>>"Lousy"...by what standard? Yours? HHS? The policyholder?

Lousy in that (for example) the policy doesn't pay for hospital visits. Tell you what, choose a specific example and we can compare notes about what is or is not lousy about it.

>>Believe me, it drives me nuts when Fox News reports that 300,000 people are getting termination letters. They make it sound like all 300,000 people are going to be out on the street begging for spare change. But the more liberal media sources are being equally dishonest by saying (in effect) , "come to the exchanges, you'll get a better plan". In some cases, they're finding that both premiums AND deductibles are higher than what they had. For middle and lower-middle class Americans who were already screwed this year by the payroll tax hike, who saw a president who tried to issue an executive order to give Congress a pay increase at the beginning of 2013, it's like salt in an open wound.

Again, when these claims are pursued it often turns out that they haven't bothered to check the Exchanges, or are comparing Silver with Bronze, or have made a unilateral decision that they don't want Gummint money, or even that they actually still have their policy but still are complaining. I'm still waiting for a specific case that really does put somebody at a disadvantage.

>>SOME of the plans policyholders had WERE lousy, and some where not.

Not lousy = covers the very basic minimums under ACA? IOW doesn't need to be canceled? In fairness not many women paid for prostate cover and not many men for pregnancy, but those aren't the reasons these policies are being terminated.

>>Some will make out better after this (maybe) and some will not. But it was either pure folly or blatant dishonesty for a president to make a promise (no less than 23 times in public speeches) that "you can keep your plan and your doctor". Even those "keeping their plans" might not be able to keep their doctor.

The grandfather clause was intended to make his statement about policies true. Also it's a fact that complex situations need to be presented as sound bites these days and any hedging would have created a predictable screaming contrived furor. Seems to me that the "bullied" insurers are so afraid of bully Obama that they canceled hundreds of thousands of policies so detractors could scream vicarious hurt. But I see the claims of bullying suddenly went quiet. Wonder why- the previous 6 times the White House was accused of bullying it went on for weeks.

>>I know you speculated several weeks ago about blow-back that Republicans would face after the govt shutdown. Right now, the ones soiling their underwear BIG TIME are Democrats up for re-election one year from now.

Right, and the Republican Party has its highest approval rating ever. Or maybe not.

>>Last week Senate Democrats had a meeting with White House chief of staff Denis McDonough and other senior officials to voice their anger about the current situation (and the recent news about employer health plans later in 2014), with some of them suggesting a 1 year delay of the mandate. It wouldn't shock me if they were some of the same Democrats who, just 30 days ago, were ripping the Republicans for proposing a one year delay as a condition of stopping the shutdown. Can't have it both ways...

This tale of sound and fury won't die down as quickly as the claims of bullying and the pretense of people with canceled policies tossed onto the street as you observe, but IMHO it won't outlast resolution of the website problems by very long. You'll see.