It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Defiant Americans: A Third of Uninsured Refuse to Buy Obamacare

page: 1
15
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 06:52 AM
link   
One third of uninsured Americans do not want Obamacare. Most say it's too expensive for them. Some say they are healthy and don't need it. But the fact is, Obama turned the health care industry inside out and cost us billions all so that they could force people to buy health care insurance that they can't afford and/or do not want. 1/3 of uninsured ... that's a big number who want no part of it.

Defiant Americans: A Third of Uninsured Refuse to Buy Obamacare


A third of Americans currently uninsured still have no intention of buying health coverage even though they are required to do so by the Affordable Care Act, according to Bankrate's latest Health Insurance Pulse survey.

Thirty-four percent contacted by telephone said they still have no intention of buying insurance. Most, 41 percent, cited cost as their reason, while 17 percent said they oppose Obamacare and 13 percent said they are healthy and don't need insurance.

Fifty-six percent of those surveyed said they do plan to purchase health coverage.


And if the people don't buy the over priced/poor coverage health insurance that they don't want?
Then threaten them.


Sabrina Corlette, research professor at Georgetown University's Health Policy Institute, told Bankrate that the Obama administration may have focused too much on positive aspects of the law, such as tax subsidies, rather than the penalties imposed for not buying insurance.

"They found in Massachusetts, with 'RomneyCare,' that the individual mandate penalty absolutely motivated a lot of people to purchase insurance," Corlette said. "The Obama administration understandably tried to emphasize the positive, but people need to understand that the mandate is not insignificant – they could be hit with a big tax bill if they don't buy coverage."




posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 07:03 AM
link   
I thought when you scared people into doing something that
it was considered to be using terror to get what you want.
Reminds me of something they said was bad once.... eh i guess
if you dress a threat up in a nice suit and $ signs then its not
terrorism anymore.... blah.



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Sabrina Corlette, research professor at Georgetown University's Health Policy Institute, told Bankrate that the Obama administration may have focused too much on positive aspects of the law, such as tax subsidies, rather than the penalties imposed for not buying insurance.

"They found in Massachusetts, with 'RomneyCare,' that the individual mandate penalty absolutely motivated a lot of people to purchase insurance," Corlette said. "The Obama administration understandably tried to emphasize the positive, but people need to understand that the mandate is not insignificant – they could be hit with a big tax bill if they don't buy coverage."


Great instead of not being able to afford health insurance, these people won't be able to afford the penalty either. That'll fix them! Serves them right for not having enough money to buy "affordable" health care!


+1 more 
posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 07:30 AM
link   
Nobama can stick his Nobamacare up his hind end. I have Blue Cross Blue Shield and a few months ago I got a letter from them stating our policy was not Obamacare compliant and they had to change our policy. The new policy is $230 dollars more a month than out old policy. I now pay more every month for insurance than I do for my house note. I cannot afford $589 a month for insurance. I have a wife and 2 children and combined we have had 3 doctor's visits and 0 hospital visits in the last 2 years and yet now we are paying over $6000 a year plus $35 office copays and prescription copays for healthcare that we are not using. We have a truck, SUV, car, boat, 4 wheeler, and home that are all insured at $215 a month. How crazy is that ?



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Christian Voice
Nobama can stick his Nobamacare up his hind end. I have Blue Cross Blue Shield and a few months ago I got a letter from them stating our policy was not Obamacare compliant and they had to change our policy. The new policy is $230 dollars more a month than out old policy. I now pay more every month for insurance than I do for my house note. I cannot afford $589 a month for insurance. I have a wife and 2 children and combined we have had 3 doctor's visits and 0 hospital visits in the last 2 years and yet now we are paying over $6000 a year plus $35 office copays and prescription copays for healthcare that we are not using. We have a truck, SUV, car, boat, 4 wheeler, and home that are all insured at $215 a month. How crazy is that ?


you need to do some more plan shopping, or, get some help doing it......by the way, what company, and what kind of policy can you insure an:
1...SUV
2...car
3...truck
4...boat
5...4 wheeler
6...home
all for 215 a month?...are these all paid off and old? what level of coverage do you have for all these things? 215 a month sounds like your not being completely honest, or you have left something out. in other words "too good to be true"



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 08:05 AM
link   
I wasn't aware statistically that 1/3 wasn't signing up, I doubt that they have even 10% amongst those making more than 20 000 a year.



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 08:06 AM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 


I don't give a damn if you think I'm being honest. I assure you that my world does not revolve around your obviously biased opinion. I have State Farm as if it's your business. My house is 1300 sq ft and valued at $70,000 and that is very high to me, I have a 1997 F150, 2004 Grand Prix, and 2008 Lincoln Navigator. I have a 1994 Duracraft Bass boat, 2001 Honda 4 wheeler and they are all paid for and yes I posted the correct monthly premium. There is no point in plan shopping. Because of my income I do not qualify for most Nobama care plans aside from the one offered through my wife's employer. It is outrageous and if you cannot see that then you are blinded or full of s%$@. I have several friends and family members that have no insurance any more because they cannot afford it.



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 08:14 AM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 


Are you getting a finder's fee or something from our insurance salesman in chief?



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 09:52 AM
link   
Good to see that 1/3 are standing against nobama's extortion racket .. erm healthcare .. too bad 2/3 are caving in to government sponsored terrorism on behalf of the insurance companies ..
edit on 18/3/14 by Expat888 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Oh well, I signed up months ago, and all is well. For those who did not sign up they will pay a fine, just like you would if you did not wear a seat belt in a car. One could very easily argue that you should not be FORCED to wear a seat belt, but non the less it is the law. The first year the fine wont be much, but it will increase yearly. Just like fines for seat belt fines. Each one you get cost more and more.



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by kurthall
 


Driving is a privilege.
Try another example.



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by kurthall
 

You entirely missed the point. A majority of that 1/3 can't afford it.
They can't afford Obama's supposedly 'affordable' health insurance.
They can't afford to pay the fine either.



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 11:03 AM
link   
Yeah, I can't afford it and I wont sign up even if I could. But then, I make sure I dont make enough to pay taxes.. let them catch me if they can. They can't get blood from a stone.



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 11:17 AM
link   

kurthall
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Oh well, I signed up months ago, and all is well. For those who did not sign up they will pay a fine, just like you would if you did not wear a seat belt in a car. One could very easily argue that you should not be FORCED to wear a seat belt, but non the less it is the law. The first year the fine wont be much, but it will increase yearly. Just like fines for seat belt fines. Each one you get cost more and more.
Bad comparison.

Yes, wearing a seatbelt is law in most places, and fines for not wearing it are common as well.

Yet, you do not have to pay a monthly premium in order to wear that seatbelt, whether you drive that month or not, do you?


edit on 3/18/2014 by abecedarian because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 11:22 AM
link   
Looking at this from another angle has a different more alarming result.

Obama Inc. was touting a number 46 million uninsured (possibly supported by the BLS).

A website that tracks nationwide exchange sign-ups has a current figure of 12 million to 15 million sign-ups.

That puts around 2/3 - 3/4 of uninsured still uninsured !!!

Then factor in the fact that many considered "new" sign-ups are actually people who did have insurance before and either switched or got cancelled...perhaps 5 million are genuine "new" sign-ups.

Now we get around 80% - 85% of previously uninsured still uninsured !!!

Great results after spending billions so far eh?


ACASignups.net






posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Don't forget that many of the signups are people who haven't paid for their plans yet either and just put a plan into their online shopping cart.



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Krazysh0t
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Don't forget that many of the signups are people who haven't paid for their plans yet either and just put a plan into their online shopping cart.


And I bet that brings the number past 90%

All levels of the Middle Class are under economic insurrection.




posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 11:47 AM
link   

thesaneone
reply to post by kurthall
 


Driving is a privilege.
Try another example.


Okay, How about being a PASSENGER in a car. Pretty much everyone has been a passenger. You still have to wear a seat belt or pay a fine.



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by kurthall
 


Again, driving is a privilege.
Try again please.


Also according to the scotus it's not a fine but a tax.
edit on 18-3-2014 by thesaneone because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 11:50 AM
link   

kurthall

thesaneone
reply to post by kurthall
 


Driving is a privilege.
Try another example.


Okay, How about being a PASSENGER in a car. Pretty much everyone has been a passenger. You still have to wear a seat belt or pay a fine.


Logic dictates, that travelling in a car is also a privilege, but dont let that get in your way.
Please continue.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<<   2 >>

log in

join