The short answer is yes, according to the Times, cutting the number of those without insurance by about a quarter — or somewhere around 8 million to 11 million.

So, yes, it's fair for Democrats to say the law is doing what it was meant to do — at least in that respect.

However, Republicans — and other critics — can easily counter that, that number is pacing behind original administration and CBO estimates. And, two, only about half of those people bought private health insurance policies, with the other half now comfortably on Medicaid. Obviously that doesn't bode well for our budget.

But the Times also asked whether the law had fulfilled its other goal of reducing health care spending. And, again, the answer is "yes, but…"

Sure, spending has slowed somewhat since last year's stumblin', bumblin' open enrollment, but the economy has more to do with that than PPACA. Besides, with consumers ponying up more of the costs for their own health care than ever before, it turns out they're become much more judicious about heading to the emergency room. Who knew?

Meanwhile, the midterms loom large and things are looking so tight that speculation has begun to stir over the possibility that the fate of the Senate might not be decided on election night. That's because of two (strongly) possible runoffs in Louisiana and Georgia. Can you imagine the chaos? Megyn Kelly's head might explode. At least then we might stop talking about Ebola.

It's just one more symptom of our increasingly polarized electorate. I remember while I was growing up, I heard the grown folks talk politics one Thanksgiving evening.

"Only a fool votes a straight ticket," my step-father decaled, to the laughter of everyone around the table.

Maybe we were all more civilized then. Maybe the wounds from Nixon were simply too fresh. Either way, we expected more from our elected officials and perhaps more importantly, we took our own responsibility more seriously.

But now, a Pew Research study shows "an analysis of likely voters living in areas with two or three major political contests this fall suggests about eight-in-ten voters (81 percent) will vote a straight party ticket."

This falls in line with another study the Pew people cite in reference to the last election, when "splitting reached an all-time low in 2012 with only 13 percent of voters selecting a different political party for the U.S. Senate than the U.S. House."

I would bet just about anything that as little as 30 years ago, that ratio was reversed. Now, despite greater access to education and information than at any time in human history, we do little more than vote the way we're told.

Between that and my general disgust with Congress, I decided to do things differently before mailing in my vote last week. I voted against every single incumbent — including judges — while casting a "no" for every ballot question, especially the one looking to put a casino down the street from my house.

We're all so quick to criticize Congress while steadfastly standing up for "our guy." I say throw 'em all out, the lefties, the righties and the one with commitment issues, Joe Lieberman. Throw 'em out and make them get real jobs.

I bet we'd save at least as much as the first year of Medicaid enrollees are going to cost us…