>>Right back at you Kevin
>>http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/22/kentucky-governor-praises-health-care-launch/
>>
>>I suppose one could say that's an example of the bias, of which you accused me last week. I raise an issue on one side, but then you raise an issue on the other site that I seemingly ignored.....and therefore it looks like I'm just fishing for bad news.
>>
>>Except - you have to look at the specifics, or at least ask some impertinent questions - that's the essence of science as you make your way towards a pertinent answer.
>>
>>In this case, Kentucky has boasted a claim that's nearly identical to the claim made by another state-run exchange, Oregon. Except - you have to ask yourself if the mix of numbers, if the formulation at all aligns with the end game - that is, to have X million enrolled and paying premiums for the Y million who will be subsidized. No state wants to make that announcement, because they know the answer looks bad for the administration.
>>
>>I cannot speak for Kentucky, because the raw number was just announced, though I would ask of those N thousand quoted by the governor, how the mix breaks out.
>>
>>But what I CAN say with certainty, is that the very similar claim made in Oregon masks the fact that weeks before Oct 1, the state did an outreach to people on different supplemental programs to get them to sign up, to boost enrollment numbers. Out of the N thousand who have signed up in Oregon, it is widely expected that a very high % are subsidized and will be paying little or no premiums.
>>
>>Here's the deal - it is unlikely (not impossible , but unlikely) they will get the enrollment mix that aligns with the expectation models their own actuaries set - and these are the actuaries who had to make three....count them...THREE major adjustments on projections of spending since the law was passed.
>>
>>If Barack Obama weren't a pure political animal, he'd delay the mandate for a year. I will stop short of saying he'll bankrupt American if he doesn't - but what I will say is that not pushing this back will have a significant negative impact on the U.S. economy and adversely affect what is already a flawed system. But he can't push it back - after the stance he took during the govt shutdown, he'd look like a complete fool. He made this bed and he needs to own it.
>>
>>By the way, take note of the comments from Kentucky....that they'd understand if the mandate needed to be delayed for at least a few months or longer if necessary.....not a single Democrat uttered those words during the shutdown. It's easy for him to say it "now". That is complete moral cowardice.
>
>"it is widely expected that a very high % are subsidized and will be paying little or no premiums." expected by who ?.what does very high mean ?what does little mean .
>
>Juts in that one little sentence you are showing that there are no "facts " just the usual polemic.
>
>Are accused you of confirmation bias and I'd stand by that. And nice to see your glove puppet Mike chipping in too :-)

Glove puppet? I've barely spoken to Kevin in years.