorability ratings in 14 years, according to the latest CNN/ORC poll released Tuesday.

Just 46 percent said they view the Democratic presidential front-runner favorably, compared to 50 percent who said they have an unfavorable view. In the preceding April survey, Clinton polled with 53 percent favorable, compared to 44 percent unfavorable.

Despite holding a commanding lead among declared and potential Democratic opponents, the public has not viewed Clinton this unfavorably since March 2001, when the former first lady was in her third month as a New York senator. Just 44 percent said they had a favorable view of Clinton at that time, with 53 percent seeing her in an unfavorable light.

Clinton grabbed 60 percent of the primary field among Democrats and independent-leaning Democrats, with Vice President Joe Biden, who has not declared an intention to run, a distant second with 14 percent and independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders at 10 percent. Sanders officially launched his campaign as a Democrat late last month.

Voters are also skeptical about Clinton in other ways – they are split on whether she “inspires confidence” (49 percent say that applies to her, 50 percent do not) and on whether she “cares about people like you” (47 percent say it applies, 52 percent it does not apply).

Consistent with other polls on the issue, just 42 percent say they think the former secretary of state is “honest and trustworthy,” compared with 57 percent who say they do not.

At the same time, 61 percent responded that emails being released by the State Department from her time at Foggy Bottom will not show that she did anything wrong in that capacity.

The CNN poll was conducted May 29-31 among 1,025 Americans via land lines and cellphones, carrying an overall margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. Among Democrats and leaners, the sampling error is plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.

A separate poll released Tuesday by The Washington Post and ABC News found that Clinton’s favorability was 45 percent, the lowest in that survey since April 2008, when she was in the midst of a tough primary fight with Barack Obama.

.

.

Hallelujah! Unemployment Plunges Due To 354,000 Americans Leaving The Workforce (James Quinn)

Hallelujah! Unemployment Plunges Due To 354,000 Americans Leaving The Workforce – James Quinn

.

.
This shit is almost too funny to read. The Bureau of Lies & Scams (BLS) just issued their seasonally adjusted, excel spreadsheet enhanced, monthly propaganda data for February. They have the balls to report that an economy that is hemorrhaging energy jobs, seeing retailers close stores by the hundreds, has seen manufacturing new orders decline for six straight months, has corporate profits falling, has real median household income sitting at 1989 levels and has seen 80% of all economic reports miss to the downside is creating 295,000 new jobs in the middle of the coldest, snowiest February in years. The BLS uses classic government logic. When in doubt, lie.

.

.
Of course, the BLS is still using their excel spreadsheet Birth Death model to add 132,000 phantom jobs into the calculation for all the small business hiring going on out there. It has already been documented that there are more businesses closing than opening in the US. This adjustment is a farce. It is untrue. It is more likely to be negative 132,000, which would eliminate virtually all the new jobs just reported. As usual the household survey reports an entirely different result than the blaring positive headlines in the corporate mainstream media.

A critical thinking person might wonder how the labor participation rate could go even lower (37 year lows) if the unemployment rate just reached a seven year low of 5.5%. The BLS counts on the faux journalists at CNBC and Marketwatch to not think critically. So you need to go elsewhere for some truth. Here it is:

* Here is the blunt truth. Last month there were 148.2 million working age Americans working and 101.5 million working age Americans not working. This month there are 148.3 million working age Americans working and 101.6 million working age Americans not working. Does that sound like progress or stagnation?

* The BLS expects you to believe that in the midst of a supposed economic recovery, 354,000 working age Americans decided to leave the workforce in one month because their financial situation is so sound. How stupid do they think we are, or are they so incompetent with their models and measurements that they just make this shit up?

* We should be so proud. The 92.9 million Americans not in the labor force is an all-time record. Who needs a job when you can “earn” a $50,000 per year life on welfare or SSDI. Working is for suckers.

.

.

* What are the 1.5 million working age Americans who left the workforce in the last 12 months doing? What are the 13 million working age Americans who have left the workforce since 2008 doing?

* Since 2008 we’ve added 3 million jobs, while 13 million people have supposedly left the workforce, and the unemployment rate is supposedly lower today than it was in 2008. So the working age population is up by 16 million, we only have 3 million more jobs, but the unemployment rate has fallen from 5.8% to 5.5%. This is simply hysterical. The blatant lies, manipulation and utter bullshit is mind boggling in its outright dishonesty.

* How come the household survey says there are only 96,000 more people employed than in January, but the blaring headline only proclaims the 295,000 from the other survey? Propaganda at its finest.

But at least we’re adding those high paying service jobs for waitresses, fry cooks, social services workers and retail clerks. They accounted for 45% of the jobs added. Services accounted for 259,000 of the 295,000 supposed jobs added. At least all these workers can glory in the 1.97% wage increase they’ve earned in the last year. I’m sure that is going a long way in paying those Obamacare premium increases and 10% rise in food costs.

Government reports are like the American Dream. You have to be asleep to believe them.

.

.

*VIDEOS* Senate Leftists To Release Hotly Contested CIA Interrogation Report Despite Threat To Americans


.

.

.

.

.

.

Obamacare Architect Caught On 3 Different Videos Admitting The Regime Lied, And Calling Americans Stupid (Videos)

Megyn Kelly Shows 2nd Video Of Obamacare Architect Calling Americans “Too Stupid” – Right Scoop

Last night Megyn Kelly showed a 2nd video of Obama architect Jonathan Gruber talking about how Obamacare passed because Americans are “too stupid”:

.

.
Clearly Gruber thinks he knows what’s best for us stupid Americans, just like Obama and Democrats believe they are our betters. So much so that they’d hide important information about a bill just to shove it down our throats.

Republicans have ammunition to fight this thing in the court of public opinion but so far I don’t see them doing much about it.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related articles:

.
Video: Interview Gets Tense In A Hurry When TV Hosts Confront Senator Over Obamacare Architect’s Revealing Comments – The Blaze

The hosts of “Fox & Friends” confronted Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) on Tuesday over one of the Obamacare architects’ controversial assertion that the health care law made it through Congress thanks to a “lack of transparency” and the “stupidity of the American voter.” The video of MIT professor Jonathan Gruber making the revealing comments at a University of Pennsylvania event in October of 2013 went viral this week.

King said he was unsure of what Gruber was talking about and made it clear he doesn’t “endorse those kinds of comments.” He then defended the way Obamacare was passed.

“Everybody knew that there were going to be additional taxes required to support the premiums under the Affordable Care Act. I don’t see it as any deep dark conspiracy,” he added.

“Really? Senator, he said he wasn’t transparent. He wasn’t telling the truth,” host Brian Kilmeade responded.

.

.
The senator then seemingly downplayed Gruber’s role in crafting Obamacare. King was not in the Senate when the law was voted on.

“Who was he? I don’t know where he was in the process,” King said.

When co-host Kimberly Guilfoyle argued Gruber’s comments confirm the American people were purposefully not informed that Obamacare would “tax and penalize” people, King went slightly off topic and stressed the importance of having insurance.

Wait a minute, wait a minute. Tax and penalize? Hold it, hold it, hold it,” King interjected. “We’ve got eight million people that have insurance now that didn’t before and don’t lecture me about this because 40 years ago, I had insurance. If I hadn’t had it, it caught a cancer that saved my life. If I hadn’t had insurance I’d be dead.”

“What does that have to do with it?” Kilmeade asked.

“It has to do with having insurance, man. If you don’t have insurance, it’s a high risk,” King shot back.

Confronted again with claims that Gruber’s remarks show “they lied about a health plan to the American people,” King asserted he was only “one guy” involved in the creation and passage of Obamacare. He then suggested the TV hosts believe “people shouldn’t have health insurance.”

“Are you that cruel? That is what you’re saying,” the senator added.

“Oh, my goodness,” a frustrated Kilmeade reacted.

Watch the video via Fox News below:

.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–

.
In Third Video, Obamacare Architect Talks About ‘Basic Exploitation’ Of American Voters – Daily Caller

A third video has surfaced of Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber bragging about pulling the wool over the eyes of the American public in order to help implement Obamacare.

“It’s a very clever, you know, basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter,” Gruber, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said during a speech at the University of Rhode Island in November 2012.

He was discussing what is known as the Cadillac tax and how it came into being.

In an effort to add a cost-control measure to Obamacare, former Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, who Gruber called a “hero,” successfully pushed through a 40 percent excise tax on insurance companies for plans that cost more than $10,200 for individuals and $27,000 for families.

This was an alternative to putting a cap on tax breaks employers provide employees for health insurance plans, which, according to Gruber, the public mistook for a tax increase rather than the removal of a tax break.

“You just can’t get through, it’s just politically impossible,” Gruber said during his talk.

The purpose of the Cadillac tax is to force the “overinsured” – people with expensive health insurance plans – to cut back on “excess benefits.” Many economists believe that such plans cause inefficiencies in the health-care system. The Cadillac tax, which will be implemented in 2018, is projected to save $250 billion.

Gruber has made remarks before in which he espouses a dim view of the American public while discussing the deception behind passing both the Cadillac tax and Obamacare in general.

The first instance came to light on Sunday when a video was published showing Gruber telling a University of Pennsylvania health-care panel that Obamacare was “written in a tortured way” and that it passed, in part, because it was difficult to understand.

“Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to get the thing to pass,” Gruber said at the November 2013 event.

The discoverer of the video was not a journalist or a political operative, but, rather, a financial planner who was one of the millions of Americans who lost his insurance plan last year despite President Obama’s pledge that “if you like your plan, you can keep it, period.”

Gruber, who was paid $400,000 to consult on Obamacare, backtracked from those remarks on MSNBC on Tuesday, saying that they were “off the cuff.”

But the randomness of Gruber’s remarks was cast into doubt Tuesday night when Fox News’ Megyn Kelly revealed a second video that also shows the professor discussing the Cadillac tax in a speech at Washington University in St. Louis in October 2013.

Gruber said that the kludge worked because “the American people are too stupid to understand the difference” between capping subsidies and taxing insurance companies.

Watch:

.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–

.
Meet The Guy Who Found All Those Jonathan Gruber Obamacare Clips – American Thinker

The story about Rich Weinstein, an unknown investment advisor who poured through hours and hours of YouTube videos, radio interviews, and other media featuring Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber is both incredible and inspiring.

It is Weinstein who is responsible for ferreting out Gruber’s toxic comments about the “stupidity of the American people” and, more importantly, Gruber’s insistence that Obamacare subsidies were limited to state exchanges and should not be made available at the federal level.

Bloomberg:

A few days ago, Weinstein pulled a short clip from Gruber’s year-old appearance at a University of Pennsylvania health care conference. As a crowd murmured with laughter, Gruber explained that the process that created the ACA was, by necessity, obfuscated to pull one over on voters.

“This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure the CBO did not score the mandate as taxes,” said Gruber. “Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. Call it the stupidity of the America voter, or whatever.”

Weinstein’s scoop went around the world in a hurry. American Commitment, a conservative 501(c)(4) founded by Americans for Prosperity veteran Phil Kerpen, published the clip on its YouTube channel. Kerpen promoted it through tweets, which quickly became live coverage of the media outlets discovering Gruber.

The University of Pennsylvania actually pulled the clip for a few hours before a Tsunami of outrage forced them to put it back up.

Weinstein’s activism is the result of him losing his insurance in 2013:

Weinstein dates his accidental citizen journalism back to the end of 2013 and the first run of insurance cancellations or policy changes. He was among the people who got a letter informing him that his old policy did not meet ACA standards.

“When Obama said ‘If you like your plan, you can keep your plan, period’—frankly, I believed him,” says Weinstein. “He very often speaks with qualifiers. When he said ‘period,’ there were no qualifiers. You can understand that when I lost my own plan, and the replacement cost twice as much, I wasn’t happy. So I’m watching the news, and at that time I was thinking: Hey, the administration was not telling people the truth, and the media was doing nothing!”

So Weinstein, new plan in hand, started watching the news. “These people were showing up on the shows, calling themselves architects of the law,” he recalls. “I saw David Cutler, Zeke Emanuel, Jonathan Gruber, people like that. I wondered if these guys had some type of paper trail. So I looked into what Dr. Cutler had said and written, and it was generally all about cost control. After I finished with Cutler, I went to Dr. Gruber. I assume I went through every video, every radio interview, every podcast. Every everything.”

His second shot across the bow of Obamacare was an even bigger coup:

Weinstein dug and dug and eventually discovered the first Gruber quote, known in conservative circles as the “speak-o.” Gruber had been on TV arguing that the case against subsidies in non-exchange states was ludicrous. Yet at a January 2012 symposium, Gruber seemed to be making the conservatives’ argument. “What’s important to remember politically about this is if you’re a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits – but your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill,” said Gruber. “So you’re essentially saying [to] your citizens you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country.”

The investment advisor e-mailed this around. Nobody cared. Nobody noticed the clip until after the D.C. circuit ruled 2-1 in favor of plaintiffs who were suing to stop the subsidies. Weinstein clicked around for articles about the decision, and left a comment on The Washington Post’s Volokh Conspiracy blog, pointing to the clip. In short order, Ryan Radia of the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute noticed the clip and promoted it. Within hours, Gruber’s “speak-o” had greatly muddied the liberal argument.

SCOTUS now has not only evidence of congressional intent to limit the subsidies, but also evidence that the people who wrote the law had the same intent. It’s going to be very hard for John Roberts to finesse this one, which probably means SCOTUS will uphold King and the subsidies gotten through the federal website will end.

That doesn’t mean the end of Obamacare. It is pssible that many states without exchanges will set them up to prevent the disruption in coverage for those in their states who got insurance through healthcare.gov. But Weinstein’s efforts have thrown a monkey wrench into Obamacare’s inner workings and whether the program can survive is open to question.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related videos:

.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–

.

.

.

Thanks Barack… Record 92.6 Million Americans No Longer In Labor Force

Labor Participation Rate Drops To 36 Year Low; Record 92.6 Million Americans Not In Labor Force – Zero Hedge

While by now everyone should know the answer, for those curious why the US unemployment rate just slid once more to a meager 5.9%, the lowest print since the summer of 2008, the answer is the same one we have shown every month since 2010: the collapse in the labor force participation rate, which in September slid from an already three decade low 62.8% to 62.7% – the lowest in over 36 years, matching the February 1978 lows. And while according to the Household Survey, 232,000 people found jobs, what is more disturbing is that the people not in the labor force, rose to a new record high, increasing by 315,000 to 92.6 million!

And that’s how you get a fresh cycle low in the unemployment rate.

.

.
So the next time Obama asks you if you are “better off now than 6 years ago” show him this chart of employment to the overall population: it speaks louder than the president ever could.

.

.

.

Thanks Barack… 1.9 Million Americans Won’t Get Health Insurance Due To ‘Family Glitch’

Report: ‘Family Glitch’ In Obamacare To Impact 1.9 Million Americans – Washington Free Beacon

Vague language within Obamacare will result in nearly 2 million Americans being unable to afford health insurance, according to a new report by the American Action Forum (AAF).

.
…………

.
The so-called “family glitch” occurs when an individual is offered health insurance through their employer but the plan is not extended to the rest of their family. Due to the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) interpretation of the law, other immediate family members are not eligible to receive subsidies for insurance, even if their income is below the federal poverty level.

The AAF has estimated that 1.93 million Americans will be affected by the glitch, making it “practically impossible” for them to obtain affordable health care coverage.

“The ‘Family Glitch,’ as it has become known, is an odd and particularly problematic side-effect of the Affordable Care Act (ACA),” the report said. “Since several provisions of the law are rather ambiguous, they unfortunately combine to create a perfect storm where obtaining affordable health insurance is practically impossible.”

Under Obamacare, Americans below 138 percent of the poverty line are eligible for Medicaid coverage, and anyone up to 400 percent of the poverty level can also receive subsidies to help pay for insurance purchased through the health exchange.

However, this provision does not apply to families who have been offered employer-sponsored insurance (ESI), even if it is only offered to the individual employee.

“This provision of the law lacks clarity on the point of whether or not the coverage offered must be family coverage, or whether individual coverage is sufficient,” the AAF said. “The Internal Revenue Service (IRS), through rule making, has interpreted the statute as only requiring an employer to offer individual coverage, and pegged affordability at 9.5 percent of the employee’s household income. The glitch occurs when one (or both) spouses are offered affordable individual ESI under the IRS definition, but family coverage is either not offered or is unaffordable.”

“Spouses and children of an employee offered ESI could be unable to afford the employer plan, but because it is offered to one family member, the rest are made ineligible for subsidies in the Exchanges,” the report added.

Using census data from April 2013, AAF estimated 947,000 spouses and 984,000 children could fall into this category, and left uninsured. The glitch will affect up to 428,000 women and 519,000 adult men.

If Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) funding expires, 2.28 million children would also be affected, according to AAF.

The provision could have unintended consequences for employees in the middle class, forcing them to not accept higher paying jobs out of fear of losing subsidy eligibility to pay for their family’s health insurance.

The AAF also said the glitch could result in families choosing to separate or divorce, in order to keep subsidies.

“The family glitch is just one of many problems that will inevitably arise from the ACA’s complete restructuring of the health care system,” the report concluded. “It is an unintended consequence that creates hardship and perverse incentives for American families struggling to obtain affordable health insurance. This year alone 1.93 million Americans will be impacted by this glitch and that number will likely increase as the employer mandate goes into effect.”

.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related article:

.
Lowest-Cost Insurer Drops From Minnesota Exchange – Yahoo News

The insurance company that grabbed the most customers on Minnesota’s health care exchange by offering the lowest rates told state officials Tuesday that it’s pulling out of MNsure, a major blow to the exchange as the next open enrollment period approaches.

The decision by Golden Valley-based PreferredOne may mean higher rates and again puts the troubled exchange front-and-center in Minnesota’s governor and House elections.

MNsure officials said the company’s exit won’t affect health coverage through the state-run exchange. The state will send out notices early next month to the nearly 30,000 people who enrolled in PreferredOne through MNsure to outline the next steps – customers can transition to another MNsure health plan or renew with PreferredOne, in which case they’ll no longer be eligible for government subsidies.

PreferredOne had a cumulative total of 59 percent of the private-plan market for MNsure enrollees through early August. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota had 23 percent, HealthPartners 12, Medica 5 percent and UCare 1.

MNsure CEO Scott Leitz said he’s had no word any of the four remaining companies are mulling an exit. Open enrollment begins Nov. 15.

Despite a launch last year marred by technical problems and long call center waits, Democratic Gov. Mark Dayton’s administration has called MNsure a success because it helped reduce the ranks of uninsured Minnesotans by nearly 41 percent to a record low while offering some of the lowest premium rates in the country. More than 327,000 Minnesotans have enrolled through MNsure since it went live Oct. 1, including nearly 55,000 in private plans. Most enrollees are in the publicly run Medicaid and MinnesotaCare programs for lower-income people.

In a statement, Dayton cast the company’s exit as a result of its own low rates.

PreferredOne didn’t return calls from The Associated Press.

Company spokesman Steve Peterson told KSTP-TV, which first reported the decision, that staying on MNsure wasn’t financially or administratively sustainable. The membership they gained through MNsure was small, but was taking “a significant amount of our resources” to administer, Peterson said.

Republicans called it the latest sign of systemic problems in MNsure, an issue they plan to use to bolster their election-year pitch to take back control of the House and the defeat Dayton. Rep. Joe Hoppe, R-Chaska, said Tuesday’s news makes it clear Democrats have mismanaged the state’s health care overhaul.

“If you tell your average Minnesotan that we spent $160 million to develop a website and it doesn’t work, I think it makes a pretty strong argument for new management, not only in the state House, but in the governor’s office as well,” Hoppe said.

But Leitz and MNsure board chair Brian Beutner said it was proof the exchange is working as a competitive marketplace. Both officials acknowledged the exchange’s rocky rollout, but Beutner suggested PreferredOne’s low rates led to its exit.

“They offered the lowest rates and the broadest networks offered last year. I can understand how that might impact them,” Beutner said.

It’s unclear whether PreferredOne’s exit will affect premium rates for 2015, which were already expected to increase because health care costs have been rising. The state’s Department of Commerce is expected to release an early snapshot of rates in early October, with full details to follow when open enrollment begins. The department is still reviewing rates from the four remaining providers.

Rep. Joe Atkins, an Inver Grove Heights DFLer and the lead House sponsor of the legislation that created MNsure, said he expects premiums to stay low compared with the rest of the country. He laughed off the Republican criticism as election-season politics.

Atkins said he wasn’t surprised by the announcement because he expected some losses and some additions to the online marketplace for 2015. He pointed out that despite its large market share on MNsure, PreferredOne is one of the smaller carriers in the Minnesota health insurance market.

The Dayton administration opted to set up the state-run exchange rather than have Minnesota participate under the federal exchange created by the Obama administration’s Affordable Care Act.

Dayton’s GOP opponent, Jeff Johnson, blasted the governor and MNsure officials for PreferredOne’s withdrawal. If elected, Johnson said he’d sweep out the MNsure board and replace its top management.

Johnson said Dayton himself used PreferredOne’s “artificially low” rates to tout MNsure as having the lowest rates in the country.

“It was all a house of cards,” Johnson said. “Now 60 percent of policyholders are going to have to go through this whole nightmare again.”

.

.