Study shows just 858,000 newly insured Americans have paid up!

page: 1
31
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+11 more 
posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 08:45 AM
link   
The RAND Corporation did a study and found that less than a million people have actually paid for policies after signing up on the exchanges.
Obama has been touting the 7+ million number... what difference does it make how many sign up if the overwhelming majority are not buying a policy? Insurance is a system that works because people pay for it. Obama might as well say "Over 6 million people LOOKED at our website"!


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. Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk... -questions-remain-whos-signing-up.html#ixzz2xjif0EKY Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


Personally, I find the huge jump in numbers at the deadline date very hard to believe anyway.
edit on bu302014-04-02T09:18:43-05:0009America/ChicagoWed, 02 Apr 2014 09:18:43 -05009u14 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



+5 more 
posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


That's what I didn't understand also, signing up is different then making a selection.
I didn't do it so now I guess I have to pay the $100 monthly fine out of my tax return, which is BS.

I don't need insurance right now, my dad is a doctor and I don't expect to get descending bowel cancer anytime soon but if it happens so be it, I gambled, I lost. Key word in that is 'I', as in, I made the decision, not the government.

I'd like to learn more about the procedures of this new health format though. Then I can deliberately try to circumvent it as best I can.
I'm as far as an expert on this subject as one could get, but why didn't they just do it like Canada does? I always thought this health law was like socialized medicine with a different name. Are there really that many angry lobbyist doctors ready to storm Washington if they just tax everyone and treat everyone medically the same?? I just don't get this whole thing, it is a sore spot on my rather bright and happy life. . .
edit on 4/2/2014 by AnteBellum because: punctuation



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


I read an article about that too. And they estimate 2/3 of the sign-ups were already insured the year before.



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Over 6 million people LOOKED at our website


I was thinking the exact same thing when I heard the huge jump in numbers. They don't seem to want to come out and give actual statistics on how many just visited, how many have paid, how many were insured before, how many qualified for medicaid, etc. They just lump everybody into the mix and claim success.

I guess it's whatever helps you sleep at night.

The administration will deny these numbers regardless of who is reporting them.



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 09:04 AM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


I tried to find the south park clip where the reporter said there were reports of cannibalism and looting, the news guy said" My God, you've actually seen people eating each other?" and the reporter said "No, we are just reporting it".

Look for approval polls showing Obama's approval shooting through the roof. After all, they did report that the economy is on the upswing.



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 09:17 AM
link   
I found this analysis from Forbe s.com


If you apply that math to the RAND figures, you get this: of the people who have paid their first month’s premium on the Obamacare exchanges, and are thereby enrolled in coverage, 76 percent were previously insured, and 24 percent were previously uninsured. Two caveats. First, we know little about RAND’s survey methodology at this time; we’ll have to see the actual study to see the details of what they did. Second, we don’t know how many previously uninsured people signed up for off-exchange coverage, above and beyond the normal rate of churn that this market would traditionally see. CBO predicted nearly all exchange enrollees would be previously uninsured What’s important to remember is that this is not how Obamacare was supposed to work. The Congressional Budget Office, in its original estimates, predicted that the vast majority of the people eligible for subsidies on the exchanges would be previously uninsured individuals.


In another thread, an Obamaphile was touting that the 7 million figure was a CBO number. I questioned where the CBO was getting their figures.... I mean it has to come from the administration at some point, it isn't like the CBO runs the Obamacare bureaucracy. Well the CBO says that the vast majority of those signing up would have been the previously uninsured, while this study indicates that three quarters of them were already insured. The system won't function at this rate.



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by AnteBellum
 




I guess I have to pay the $100 monthly fine out of my tax return, which is BS.

Set your federal with-holding up so that you owe a small amount of money on April 15th. You will be keeping your money in your paycheck and there will be nothing for them to keep as a fine.
I am not sure about this, but I do not think that there is a system in place to collect fines, only a system to take the tax/fine from any refund that you would have had coming back to you.
I am not a tax professional.



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


Oh wow.

How awkward. (lolz)

Of course expect the usual suspects to debunk this.

"The administration numbers are the correct numbers because the administration says those numbers are correct and the press reported those numbers and the press doesn't lie so if the press reports that the administrations numbers are correct because the administration says they are, then that's the number."



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 09:25 AM
link   
did anyone actually think that they wouldn't make their number.
this is obamas' baby, of course they were going to make the number.
there's no way they are gonna let it die. the only hope is midterms, if not then 2016.

what i thought was funny was it was 7.1 million. mot 7.5,8, or 9 million just .1 million more than they said they needed.
i mean how obvious could that be.
edit on 2-4-2014 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


Link to the RAND study?

oh from the op "The unpublished RAND study" another obamacare hoax maybe?


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. And of those newly insured Americans, just 53 per cent have paid their first month's premiums.


From the provided link in op 53 % is much more that 800k is it not?
edit on 2-4-2014 by LDragonFire because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 09:47 AM
link   

beezzer
reply to post by butcherguy
 


Oh wow.

How awkward. (lolz)

Of course expect the usual suspects to debunk this.

"The administration numbers are the correct numbers because the administration says those numbers are correct and the press reported those numbers and the press doesn't lie so if the press reports that the administrations numbers are correct because the administration says they are, then that's the number."


I got one for Obama...

Mr. President, if you like your numbers you can keep your numbers.... you can stick them too!

edit on bu302014-04-02T10:02:11-05:0010America/ChicagoWed, 02 Apr 2014 10:02:11 -050010u14 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 09:48 AM
link   

LDragonFire
reply to post by butcherguy
 


Link to the RAND study?

oh from the op "The unpublished RAND study" another obamacare hoax maybe?


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. And of those newly insured Americans, just 53 per cent have paid their first month's premiums.


From the provided link in op 53 % is much more that 800k is it not?
edit on 2-4-2014 by LDragonFire because: (no reason given)


53% of 23% is @ 800K..

Common Core mathematics perhaps?



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


Could it be you zealotry getting in the way of common sense? I see no report just hearsay.



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 09:50 AM
link   
DP....oops.
edit on b000000302014-04-02T09:56:34-05:0009America/ChicagoWed, 02 Apr 2014 09:56:34 -0500900000014 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 




How can this be triumphant if he is bullying people into doing something? Can you really claim victory when you force people to do something that they really don't want ?



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 09:53 AM
link   

butcherguy

beezzer
reply to post by butcherguy
 


Oh wow.

How awkward. (lolz)

Of course expect the usual suspects to debunk this.

"The administration numbers are the correct numbers because the administration says those numbers are correct and the press reported those numbers and the press doesn't lie so if the press reports that the administrations numbers are correct because the administration says they are, then that's the number."


I got one for Obama...

Mr. President, if you like your numbers you can keep you numbers.... you can stick them too!



PERIOD!



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 09:53 AM
link   

LDragonFire
reply to post by butcherguy
 


Link to the RAND study?

oh from the op "The unpublished RAND study" another obamacare hoax maybe?


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. And of those newly insured Americans, just 53 per cent have paid their first month's premiums.


From the provided link in op 53 % is much more that 800k is it not?
edit on 2-4-2014 by LDragonFire because: (no reason given)

Concerning the numbers.... Of the newly insured Americans.... which isn't 7 million 53% paid their first month's premiums. Only 23% of the 7.1 million were newly insured. The rest were previously insured....

As to hoax claims by you... provide proof that this is a hoax, I will be the first to ask a mod to move it to the HOAX bin.



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 09:57 AM
link   
Here is the link to the RAND Corporation let me know if you find it??

RAND Corp....

There only giving partial data...or alleged partial data


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.

And of those newly insured Americans, just 53 per cent have paid their first month's premiums.

If those numbers hold, the actual net gain of paid policies among Americans who lacked medical insurance in the pre-Obamacare days would be just 858,298.


So this unseen report is only reporting on the alleged 23% that didn't have insurance before and its 53% of this group that have paid...what of the other 77% and where is this report?

Your titles clearly says "Study shows" So where is the study all these news groups are reporting on?
edit on 2-4-2014 by LDragonFire because: (no reason given)
edit on 2-4-2014 by LDragonFire because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 10:01 AM
link   

LDragonFire
Here is the link to the RAND Corporation let me know if you find it??

RAND Corp....

So you are denying that it exists because the LA Times is sitting on the story?

Do you believe that the other outlets that are quoting from it are all lying?

And you accuse me of zealotry?

BTW.... Where are the figures from the Obama Administration regarding how many have paid, if they were previously insured or not.... etc?



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 10:03 AM
link   
So almost 4 years, untold millions of dollars putting this all together, time spent with like 50 votes to try to repeal it all so that 7 million people can get health care insurance?

Surely some people got into the expanded medicaid programs? or signed up on state exchanges so are not included in that 7 million.

I think the real statistic would be along the lines of how many people did not have any health care coverage before this went into effect vs. how many do not today.





new topics
top topics
 
31
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join