Only 11% of Obamacare Signups Have Been Uninsured??

According to the CEO of Aetna insurance, only 11% of the Obama.Care signups were among the "UnInsured".

Very disturbing I would think because one of the MAJOR selling points was the 30 million or 40 million or 50 million "UnInsured" that Obama said desperately needed "Access To" health.care.

So it appears that the vast majority of Obama.Care :signups: are really just a mix of displaced insured who for different reasons simply "relocated" their plans.

The clock is ticking. Where *ARE* all the "UnInsured"?

Aetna CEO: Only 11% of Obamacare Signups Have Been Uninsured

Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini joined CNBC’s Squawk Box Wednesday to discuss Obamacare’s recent troubles, revealing that only 11 percent of those signed up for insurance under the law were previously uninsured.

“Right now we only see that 11 percent of the population is people that were formerly uninsured are now insured, so we didn’t really eat into the uninsured population,” Bertolini said.

Those under the federal poverty level were told to go to your department of social services to get free healthcare.
They dont fit under the Obama care plan.

Those above that are told to purchase it out of pocket. There is a cost sharing plan in effect. It helps cut the cost for some people within 200% of the poverty line.

To be honest, in my situation its cheaper to not get insurance as i am healthy.

Many Americans are opting to take the penalty than be forced to pay for something they dont need.
I agree with them.

I knew when Obama said it would be a system of universal healthcare, it was a lie,

It's simple.

For most people it's less expensive to pay the penalty than it is to pay for insurance.

Example A: A family of four pays $900 per month for health insurance or pay a one time penalty of a few hundred dollars.

I understand it's unwise to go without health insurance, especially if you have children, but for some it comes down to paying for insurance or paying for food.

Thank you Mr. President.

First of all, I never understood how he thought all the young healthy people were going to be signing up for this. Why in the world would my sons do that, when they can now be covered under my insurance until they are 26?

Second, I have had so many of their friends ask me, "How much is the penalty thingy for not signing up?" And when I tell them, they just laugh and say, "Ok, I"ll do that instead".

So I have to ask, do we have to wait another year for this thing to collapse? If they don't get all the people they need, (which I thought already happened) How is this going to be funded? And what about those poor people that did sign up? They will be left with nothing, right?

reply to post by chiefsmom


How do you think it will be funded?

They'll just raise your taxes. Isn't that how the government generates income?

We will comply.

If the 'dicktator' Obama wants something he will find a way.

shaneslaughta
Those under the federal poverty level were told to go to your department of social services to get free healthcare.
They dont fit under the Obama care plan.

Those above that are told to purchase it out of pocket. There is a cost sharing plan in effect. It helps cut the cost for some people within 200% of the poverty line.

Keep in mind 2 things.

1. many States have not expanded Medicaid (20 - 25 maybe?).

2. many people who work or have income or have money in a bank account do not qualify for Medicaid and can't afford the insurance deductibles.

reply to post by shaneslaughta


Depending on your state, that call to run to Medi- programs when you can't pay for or afford Obamacare is a death sentence. It never used to be...but it absolutely is now.

This is the heart of the Roberts Supreme Court decision that Obama all but partied over because they didn't outright shut him down on the spot. They couldn't....and in terms of pure law, they decided the only way they really could, IMO.

What came with that decision though was the authority clarified to the states to REFUSE to expand medi- programs and that is precisely what many, including mine, have done. It's not heartless...it's pure survival. My state isn't all that healthy on finances as it is. We are above the bankruptcy level though, as we just had our Governor ignore the law requiring refunds to the citizens in some conditions of surplus. (Those checks were never big, when they came, but they were neat to see for the purpose behind it)..

If we'd expanded programs..we'd have bankrupted within 24 months, AT MOST, and likely much sooner. They mandated something no state can handle without self-destruction.....and the Super Court agreed by letting states say *NO* without federal option to coerce or force the issue.

So...keep in mind as they confidently say there is a safety net ...the net is rotted and fallen apart ..in those states even crazy enough to cling to it. (We have our Medi programs like everyone ... Missouri just didn't EXPAND qualification as the Feds basically NEED to see done just to make this work)

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Ohh so its a funding thing.

Here is a solution....national healthcare.

Forget the safety net forget the individual funding.

True universal healthcare.

reply to post by shaneslaughta


At this point? Well... the ACA destroyed the system it's replacing, by design, as it's been implemented. The ACA, by pure math and spotty cooperation and participation by US States cannot work. Period. Pure numbers require the pool BE the majority of the national population and it's nowhere remotely close. Under that Super Court decision, it never will be, either. Hence....programmed to catastrophic failure from the start.

We likely have little choice now BUT to go to full national healthcare because nothing else much exists at this point as a working alternative. I'm sure they'll keep playing games with this mess until it gets much much worse, but as many of us said in 2009? Single Payer healthcare was the point. As some Dems backing it then stated.....the ACA was just the foundation to the house.

Same thing being said by different sides ...and Ultimately, English style NHS has likely been the whole point by some, from day 1.

They may just get their wish ...as many of us move more and more to leaving this nation we love so deeply. If I wanted to live under the system we're watching, I'd be in Russia. (I almost said China, but they are embracing open markets and commercial competition in business ...as we're turning from it and failing as a nation)

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Would the national healthcare system be so bad? i would like them to stop jerking us around.
Pick a system and stay with it. Enough of this yoyo routine.

I wont talk about your other comments as it would lead to a train wreck.

reply to post by shaneslaughta


If a national health care system were put into effect with the full good faith intent of seeing it done right and for the good of the people of this nation? Well...It's still stinkin thinkin to Constitutional principle because it's based on none more substantial than the friggin commerce clause ..which has about run so far over it's application, it's a punch line to jokes. \

Could it be done right though? Sure.... Could it be a good thing? Heck yes, it COULD.... Do I trust the politicians we see to do much of anything in good faith? Hell No.

This, done poorly, isn't an "Oops". It's body bags and grave stones. That's the downside of "Oops" with healthcare...and they broke the whole nation's system at once. This will get real real bad before it gets better, IMO.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Indeed.

You know the problem with politicians, they are all lawyers. you know how to tell when a lawyer is lying?
When his lips are moving.

Flame on

Keep in mind 2 things.

1. many States have not expanded Medicaid (20 - 25 maybe?).

2. many people who work or have income or have money in a bank account do not qualify for Medicaid and can't afford the insurance deductibles.

reply to post by xuenchen


My Friend, That's right and keep in mind just How Many People Are Truly Out Of Work, The Real Numbers, Not Obamas number.

Don't believe the happy talk coming out of the White House, Federal Reserve and Treasury Department when it comes to the real unemployment rate and the true “Misery Index.” Because, according to an influential Wall Street advisor, the figures are a fraud.

In a memo to clients provided to Secrets, David John Marotta calculates the actual unemployment rate of those not working at a sky-high 37.2 percent, not the 6.7 percent advertised by the Fed, and the Misery Index at over 14, not the 8 claimed by the government.

Marotta, who recently advised those worried about an imploding economy to get a gun, said that the government isn't being honest in how it calculates those out of the workforce or inflation, the two numbers used to get the Misery Index figure.

That's Funny, the Government Isn't Being Honest!

“The unemployment rate only describes people who are currently working or looking for work,” he said. That leaves out a ton more.

“Unemployment in its truest definition, meaning the portion of people who do not have any job, is 37.2 percent. This number obviously includes some people who are not or never plan to seek employment.

No!!! Why wouldn't Anyone Not Actively Seek Employment?
Wall Stree Adviser, Actual Unemployment Numbers

So, it's easy to say, these people can not afford Obamacare and they knew this before the start date, it all boils down to a Scam and more Taxes.
Just My Humble Opinion.

reply to post by shaneslaughta


And are u willing to pay 70% of your income for universal healthcare. That's how much it will cost with all the illegals crossing the borders and half the population not working.

Since the cost are enormous, wasn't aware there were any large numbers getting insurance to begin with. I don't think most can afford this insane demonic form of health care that will topple all local businesses nearly. Because who could afford to frequent them?

reply to post by xuenchen


I think people being able to stay on their parents insurance until they are 26 was a bad idea. Just something to get votes.

shaneslaughta
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

Ohh so its a funding thing.

Here is a solution....national healthcare.

Forget the safety net forget the individual funding.

True universal healthcare.

Here's a list of countries that are Single Payer (national healthcare ).
United Kingdom 1948 Single Payer
Kuwait 1950 Single Payer
Sweden 1955 Single Payer
Bahrain 1957 Single Payer
Brunei 1958 Single Payer
Canada 1966 Single Payer
Next I'll show you how much the difference in the pay scale is and I don't think you're going to get the American Doctor to give up their $500,000. homes or BMW's and Mercedes or their vacation homes, in other words, their not going to take a pay cut! The truth is, American General Practitioners and nurses earn more than their counterparts in other developed countries.
A Specialists pay can be as much as $260,000. in America and I understand, that could be on the Low Side, More in New York or Holly Wood.

There are articles of Canadians that come to America to be treated because they have such a long waiting period in Canada to be seen or to be treated.
That's true with your Universal Healthcare, Think about AUSTRALIA'S Healthcare System.

The great strength of Australia's system is affordability and access, according to GlobalPost's Alan Mascarenhas. It offers cradle-to-grave health care for everyone and covers most or all of the costs for physician consultations, as well as specialists’ fees and X-rays and pathology tests. Treatment in public hospitals is free.

Though, as Mascarenhas points out, Australia's system is far from perfect. About 40 percent of Australians choose to purchase private insurance, making them eligible for treatment in more exclusive, privately-run hospitals.

Linky
Just Maybe those Government run Facilities aren't the Best?

reply to post by xuenchen

Where *ARE* all the "UnInsured"?

at the library, (or other similar environments) learning the LAWS of this country, rather accepting or participating in the administratively assessed bullpuckey tax otherwise known as ObummerCare. (PPACA)

ya know, many of the 'uninsured' are not lacking the ability to learn the 'laws' of this country and according to US Code 42, SS 18115 ... the Freedom to NOT Participate - or be penalized" is the 'law'.

those who don't know any better will opt for the penalty as it is more 'affordable' and many who don't care, simply, don't care.

need a link ?
US code 42, ss 18115

I detest obamacare as much as a testicular tumor but that number while troubling doesn't mean much at this stage without exact numbers. That is something nobody can seem to get from the Obama administration because for some odd reason, they continue to be tight lipped about exact stats like it was some kind of national security issue.

There is a bill that has been introduced to divulge those stats and I guess to make a completely educated argument for this topic I would need to see those numbers directly but from the cuff, I would offer............. LOL OBAMACARE. Told ya.