Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:
1. This never had anything to do with fraud. Why Freeman dragged that in, I have no idea.

Because it is mentioned in the Oregonian article that was Noonan's source?

Which HE never referenced?

Why would he need to? It was already referenced by Noonan's article, which you linked to.

Make an actual allegation against the woman cited by Noonan. Otherwise, you've got "potential" fraud, which you all scoff at as a voter issue, even though the solution is 100% painless.

I don't 'scoff' at voter fraud. I just disagree that your 'solution' is either 100% painless or all that great a solution.

I'm not going to allege fraud on the part of Deana Copeland. That doesn't mean there is not fraud elsewhere from just this kind of situation.

danivon wrote:]Why would he need to? It was already referenced by Noonan's article, which you linked to.

Being a barrister, he doesn' t need a Redscape lawyer to speak for him. If that was his foundation, he is perfectly capable of expressing it.

I'm not going to allege fraud on the part of Deana Copeland. That doesn't mean there is not fraud elsewhere from just this kind of situation.

So what? Not that I'm indifferent to fraud. I have NEVER expressed that opinion. It's just that I mention one case and fraud is all you want to rage about, yet Freeman didn't mention it and there are no allegations of such against Ms. Copeland.

Thus, your train of argument leaves the tracks.

And, look at the desperation of the White House:

More good ACA news. 21% savings on premiums for Ohioans who buy their own health insurance because of the ACA. . . .

The article to which the tweet links says that “Ohioans who buy their own health insurance should see an average out-of-pocket savings on premiums of 21 percent because of taxpayer subsidies,” emphasis mine, thanks to the Affordable Care Act — except that it sounds like those 21 percent savings are not based on current premium prices, but rather on expected premium increases.

So, prices are going up, but subsidies will help some absorb the blow, and this is good news?

Without the health care law, Ohioans who bought individual policies would pay $3,973, on average, in premiums in 2016, the study shows. But the subsidies, or tax credits, will bring the individuals’ costs down to $3,131. …

Taylor’s figure did not account for buyer subsidies, nor for the wide variety of policies that are now available, some with deductibles of $10,000 and even $25,000, that will no longer be sold. Obamacare will require a change in coverage for many, with more exams and medical conditions covered, and will eliminate some of the high-deductible, bare-bones policies now sold and used in Taylor’s comparison. …

Without factoring in subsidy offsets and the policies that people are likely to buy, premiums for individual policies in Ohio will average $5,312 in 2016, according to figures from Rand. That’s 34 percent higher than the average for individual premiums without Obamacare, Rand’s figures show. …

Based on that calculation, the average premium for individual policies in Ohio would rise by $900, or 22.65 percent. …

The price hike would be offset for many Ohioans by the taxpayer subsidy.

Um, great.

Does anyone know if Obama is paying the "subsidy" out of his pocket?

I can't wait for the exchanges to open! That is going to be very entertaining--from a pure schadenfreude perspective.

Doctor Fate wrote:Being a barrister, he doesn' t need a Redscape lawyer to speak for him. If that was his foundation, he is perfectly capable of expressing it.

The point is that he was not bringing up something irrelevant (which it would not be even if it hadn't already been mentioned in the original source article), which is what you appeared to be suggesting when you asked why even mention fraud as it had 'never had anything to do with fraud'. The fact is that fraud was a consideration in setting up the rule.

I'm not going to allege fraud on the part of Deana Copeland. That doesn't mean there is not fraud elsewhere from just this kind of situation.

So what? Not that I'm indifferent to fraud. I have NEVER expressed that opinion

And I did not (unlike you did for me) imply that you have.

It's just that I mention one case and fraud is all you want to rage about, yet Freeman didn't mention it and there are no allegations of such against Ms. Copeland.

It is not 'all' I mentioned, and I have no 'rage'. The first thing I mentioned in relation to the case was not fraud. It was that things had changed since the article was posted by you.

Furthermore, Freeman did mention fraud, leading to you asking why he'd brought it up and telling us it had nothing to do with fraud.

And no, there are no allegations of fraud against Deana Copeland. That is beside the point: the situation of having a recognised guardian (which for the purposes of these programmes is the representative and advocate of the person who needs care) also being a paid-for carer, paid by the State to do a job is a clear situation where conflict of interest may arise. As well as fraud, there are other possible outcomes of such a conflict that would be a problem for the real recipient of this money and assistance, who in this case is not Ms Copeland but her daughter - Andrea Hood. It should always be the patient's interests who are put first (and unfortunately, because of a minority of cases, that means we don't just take a parent on trust).

So, as before, laws at a Federal level that don't allow money to go to someone in that position are designed to avoid such conflicts of interest. And this case may have been affected by that (but is not now, and would not until the end of this year).

And, as before, Oregon can get a waiver so that its programme can be compliant and continue to as before.

Thus, your train of argument leaves the tracks.

When you told me to 'put a sock in it', I figured you'd left civilised discourse behind already. So it's water off a duck's back when you throw little jibes like that in. When you are simultaneously arguing that I have no place to 'defend' Freeman's mention of fraud, and that he did not mention it, I can only think it's probably best to leave you to your witterings.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Being a barrister, he doesn' t need a Redscape lawyer to speak for him. If that was his foundation, he is perfectly capable of expressing it.

The point is that he was not bringing up something irrelevant (which it would not be even if it hadn't already been mentioned in the original source article), which is what you appeared to be suggesting when you asked why even mention fraud as it had 'never had anything to do with fraud'. The fact is that fraud was a consideration in setting up the rule.

Thank you.

He thanks you.

He's capable of making his own arguments, so stop patronizing him.

And no, there are no allegations of fraud against Deana Copeland. That is beside the point:

It's my point. I know what is "beside" my own point. You're wrong.

1. I was not patronising Freeman. I was agreeing with him. At no point did I speak for him - just pointed out that the issue you claimed was irrelevant had been mentioned in the Oregonian article and so was not 'out of bounds' of the discussion.

2. Yes, we know your point. I was talking about my point which was in response. For a lover of freedom of speech, you are awful keen to constrain debate ("put a sock in it" is another example).

I shall give you your clear desire and leave you to it on this one.

danivon wrote:1. I was not patronising Freeman. I was agreeing with him.

You can't agree with a point he didn't make.

At no point did I speak for him - just pointed out that the issue you claimed was irrelevant had been mentioned in the Oregonian article and so was not 'out of bounds' of the discussion.

You inferred he was making a point he never made. You then took that inference and proclaimed it as "truth."

Not sure you get the Washington Post Fate, but it appears that the ACA is getting some good previews and reviews....

http://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wor ... places.pdf

The new Kaiser Family Foundation study looking at Obamacare’s likely impact on health insurance costs is getting a lot of attention, and rightly so. As Bloomberg News puts it, this is the “the broadest look yet at what consumers will pay for health insurance when the Affordable Care Act takes full effect next year,” and its top line finding is that insurance will be “affordable.” In other words, no “rate shock.”
Indeed, if you dig into the report, you’ll find more information that really bodes well for Obamacare’s implementation.
Specifically, the prices of the so-called “bronze” plans turn out to be very affordable, and even more so when you add in the law’s subsidies — which is very good news for those who worried people won’t sign on to the exchanges.
The “bronze” plans represent the least generous level of coverage, and health reformers believe they represent a kind of escape valve for releasing anger over the individual mandate. The idea is those who are least likely to sign on to the exchanges — single youngish people who don’t have a lot of money — are also the most likely to sign on to “bronze” plans. If those are affordable more will sign up.
And they are. Go to Figure Three in the report and you’ll see that the average monthly premium for the “lowest cost bronze plan after subsidies” for single 40-year-olds who make around $28,000 per year ranges from $97 to $168. The average monthly premium for single 25-year-olds at that income level are within a similar range.
“A bronze plan is the minimum insurance that people have to pay to satisfy the individual mandate,” Larry Levitt, a Kaiser official and author of the study, tells me. “The low cost of bronze plans will make it easier to sell people on the idea of buying insurance and mean anger over the mandate could be less than expected

.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plu ... e/?hpid=z3

rickyp wrote:Not sure you get the Washington Post Fate, but it appears that the ACA is getting some good previews and reviews....

http://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wor ... places.pdf

The new Kaiser Family Foundation study looking at Obamacare’s likely impact on health insurance costs is getting a lot of attention, and rightly so. As Bloomberg News puts it, this is the “the broadest look yet at what consumers will pay for health insurance when the Affordable Care Act takes full effect next year,” and its top line finding is that insurance will be “affordable.” In other words, no “rate shock.”
Indeed, if you dig into the report, you’ll find more information that really bodes well for Obamacare’s implementation.
Specifically, the prices of the so-called “bronze” plans turn out to be very affordable, and even more so when you add in the law’s subsidies — which is very good news for those who worried people won’t sign on to the exchanges.
The “bronze” plans represent the least generous level of coverage, and health reformers believe they represent a kind of escape valve for releasing anger over the individual mandate. The idea is those who are least likely to sign on to the exchanges — single youngish people who don’t have a lot of money — are also the most likely to sign on to “bronze” plans. If those are affordable more will sign up.
And they are. Go to Figure Three in the report and you’ll see that the average monthly premium for the “lowest cost bronze plan after subsidies” for single 40-year-olds who make around $28,000 per year ranges from $97 to $168. The average monthly premium for single 25-year-olds at that income level are within a similar range.
“A bronze plan is the minimum insurance that people have to pay to satisfy the individual mandate,” Larry Levitt, a Kaiser official and author of the study, tells me. “The low cost of bronze plans will make it easier to sell people on the idea of buying insurance and mean anger over the mandate could be less than expected

.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plu ... e/?hpid=z3

Bet me.

anger over the mandate
"could be less than expected"
...now that is some optimism to hang your hat on Ricky!

tom

could be less than expected"
...now that is some optimism to hang your hat on Ricky

!

I guess the question is why people would be angry in the first place.
Most people

want

to have health insurance. And by most I'd feel safe saying over 90%.
There is a small group who don't.... And if mandated to have insurance I guess they'd be angry. I have a feeling many of these people live in a perpetua state of anger fretting over the gubmint..

For the rest of the populace it comes down to affordability and access.For those without insurance or tied to jobs becasue of preexisting conditions, its already a winner. For the vast majority who get health insurance through work the good news for the unfortunates being helped will be positive. (Whats to be angry about?)
And, the kaiser report is full of good news on the affordability front. Inevitably if the ACA works for most people, and incoveniences only a few or costs more for a small group it will acceptance the way Medicare did.
And thats an untouchable entitlment today politically.... even for the most conservative ...

That the reality of the ACA is different tha its critics have predicted..... is a problem for the critics and opponents who want to eliminate it .... Once ACA is accepted, what hill are they willing to de on next?

rickyp wrote:tom

could be less than expected"
...now that is some optimism to hang your hat on Ricky

!

I guess the question is why people would be angry in the first place.
Most people

want

to have health insurance. And by most I'd feel safe saying over 90%.
There is a small group who don't.... And if mandated to have insurance I guess they'd be angry. I have a feeling many of these people live in a perpetua state of anger fretting over the gubmint..

I have a feeling that you don't know what you're talking about. Many young people don't have insurance. When they are forced to, they're eyes are going to pop at the price.

All of your speculations, dear rickyp, are silly.

As I said, wait until the exchanges begin. That's when we'll begin to see the "success" of Obamacare.

Ricky, all people "want" a car, they "want" a big house. they :want" to go on a four week Hawaii vacation. Because they "want" something they can not afford and are being forced to buy does NOT mean they will be happy paying for it despite how much they wanted it!
...pretty bad example, keep trying!

fate

I have a feeling that you don't know what you're talking about. Many young people don't have insurance. When they are forced to, they're eyes are going to pop at the price.
All of your speculations, dear rickyp, are silly

Denver Post

Since the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was signed into law in 2010, more than 3 million young adults age 19 to 26 have been able to stay on their parents' health insurance policies, according to the Department of Health and Human Services. But an estimated 16 million to 19 million others are still uninsured.
"Young adults are disproportionately more likely to be un- or underemployed and those that are able to find employment often earn lower wages, all of which limits their ability to access affordable job-based insurance coverage," says Kathleen Stoll, deputy director and health policy director of Families USA. "Because young adults are over-represented among uninsured and lower-wage workers, they will benefit the most from access to financial help for coverage under the Affordable Care Act

Its not speculation Fate.

Tom

Ricky, all people "want" a car, they "want" a big house. they :want" to go on a four week Hawaii vacation. Because they "want" something they can not afford and are being forced to buy does NOT mean they will be happy paying for it despite how much they wanted it!
...pretty bad example, keep trying

Denver Post

"Contrary to common wisdom, studies have shown that most young adults understand the importance of health insurance. They just haven't been able to afford it in the past," says Justin Nisly, spokesperson for Enroll America.
While a Kaiser Family Foundation poll in June showed that 77 percent of young adults consider having health insurance to be "very important," an August survey by the Commonwealth Fund found that just 27 percent of them know that they'll be able to purchase their own insurance in the state-run marketplaces opening for business Oct. 1.
The ACA, also called Obamacare, provides tax credits to help make insurance more affordable to those with incomes that are lower than 400 percent of the federal poverty level ($45,960 per person in 2013); people who earn up to 250 percent of the federal poverty level ($28,725 for individuals) can get subsidies to cover out-of-pocket medical expenses like co-payments. "It is very important that a young uninsured adult make that determination [about whether they qualify for tax credits] because so many will and can use it buy more comprehensive coverage," says Jen Mishory, deputy director of Young Invincibles, a research organization focused on young adults. "They would likely be missing out on a benefit if they do not explore whether they qualify."

http://www.denverpost.com/fitness/ci_24 ... -insurance

Trips to Hawaii aren't health insurance Tom. And there is asignificant amount of evidence that supports my conclusions as I show here...
Health insurance represents security and independence. (Not having it means insecurity...) And private insurance from the exchanges provides people with the freedom to take jobs without regard to the provision of insurance from their employer OR to what ever medical conditions they might have...
This freedom appeals to young people who don't want to become wage slaves tied to an employer...
All in all, considering the entire scope of the plan (parents benefits, subsidies, benefits of portability) , the ACA represents a pretty good bargain for most young people.

[quote="rickyp"][/quote]

Wage slaves? Hyperbole, perhaps? Are they really shackled to the desk?