3373 replies to this topic

[Practical Girl]

 Banty, on 07 January 2014 - 02:58 PM, said:

It is possible what he means is that he found that his son did not qualify for any policies in the state exchanges because he qualified for Medicaid?

ed) or, effectively so, as they would not in that case qualify for subsidies:

""In general, individuals with income below 138 [percent] of the federal poverty level [about $15,000 for an individual] may qualify for Medicaid coverage," Midkiff says. "However, individuals at any income level…can still purchase coverage directly from insurers. They can also still purchase through the exchange—they just have to pay full price. They are not required to enroll in a plan through Kynect unless they are enrolling in Medicaid or seeking subsidies."

It kinda depends on what exactly he means.

I think Paul's own words should be a good indicator of exactly what he means. Unequivocally, Rand flashes a KY Medicaid card, identifies it as his son's and then talks about action taken:

Quote

We didn’t try to get him Medicaid, I’m trying to pay for his insurance,” Paul said, “but they automatically enrolled him in Medicaid. For a month they wouldn’t talk to him because they said they weren’t sure he existed. He had to go down to the welfare office, prove his existence, then next thing we know, we get a Medicaid card.”

[Banty]

Then damn straight they should pin him down about this.

[LFC]

Rand Paul: Liar. Plagiarizer. Self certified.

[Practical Girl]

 Banty, on 07 January 2014 - 04:10 PM, said:

Then damn straight they should pin him down about this.

Looking into the only one of Paul's sons that he could be talking about, I wonder: Is William (20)- in and out of alcohol-related trouble- persona non grata with Rand and family? What if William doesn't live with his parents and applied for Medicaid on his own? What better way to fuck your dad over than to get on the public "dole", something he's actively fighting against... It seems far-fetched and wouldn't excuse a sitting US Senator from making up a story about the situation to fit his own narrative. But there may be a bit more to the fabric of what's going on here than we know- just enough to allow Rand to wiggle out of any trouble by, say, claiming that he was just taking his son's word for it on the Magic Medicaid?

[Traveler]

WTF? How can a Senator's kid "not exist"? Who is this "they" that said he didn't exist?

[LFC]

 Traveler, on 07 January 2014 - 04:36 PM, said:

WTF? How can a Senator's kid "not exist"? Who is this "they" that said he didn't exist?

Good GOD, man! How can you let such trivial things as facts and reality get in the way of a good story of how Obamacare is EVIL and will destroy America? And why do you hate our country?

[indy]

Hmmm. Sounds like the kid applied and lied to his dad. Who'd want to admit to daddy Rand you were a gov moocher?

[Traveler]

Well how could he apply if he didn't exist after doing so? (according to Rand) And since when do 20-year-olds on their parents' policies go and apply for medicaid? Just too many plain improbabilities for my liking. And I think they are all coming from the senator.

[indy]

Quote

We didn't try to get him Medicaid…They automatically enrolled him in Medicaid," Paul said. "For a month they wouldn't talk to us because they said they weren't sure he existed. He had to go down to the welfare office, prove his existence, then, next thing we know, we get a Medicaid card.

Unless there is a new development, there are two claims that happened serially. One, they had a problem finding his son in the system. Eventually they did and they applied and somebody registered him in medicaid. Addressing this second, I think the son probably registered himself and lied when daddy found out. I have no idea about the first claim. It's not a stretch to believe a digitalwork snafu somewhere.

[cmk]

 LFC, on 07 January 2014 - 01:42 PM, said:

It seems that Rand keeps getting caught in one lie after another. I thought this guy wanted to be President. Does he really think he can run a campaign of outright fabrications like Mitt Romney but be successful? Well, it is politics so maybe he can but it doesn't seem to be a very smart approach.

LOL, I read those two first sentences in that paragraph and immediately thought to myself: "are those supposed to contradict each other?"

[Traveler]

 indy, on 07 January 2014 - 05:43 PM, said:

Unless there is a new development, there are two claims that happened serially. One, they had a problem finding his son in the system. Eventually they did and they applied and somebody registered him in medicaid. Addressing this second, I think the son probably registered himself and lied when daddy found out. I have no idea about the first claim. It's not a stretch to believe a digitalwork snafu somewhere.

Agreed re snafu. So the "they" was Healthcare.gov. If he didn't exist based on SS records, he would have to go to gubmint services to prove his existence.I just find it odd that he would then bother to enroll in Medicaid. But like you say, anything to make a statement.

[Practical Girl]

 Traveler, on 07 January 2014 - 06:26 PM, said:

Agreed re snafu. So the "they" was Healthcare.gov. If he didn't exist based on SS records, he would have to go to gubmint services to prove his existence.I just find it odd that he would then bother to enroll in Medicaid. But like you say, anything to make a statement.

OK- this is getting sort of funny. Wouldn't the "they" be the Kentucky state exchange (KYnect), or do Federal employees have to go through the Fed site?

[golden_valley]

I suspect we're spending way more time thinking about this than Paul did.

[Traveler]

Meanwhile back from Bloomberg land, here are a couple of juicy links to the drastic health care premium increases that you all might not have seen:

http://www.forbes.co...low-to-elderly/ ( subsequently revised due to obvious inaccuracies).

http://www.manhattan...rates/about.htm ( Agenda anywhere? Check the methodology link)

http://www.schwartzi...ge%20Report.pdf

http://journaltimes....19bb2963f4.html

Your mission is to discuss how these folks are slanting or incorrectly reporting the facts. The first two are pretty obvious. The third link is pretty interesting. About time we had some apparently dispassionate discussion. The fourth has some merit, but misses some important points, like the effect of subsidies on young peoples' enrollment. But worth it to know where the talking points come from.

[nuser]

Could it be Rand Paul is counting on the fact he is a doctor and people knowing this count on him telling the truth? Surely any American doctor would know all about ACA , private insurance , Medicaid etc. What is wrong with that man? Perhaps he watched too much Romney.

[Practical Girl]

 nuser, on 07 January 2014 - 11:23 PM, said:

Could it be Rand Paul is counting on the fact he is a doctor and people knowing this count on him telling the truth? Surely any American doctor would know all about ACA , private insurance , Medicaid etc. What is wrong with that man? Perhaps he watched too much Romney.

Trust him, he's a doctor, right? And of course he's a Senator, so we have that authority, as well.

[D. C. Sessions]

 golden_valley, on 07 January 2014 - 08:17 PM, said:

I suspect we're spending way more time thinking about this than Paul did.

Nice general-use comment. It sounds profound (and is almost certainly true) in any context.

[Progressive whisperer]

 Practical Girl, on 08 January 2014 - 12:52 AM, said:

Trust him, he's a doctor, right? And of course he's a Senator, so we have that authority, as well.

More to the point is the base believes him because he is confirming their beliefs anyway, and they have at least 30 years of complaining about the "liberal media" to fall back on when called out. Especially for a story that breaks in Mother Jones!

[Central TX Mom]

I would think that Rand would still be carrying a 20 year old as a dependent child on his insurance.

And you have to complete an application to enroll in Medicaid in Kentucky. (I went to the site to see how one would enroll.)

[LFC]

 Traveler, on 07 January 2014 - 08:34 PM, said:

Your mission is to discuss how these folks are slanting or incorrectly reporting the facts. The first two are pretty obvious. The third link is pretty interesting. About time we had some apparently dispassionate discussion. The fourth has some merit, but misses some important points, like the effect of subsidies on young peoples' enrollment. But worth it to know where the talking points come from.

I thought the fourth one had holes you could drive an out-of-pocket ambulance through. First, it failed to disclose that its source for the employer insurance numbers was a trade group for independent insurance salesmen. You know. The type of person that might be losing business to exchanges when owners of very small companies go that route instead of through their own commission based route. BIG miss. Second, and most important, there are lots of increase numbers thrown around and not even a single example given as to how the ACA has anything to do with them. MASSIVE miss. Finally, there's not a word about coverage differences.

In terms of usefulness and disclosure, this "article" (more lightweight op-ed) is Swiss cheese.