Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 sebster wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
Wait for the numbers to be adjusted down?

And if they're not? What then?

Government numbers are always adjusted down. Well, except for costs estimates. Those always seem to go up, don't they?

 Ouze wrote:

That is so brilliant. I have only one internet to give you, but I give it happily.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
So we don't have those figures then? But thank you for again stooping to inferring bad faith.

There's no inference. I am flat out stating that this debate has been undertaken in bad faith almost from the very beginning, and the nonsense efforts to try and dismiss ACA hitting the 7 million target are just more examples of that.

It is almost as if you only have one string to your bow when we talk these days.

The string I have is reality. ACA reached the 7 million target. fething reality.

Whereas the efforts to try and pretend it didn't, such as claiming that people who's payments aren't yet due haven't paid and therefore somehow won't pay... that's ridiculous fantasy.

As for the ACA discussion disappearing "in a puff of nonsense like all the other supposed issues have before it." I await to see the impact of;
- the employer mandate that has been repeatedly, unilaterally deferred by the Administration
- the results of the various law suits

The issue you were talking about is disappearing, so you move on to the next. As always.

There's no inference. I am flat out stating that this debate has been undertaken in bad faith almost from the very beginning, and the nonsense efforts to try and dismiss ACA hitting the 7 million target are just more examples of that.

Bad faith by who? You? This actually impacts us. You're not impacted.

I've seen nothing about the success of the oriuginal plan - the AFFORDABLE Care Act and its claims that it will lower health care premiums. That was the supposed point.
Premiums are still going up. Tens of millions are still without healthcare.

Its an epic failure and only shows how bad the US at developing and implementing a government plan.

 Frazzled wrote:

There's no inference. I am flat out stating that this debate has been undertaken in bad faith almost from the very beginning, and the nonsense efforts to try and dismiss ACA hitting the 7 million target are just more examples of that.

Bad faith by who? You? This actually impacts us. You're not impacted.

I've seen nothing about the success of the oriuginal plan - the AFFORDABLE Care Act and its claims that it will lower health care premiums. That was the supposed point.
Premiums are still going up. Tens of millions are still without healthcare.

Its an epic failure and only shows how bad the US at developing and implementing a government plan.

To be fair Fazz, another point of this legislation was to cover all the 40+ million uninsured people. Of course, it failed there too...

Exactly. No matter how you slice it, a million here a million there, there are tens of millions of legal citizens who are uninsured.

Take away the easy stuff that everyone agreed on (no pre-existing, letting the little lazy blood suckers stay on your plan until 26) we've what a net gain of what a couple of million? Meantime we've created a bureaucratic boondoggle, and now the government controls everyone's healthcare and doing a crappy 'pardon us while our website is down" time doing it.

 Frazzled wrote:
Bad faith by who? You? This actually impacts us. You're not impacted.

And the "You're Australian, your argument is invalid" card is (again) played. Are you oblivious to the bald-faced intellectual cowardice such a stance embraces?

In other news, Republicans passed some small improvements to the law.

 Ouze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Bad faith by who? You? This actually impacts us. You're not impacted.

And the "You're Australian, your argument is invalid" card is (again) played. Are you oblivious to the bald-faced intellectual cowardice such a stance embraces?

What cowardice? This law affects me. IT DOESN"T IMPACT HIM ONE WHIT. Some guy from across the globe is in not affected at all, then calling others who have problems with the law as disagreeing in bad faith is an absolute joke and frankly an internet troll.

In other news, Republicans passed some small improvements to the law.

Nothing will pass. Obama wants to play with it, but only Obama.

Well, I guess we'll see, but I am pretty confident he'll sign them.

So far as the other thing, one doesn't really need to have a stake in something to take an interest in it and want to debate on a discussion forum, no?

 Ouze wrote:
Well, I guess we'll see, but I am pretty confident he'll sign them.

So far as the other thing, one doesn't really need to have a stake in something to take an interest in it and want to debate on a discussion forum, no?

Calling everyone who disagrees with your eminent wisdom as arguing in bad faith is not debate. Its trolling. Thats what he did and its violtates Dakka Rule #1.

Sure there's bad faith by some on all sides. But most of the people who have concerns about the ACA have them based on how the law was actually drafted and implemented, its supposed intent vs. what its actually done. Others have concern arguing its a sad half step that didn't go far enough, and now the ACA has screwed the pooch for the chances of getting real comprehensive healthcare for everyone in the US for a long long time.

 sebster wrote:
There's no inference. I am flat out stating that this debate has been undertaken in bad faith almost from the very beginning, and the nonsense efforts to try and dismiss ACA hitting the 7 million target are just more examples of that.

So everyone who took part in this discussion has acted only in bad faith?

 sebster wrote:
The string I have is reality. ACA reached the 7 million target. fething reality.

Whereas the efforts to try and pretend it didn't, such as claiming that people who's payments aren't yet due haven't paid and therefore somehow won't pay... that's ridiculous fantasy.

I asked was there any data that people had not paid yet. Any policy that is over 30 days should have been eligible for payment, and therefore it is a fact that can be checked. You somehow managed to miss this point and instead ascribed a "fantasy" to my argument.

 sebster wrote:
The issue you were talking about is disappearing, so you move on to the next. As always.

The issue I was talking about has disappeared? I'm pretty sure that
a) The constant deferral of the employer mandate has been mentioned numerous times before this point in the thread
b) the law suits (including the religious exemption one) have been discussed before this point
So there is no moving on to the next, unless you are being wilfully ignorant to the discussion that you yourself have been involved in


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

There's no inference. I am flat out stating that this debate has been undertaken in bad faith almost from the very beginning, and the nonsense efforts to try and dismiss ACA hitting the 7 million target are just more examples of that.

Bad faith by who? You? This actually impacts us. You're not impacted.

I've seen nothing about the success of the oriuginal plan - the AFFORDABLE Care Act and its claims that it will lower health care premiums. That was the supposed point.
Premiums are still going up. Tens of millions are still without healthcare.

Its an epic failure and only shows how bad the US at developing and implementing a government plan.

To be fair Fazz, another point of this legislation was to cover all the 40+ million uninsured people. Of course, it failed there too...

But liberals won the culture war, so everything else is obviously a victory

Did anyone see this?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2594309/President-plans-victory-lap-strong-Obamacare-enrollment-Sebelius-faces-unpopular-law-blank-stare-tough-questions-remain-whos-signing-up.html

A triumphant President Barack Obama declared Tuesday his signature medical insurance overhaul a success, saying it has made America's health care system 'a lot better' in a Rose Garden press conference.
But buried in the 7.1 million enrollments he announced in a heavily staged appearance is a more unsettling reality.
Numbers from a RAND Corporation study that has been kept under wraps suggest that barely 858,000 previously uninsured Americans – nowhere near 7.1 million – have paid for new policies and joined the ranks of the insured by Monday night.

I'm very leery of that number... if true... that's just... got no words for that.

That’s fewer than 1 in 300 Americans.

Also in the article:

The unpublished RAND study – only the Los Angeles Times has seen it – found that just 23 per cent of new enrollees had no insurance before signing up.

If true, that 7 millions signup figure is pure SPIN.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
Well, I guess we'll see, but I am pretty confident he'll sign them.

So far as the other thing, one doesn't really need to have a stake in something to take an interest in it and want to debate on a discussion forum, no?

That has nothing to do with the ACA really.

That's "The Doc Fix" for Medicare.... and it's because Congress refuses to find and implement a permanent solution to Medicare reimbursement rates.

 whembly wrote:
That has nothing to do with the ACA really.

That's "The Doc Fix" for Medicare.... and it's because Congress refuses to find and implement a permanent solution to Medicare reimbursement rates.

Yes, it does, and no, it's not. Not wholly.

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
That has nothing to do with the ACA really.

That's "The Doc Fix" for Medicare.... and it's because Congress refuses to find and implement a permanent solution to Medicare reimbursement rates.

Yes, it does, and no, it's not. Not wholly.

Ah... missed that. Thanks.
“eliminated a cap on deductibles for small group policies offered inside the law’s health care exchanges as well as outside; the cap was set at $2,000 for individuals and $4,000 for families.”

Yeah... the optics is really, really bad... but, I don't blame them either.

I

 Frazzled wrote:
Bad faith by who? You? This actually impacts us. You're not impacted.

That doesn't mean you know what you're talking about.

I've seen nothing about the success of the oriuginal plan - the AFFORDABLE Care Act and its claims that it will lower health care premiums. That was the supposed point.

Oh look, here we go again. None of ever even think of admitting that one of your complaints about ACA was in error, that just part of your complaint was completely, utterly wrong, and something you should have been able to realise was wrong months ago. Instead you just move on, pretend some other issue was really the problem all along.

As I was trying to explain earlier in the thread, this is why your side is so broken, and destined to keep telling little fables over and over again until each smashes in to reality, only to abandoned in favour of new myths.

I'm now beginning to realise the debate on ACA won't carry on forever, but will end only when you finally run out of stupid little myths, and just start pretending that Benghazi or the IRS scandal or something else was always the real problem you had with the Obama administration.

Tens of millions are still without healthcare.

I remember you asking why you were supposed to care that millions of people who weren't you didn't have insurance. Now that ACA reduces the number of uninsured, you claim the problem is that it doesn't do enough of it.

You are completely, 100% dishonest in this discussion. You have nothing to offer but nonsense you make up from post to post.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:
To be fair Fazz, another point of this legislation was to cover all the 40+ million uninsured people. Of course, it failed there too...

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/04/more-good-obamacare-news/

Note those figures do not include the last 20% of enrollments, nor do they include the expansion of coverage for children up to 26 years of age.

And bare in mind this program is still on-going, and CBO estimates consider the program will not have its full effect felt for several more years as the program continues to pick up enrollments.

Which brings us to your extraordinarly stupid standard for success. You are actually claiming that a program still in operation is deemed a success because it hasn't yet completely solved the issue. fething ridiculous.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Calling everyone who disagrees with your eminent wisdom as arguing in bad faith is not debate.

Sigh. No, simply disagreeing with me is not bad faith. It is bad faith because the arguments are very poor, and when those poor arguments are established as factually wrong they just move on to new arguments.

If any of the people who claimed ACA was never going to make its enrollment targets were to come forward and say 'well I got that wrong, but I have these other issues with ACA' then maybe we'd have a sign that a decent discussion on this could happen.

Have you noticed the argument still floating around that there aren't enough young invincibles enrolling? When I have posted links to an exhaustive study that costed the effect of different enrollment levels of young invincibles and showed the price increase at extremely low rates of sign up would be just a few percent... there was no comment. Near as I can tell no-one even clicked on the link. Instead they just waited a bit, and then went back to posting the same bs claim a few days or weeks later.

Disingenuous bs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
So everyone who took part in this discussion has acted only in bad faith?

Enough people acting in enough bad faith that the rest is basically unseen, yeah.

I mean, can you name all the people who've said 'Okay, we got the 7 million figure wrong'. Anyone? One person?

I asked was there any data that people had not paid yet. Any policy that is over 30 days should have been eligible for payment, and therefore it is a fact that can be checked. You somehow managed to miss this point and instead ascribed a "fantasy" to my argument.

What made you even think there was going to be some vast mass of people who would never make the first payment? Other than a bizarre government conspiracy that could only survive a couple of months... what possible situation leads you to predict that some material % of subscribers would never even make their first payment? Be honest, other than wishful thinking, what makes you even entertain such a possibility?

I mean... think this through for a second. You're saying that insurance companies have been accepting actual enrollments, having those enrollments fall due for the first payment, seeing people default, and then not telling anyone about that. It's comical.

So there is no moving on to the next, unless you are being wilfully ignorant to the discussion that you yourself have been involved in

Are you conceding the enrollment issue? Admitting that your side was wrong on that? Or are you just going to stop talking about that issue from now on?

Bad faith by who? You? This actually impacts us. You're not impacted.

Being affected doesn't mean you actually know what you're talking about.

But liberals won the culture war, so everything else is obviously a victory

Oh look, confused factional rants being put forward as a debating point. That's something I haven't seen since, well, I last saw Seaward post.

Anyhow, you'd have to be a very special kind of idiot to fail to notice that the major social policy issues of the 20th century - sexual liberation, divorce, gender equality, gay rights etc... weren't pretty emphatically decided by this point, with all points going to the liberal side.

That doesn't mean, of course, that they had anything like the same success on economic matters (in many areas of economic policy, particularly international trade, the liberals have been smacked and I'm quite pleased about that). Nor does it mean they are destined to win on all matters going forward.

Which is something you would understand if you'd read and thought about the article I posted in that thread.

 Frazzled wrote:
Exactly. No matter how you slice it, a million here a million there, there are tens of millions of legal citizens who are uninsured.

That number would have been less than it is if all the states had accepted the Medicaide (Medicare? I always get those mixed up) expansion. Really, the biggest problem with the Affordable Care Act is the obstructionism and lies told about it by the Republicans. It's really funny that when people are polled about the Affordable Care Act, they are all for what it does...But if you call it Obamacare, less people like it.

Is it the ideal solution? No, but it represents a compromise between Liberal and Conservative ideals.

 whembly wrote:
Did anyone see this?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2594309/President-plans-victory-lap-strong-Obamacare-enrollment-Sebelius-faces-unpopular-law-blank-stare-tough-questions-remain-whos-signing-up.html

It's a UK paper, does this mean Fraz must ignore everything it says?

I'm very leery of that number... if true... that's just... got no words for that.

That’s fewer than 1 in 300 Americans.

You have to play funny buggers a bit to get that number. It says 23% of enrollments previously didn't have insurance, and of that 53% haven't signed up yet. Multiply those figures to get the 800k figure. But the 23% figure is a little dodge, because the states that have been able to give numbers have reported much higher, New York reports 59% are previously unemployed, and Kentucky reports 75% previously unemployed. Now, those are slightly older figures and don't have the late surge in there, and its possible that states with a bulk of the enrollments, like California, have massively different numbers, so the 23% number shouldn't be rejected, but it shouldn't be accepted completely either.

And more importantly, assuming that of the 53% who haven't paid yet that none will is just moonbat logic. For reasons we've been over already.

Which leaves us with a statement that if we go with RAND's number, then 800k people who were previously uninsured are now insured, and that will increase to 1.6 million in the next month and half or thereabouts. If we go with something closer to the NY and KY figures, then around 2.1 million who weren't insured soon will be, and that can be expected to increase to about 4.2 million in the next month and a half or thereabouts. And that perhaps most likely it will be somewhere between.

If true, that 7 millions signup figure is pure SPIN.

Sort of. The importance of the 7 million figure was largely political in the first place. I mean, it was just the CBO estimate for what they believed enrollments to be by the first cut off date (the much talked about reduction to 6 million as Obama lowering his target was actually just the CBO saying 'given the website screw ups we think it will likely be 6 million now).

In other words, whether enrollments were at 6.5 million or 7.1 million didn't mean anything substantial. I mean, if the original estimate had been 5 million or 10 million would ACA be better or worse than it is now, just because estimates were pessimistic or optimistic? Either way, 7 million Americans enrolled through a system means that system has a large enough base to allow for a viable system of population based health costings, and it means it is a big enough part of the health system that repealing it is a political nightmare.

But the real meaning of the number to me, is that it differentiates people who were watching the numbers develop in real time and understood where they would be by the target date, and people who were just reading pundits who told them what they wanted to hear and had no idea how things were really developing. In other words, the 7 million number wasn't that important, but there is a real difference between people who knew it was going to hit 7 million and people who didn't.

actually the size of the enrollment group does NOT make it viable sebster,

the group composition must be so that the system non-users vastly out # and out pay the people who use the system (ie make claims, cost $)

but you are correct in that once it reaches a certain size, it is too intertwined, and too big to just go back on the promise, so they either dont provide the service that was promised, or go broke providing it, with money from "somewhere".

I would like to see statistics on what % of OB care sign ups make large claims within the first year before I consider it "viable", especially considering the prevalence of "
old and sick" as opposed to young and healthy applicants.

That's the cog that make this, ACA, work The young people. If there are not enough young people paying into it then its a failure. All we're doing is pumping money into it to keep it afloat. As were doing now to make the systems workable. Three years to get the program right and its a "red" cluster *uck.

 sebster wrote:

Tens of millions are still without healthcare.

I remember you asking why you were supposed to care that millions of people who weren't you didn't have insurance. Now that ACA reduces the number of uninsured, you claim the problem is that it doesn't do enough of it.

Well, he's not alone with playing that card.

 easysauce wrote:
actually the size of the enrollment group does NOT make it viable sebster,

the group composition must be so that the system non-users vastly out # and out pay the people who use the system (ie make claims, cost $)

fething Jesus to feth and back. This whole fething thread is just one big fething joke on me, isn't it? Let's see how often we can get that one guy to keep repeating the same fething arguments over and over again, never address them or reply to them, and then just wait a bit and repeat them all over again. It's 60 pages and counting, surely that Australian will get the joke sooner or later.

No? Not actually a joke. Is this actually a debate in which you aren't reading one fething thing that I've typed?

Because here was me explaining the nonsense in that argument three posts above yours (and probably for about the 15th time in this thread);
"When I have posted links to an exhaustive study that costed the effect of different enrollment levels of young invincibles and showed the price increase at extremely low rates of sign up would be just a few percent... there was no comment. Near as I can tell no-one even clicked on the link. Instead they just waited a bit, and then went back to posting the same bs claim a few days or weeks later"

And then a couple of posts later there you are repeating that same claim, again.

Anyhow, here is that Kaiser review;
http://kff.org/health-reform/perspective/the-numbers-behind-young-invincibles-and-the-affordable-care-act/

You can scroll down past the stuff everyone already knows to find the two scenarios they ran and how much they impact the costs;

Scenario 1: Young adults age 18-34 enroll at a 25% lower rate than other individuals relative to the potential market. Under this scenario, young adults would represent 33% of individual market enrollees instead of 40% as in the potential market. Taking into account the allowed three-to-one variation in premiums due to age, we find that costs (health care expenses plus overhead and profits) would be about 1.1% higher than premium revenues.

Scenario 2: Young adults age 18-34 enroll at a 50% lower rate than other individuals relative to the potential market. Under this scenario, young adults would represent 25% of enrollees, substantially less than their share of the potential market. It is roughly comparable to what Covered California reported for October and November (the first two months of open enrollment), with 21% of all enrollees who picked a plan in the 18-34 age range. However, this is likely a worst-case scenario, since the expectation is that older and sicker individuals are more likely to buy first and that younger and healthier people will tend to wait until towards the end of the open enrollment period (which concludes March 31, 2014). In fact, our recent survey of people in California who are uninsured found that 58% of young adults said they planned to get coverage in 2014. But, if this more extreme assumption of low enrollment among young adults holds, overall costs in individual market plans would be about 2.4% higher than premium revenues.

Insurers typically set their premiums to achieve a 3-4% profit margin, so a shortfall due to skewed enrollment by age could reduce the profit margin of insurers substantially in 2014. But, even in the worst case, insurers would still be expected to earn profits, and would then likely raise premiums in 2015 to make up the shortfall, However, a one to two percent premium increase would be well below the level that would trigger a “death spiral,” which would occur if insurers needed to increase premiums substantially, in turn further discouraging young and healthy people from enrolling.

So can we let that argument finally fething die as well, or can I look forward to posting this again in a page or two?

your scenario is based on the "potential market" not the actual people who are signing up.

the actual market seems to be people who already need insurance to pay for things, and couldnt get insurance before.

You cannot make claims to there being a supportable % of claimants until we get reports on the % of people who signed up and made claims within the first year, if we ever get that data.

So while I dont know for a fact there will be more claimants then non, I at least dont pretend I know for a fact there is, when the concern that there might not be is quite real. I certainly HOPE that there will be more pay ins then outs in OB care, but the package was just much more attractive to people who are likely to make claims then those who wont.

 easysauce wrote:
your scenario is based on the "potential market" not the actual people who are signing up.

My scenario? I'd like to take claim for doing modeling as extensive as that in the link, but really isn't my work.

Does this mean we're giving up on the 'young invincibles are needed or else ACA will tank' argument? Now it's purely on people about people signing up being disproportionately sick?

On that issue, sure, it's possible that the enrollments (on both the exchanges and off-exchange) are disproportionately sick, but we've seen nothing to that effect yet, and can we can reliably assume that if insurance companies do feel that numbers are trending that way then they'll start making a hell of a fuss about it. After all, that's exactly what happened in New York (where there was no individual mandate) and the insurance companies were never exactly quiet about it.

 skyth wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Exactly. No matter how you slice it, a million here a million there, there are tens of millions of legal citizens who are uninsured.

That number would have been less than it is if all the states had accepted the Medicaide (Medicare? I always get those mixed up) expansion. Really, the biggest problem with the Affordable Care Act is the obstructionism and lies told about it by the Republicans. It's really funny that when people are polled about the Affordable Care Act, they are all for what it does...But if you call it Obamacare, less people like it.

Is it the ideal solution? No, but it represents a compromise between Liberal and Conservative ideals.

The MedicAde option is a trap. The government currently is providing a subsidy to the states for that increased coverage, but it is temporary.

MedicAde itself is absolute crap. If that is our medical future we are all ed.
So it probably is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

 sebster wrote:

Tens of millions are still without healthcare.

I remember you asking why you were supposed to care that millions of people who weren't you didn't have insurance. Now that ACA reduces the number of uninsured, you claim the problem is that it doesn't do enough of it.

Well, he's not alone with playing that card.

People seem to forget I'm the guy wanting the Canadian system. More lies from the uninvolved Aussie.

I'm a Libertarian and support a Canadian system, better then the gak we're fething with now!



Of course in return I think we need to dismantle significant other parts of government with a bulldozer packing flamethrowers

Which is what should have been done, or heaven's to Betsy, set up a team to stupdy the 5 best systems in the world and implement what they learned.

But Nooooooooo we get the ACA.

 Frazzled wrote:
People seem to forget I'm the guy wanting the Canadian system.

Yes, I do remember you were (and presumably still are) a pretty vocal proponent for single-payer, something upon which we agree. The fact that health insurance is tied to your job is just plain weird, if you think about it. Yes, I understand why it growed that way, just not why we never abandoned it.

I doubt that was politically achievable, though - I mean, look what happened to the public option. Boy, I bet Obama wishes, given how things turned out, he had just rammed it though after all, huh? Since that was the narrative anyway, probably should have made the most of it.

 sebster wrote:
What made you even think there was going to be some vast mass of people who would never make the first payment? Other than a bizarre government conspiracy that could only survive a couple of months... what possible situation leads you to predict that some material % of subscribers would never even make their first payment? Be honest, other than wishful thinking, what makes you even entertain such a possibility?

I mean... think this through for a second. You're saying that insurance companies have been accepting actual enrollments, having those enrollments fall due for the first payment, seeing people default, and then not telling anyone about that. It's comical.

You mean aside from people involved in fixing the website that was terribly designed, had serious problems, and lots of security flaws, and the insurance companies themselves who all said that there were issues with receiving the notifications of who had enrolled, and their details? Those people who voiced concerns that enrollee data was not being passed along so that applications could not be completed.
So, back to my initial question which you seem determined to avoid as is habitual: do we have any numbers for the people who have not made their first payment? Yes or No.
It was claimed that we wouldn't know until 30+ days have passed, for those who enrolled at the start that deadline is long gone. So is the information there?

 sebster wrote:
Are you conceding the enrollment issue? Admitting that your side was wrong on that? Or are you just going to stop talking about that issue from now on?

My side? You're going to have to extrapolate a little more on that Seb. Especially as this was not something I was making a huge deal about because of the constant pushing back of the enrollment date.
You mean the enrollment issue where the goalposts were shifted until it was almost guaranteed that the Administration would get the numbers that it wanted (still short of the number of actual uninsured)? If you want to count that as a victory then you are more than welcome to

 sebster wrote:
Being affected doesn't mean you actually know what you're talking about.

Not sure why you stuck a repeated reply to Frazz in the middle of replying to me

 sebster wrote:
Oh look, confused factional rants being put forward as a debating point. That's something I haven't seen since, well, I last saw Seaward post.

Anyhow, you'd have to be a very special kind of idiot to fail to notice that the major social policy issues of the 20th century - sexual liberation, divorce, gender equality, gay rights etc... weren't pretty emphatically decided by this point, with all points going to the liberal side.

That doesn't mean, of course, that they had anything like the same success on economic matters (in many areas of economic policy, particularly international trade, the liberals have been smacked and I'm quite pleased about that). Nor does it mean they are destined to win on all matters going forward.

Which is something you would understand if you'd read and thought about the article I posted in that thread.

Oh look, someone determined to miss the point and take an obviously humorous aside that was a reply to someone else as a "debating point"
Does Australian healthcare cover your sense of humor? If so you might want to go get yours checked

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Oh look, someone determined to miss the point and take an obviously humorous aside that was a reply to someone else as a "debating point"
Does Australian healthcare cover your sense of humor? If so you might want to go get yours checked

To be fair, you can see how angry he is. You shouldn't poke people raging on the internet. You hurt his self-esteem.

 Seaward wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Oh look, someone determined to miss the point and take an obviously humorous aside that was a reply to someone else as a "debating point"
Does Australian healthcare cover your sense of humor? If so you might want to go get yours checked

To be fair, you can see how angry he is. You shouldn't poke people raging on the internet. You hurt his self-esteem.

I hope that's covered by his docs too then

Sebs, you are wasting your time. This thread stopped being anything useful on page 2.

No matter what story about ACA breaks, it will be a disaster and a sign that ACA is failing. That will be the narrative through 2014 and the elections at the minimum because the Conservatives don't have anything else to run with.