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.

 

Insurance Comapnies Say: "80-90 percent of Obamacare enrollees have paid a premium"

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 04:31 AM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 




Don't you think it is remarkable that the Federal Government, at a cost of over a trillion dollars, couldn't give the answer that the Washington Post says it got from the private companies that stand to make money from the program?


Better read it again. The Post didn't provide the figures.




posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 04:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said Monday that insurance companies estimate between 80 and 90 percent of the 6 million people who have signed up for Obamacare have actually paid a premium.

"What we know from insurance companies ... tell(s) us that, for their initial customers, it's somewhere between 80, 85, some say as high as 90 percent, have paid so far," Sebelius said on KWTV-TV. "Lots of companies have different timetables for when their new customers have to send their first payment."

The White House has said more than 6 million people have signed up for Obamacare. But reporters have had little luck getting the administration to provide specific figures when it comes to what percentage of enrollees have actually paid a premium, which Sebelius acknowledged is required before someone is officially enrolled.

"You are not fully enrolled -- you're absolutely right -- until you pay your premium," she said. "But we also know that millions of people now have health care."

If between 80 and 90 percent of the six million have paid premiums, the number who are fully enrolled would be closer to five million than to six million.

Previously, White House press secretary Jay Carney said that general estimates suggest about 80




The info came from Sebelius, the same bureaucrat that told Congress that she didn't know the answer to the same question.
Newspapers provide us with what they write... and inaccurate polls.
The Washington Post is parroting info for the Obama Administration, enough that the OP thinks it is true.


edit on b000000302014-04-03T04:43:00-05:0004America/ChicagoThu, 03 Apr 2014 04:43:00 -0500400000014 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)

edit on bu302014-04-03T06:29:24-05:0006America/ChicagoThu, 03 Apr 2014 06:29:24 -05006u14 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 05:08 AM
link   
Note in the article... Sebelius says that the numbers for initial signups, 80-90 % of policies were paid. But the 7million figure isn't an initial number... it is 3days old according to Obama.
Beware the flapping lips of politicians and bureaucrats.....they can't be trusted.



posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Phage
What do you mean dropped from the program? If an insurance company offers compliant plans they are compliant. If their plans are not compliant they are not compliant. To meet requirements subscribers must enroll in a compliant plan.


Compliance is a part of it however its referring to insurance agencies who question / criticize Obamacare. It started in 2010, when Sebelius got pissed about insurance companies telling their customers they would face a premium increase because of the new law.

she shot off a letter to those agencies, essentially threatening them, to either get in line or they would be kicked out of the exchanges.

CANNON: Obamacare silences health insurers - Sebelius threatens companies that speak out of turn

In response to the health insurers’ claims, Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius fired off a letter to the head of the health insurance lobby. The news release on the HHS website makes her purpose plain:

“U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius wrote America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), the national association of health insurers, calling on their members to stop using scare tactics and misinformation to falsely blame premium increases for 2011 on the patient protections in the Affordable Care Act. Sebelius noted that the consumer protections and out-of-pocket savings provided for in the Affordable Care Act should result in a minimal impact on premiums for most Americans. Further, she reminded health plans that states have new resources under the Affordable Care Act to crack down on unjustified premium increases.”

In the letter, Mrs. Sebelius cites HHS’ internal analyses and those of Mercer and other groups to support her claim that Obamacare’s effect on premiums “will be minimal” - somewhere in the range of 1 percent to 2.3 percent, on average. Mrs. Sebelius tells insurers that she will show “zero tolerance” for insurers who “falsely” blame premium increases on Obamacare, and promises aggressive action against those who do:

“[We] will require state or federal review of all potentially unreasonable rate increases filed by health insurers. … We will also keep track of insurers with a record of unjustified rate increases: those plans may be excluded from health insurance Exchanges in 2014. Simply stated, we will not stand idly by as insurers blame their premium hikes and increased profits on the requirement that they provide consumers with basic protections.”


.......................


What business does she have threatening insurers because they disagree with her in public? Obamacare gave the secretary considerable new powers. Is one of those the power to regulate what insurers say about Obamacare? Excluding insurers from Obamacare’s exchanges is not a minor threat. Medicare’s chief actuary predicts that in the future, “essentially all” Americans will get their health insurance through those exchanges. Does anyone seriously doubt that Mrs. Sebelius‘ threat is about protecting politicians rather than consumers?


So let me ask... How does she know what plans / companies are charging to much? She does not have access to that information, the companies do. The ability for her to arbitrarily decide what an unjustified rate increase is with no guidelines (at least none that I have found). To me it appears the government will use the law to essentially socialize the industry - medical and insurance.


Phage
Thus a range of those who have paid, depending on the company.


Which is resulting in claims by the administration that cannot be verified. They don't want insurance companies talking about premium hikes / blaming the ACA for those hikes. When those companies are stating what the increase will be, the have a better idea of where things are at than the administration does.

If insurance companies have not released their stats, where is she getting her percentage compliance from?

As I stated I think universal health care is good idea, if done right. What we have now is an absolute train wreck from top to bottom. Instead of trying to fix it they seem content on riding the train over the edge. They don't seem to care that the passengers in the rail cars are going over with them.

Anyway that's my rant..
edit on 3-4-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 06:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 




What we have now is an absolute train wreck from top to bottom.

You have that right.
Scary part of it is... the train is still wrecking and hasn't ran over everyone yet.
We are tied to the tracks, so there is no escape. Especially in light of the fact that the leaders of both parties are telling us that it can't be repealed.



posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 06:47 AM
link   

Phage
reply to post by butcherguy
 




The insurance companies are our friends and should be trusted in this modern fascistbreality that we have for a government. ... right?

Not sure how them lying about how many people have paid premiums would help them.
Not sure if they are really excited about being forced by the government to accept anyone who can afford to buy insurance either.

I don't think they will be losing money, from the looks of some of the premiums, co-pays and deductibles that I have seen so far.
Why wouldn't a private company push a government program that mandates citizens BUY a product from them?



posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 07:05 AM
link   

butcherguy
reply to post by Xcathdra
 




What we have now is an absolute train wreck from top to bottom.

You have that right.
Scary part of it is... the train is still wrecking and hasn't ran over everyone yet.
We are tied to the tracks, so there is no escape. Especially in light of the fact that the leaders of both parties are telling us that it can't be repealed.


To be honest I am waiting for the taxes to fully kick in so people will have standing in a lawsuit. That was brought up in SCOTUS decision when they said the ACA was a tax. Since tax bills must originate in the house, the tax was challenged. Apparently there was another Supreme court ruling dealing specifically with tax application. Essentially, they have to pay it to get standing.

Hopefully, it will work and it will be ruled unconstitutional.



posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by mugger
 


Then there are the 6.5 uninsured that have signed for medicaid through ObamaCare, including myself (can afford private now since no pre-existing conditions clause gone):

Souce



posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Woo Hoo! Insurance companies are getting paid!

This calls for a celebration! Increased premiums all around!



posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 08:56 PM
link   
And to think just how cheaper healthcare insurance premiums would be

If the government had not created this countries largest insurance monopoly with medicare, and medicaid.

That account for over 100 million people.

Instead of a 20,000 page 'law' that forced people to buy that corporate product called healthcare.

All they had to do is unwind, and let that 100+million people get their healthcare in the private sector.

The irony there is that people on both those programs are told to supplement their 'government healthcare' medicaid/medicare.

With a PRIVATE INSURANCE.

Even more ironic the 'poor' could already get healthcare under both programs.

And here we are with that 20,000 page pos.



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 02:41 PM
link   
The fact is that what the insurance companies report is a more accurate statistic to go by. Using the Rand corporation is not going to be a good source of information.

The insurance companies have the most to lose and their bottom line depends on accurate numbers. If the insurance companies were lying it would only damage their own profit.



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Skymon612
 




The fact is that what the insurance companies report is a more accurate statistic to go by.

Where are those reports?



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Read my original post for link



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Skymon612
Read my original post for link

You mean the one that I posted in it's entirety on the second post of this page???

It only contains what Sebelius says.
I haven't seen any reports by any insurance companies.



posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 12:39 AM
link   
I wish people would think. It is obvious that the GOP is just throwing intentionally weak attacks and arguments at Obamacare so they can be easily defeated and in the end, it has the backwards effect of actually strengthening Obamacare and distracting people from the totalitarian nature of the law and the fact that it even exists at all. Which is what ALL of these people (Dems and Reps) actually want.

You watch. Even if the Reps win big in the elections, Obamacare is not going anywhere. And you know why? No. It's not what you think. It's not really because it's now too deeply embedded and it can't be gotten rid of because too many people have embraced it. The real reason is because these people are all in cahoots on this thing.

Why? Because you can't have a law this controversial without having someone who seems to be trying to repeal it. The GOP has been playing that role. They've been the "good guys" for those who hate Obamacare and the "bad guys" for those who love Obamacare. It ends up looking like Obama has to make concessions because of the "bad guys". At the same time, it ends up looking like "the good guys" forced Obama to make concessions. This way, they didn't have to pass Obamacare with stuff in it that would have caused too many problems too soon but they still get everything they want in the long run.
edit on 5-4-2014 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 12:50 AM
link   
As far as i can tell in 2009 when the bill was written 30 million people were uninsured - today 50 million people are uninsured.

So essentially we spent 3 Billion Dollars to kick a few million people off their individual insurance so they could sign up for Obamacare government insurance & build a piece of garbage website...

Sounds like money well spent in a Socialist's Universe....



posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 01:58 AM
link   
reply to post by BABYBULL24
 


The end result of Obamacare will eventually be one insurance plan run by the government that all Americans will be required to use.



posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 02:10 AM
link   

Xcathdra

butcherguy
reply to post by Xcathdra
 




What we have now is an absolute train wreck from top to bottom.

You have that right.
Scary part of it is... the train is still wrecking and hasn't ran over everyone yet.
We are tied to the tracks, so there is no escape. Especially in light of the fact that the leaders of both parties are telling us that it can't be repealed.


To be honest I am waiting for the taxes to fully kick in so people will have standing in a lawsuit. That was brought up in SCOTUS decision when they said the ACA was a tax. Since tax bills must originate in the house, the tax was challenged. Apparently there was another Supreme court ruling dealing specifically with tax application. Essentially, they have to pay it to get standing.

Hopefully, it will work and it will be ruled unconstitutional.


My tax guy told me yesterday that the "fine" or "tax" for not having insurance doesn't kick in until next year's taxes. This year they simply have to ask if you have insurance.

I've been doing my own personal survey for several months. I have yet to find one living being that has benefited from this scam and I've found dozens who are hoppin' mad about the increase in premiums and deductibles.



posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 02:14 AM
link   

diggindirt
My tax guy told me yesterday that the "fine" or "tax" for not having insurance doesn't kick in until next year's taxes. This year they simply have to ask if you have insurance.

I've been doing my own personal survey for several months. I have yet to find one living being that has benefited from this scam and I've found dozens who are hoppin' mad about the increase in premiums and deductibles.


Is it suppose to kick in next year via the law or is it based on Obamas executive orders?

On a side note im really getting pissed that these issues are pushed to points after elections.



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 07:14 PM
link   
People who hate Obamacare are now switching topics or flipping to a new topic.

They want to say nobody has paid.

After everyone pays I wonder what topic they will scramble to talk about.

The fact is that like or not the ACA is here to say and as John Boehner said "its the law of the land"




top topics



 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join