New Surveys: Just 10% of Uninsured Signing Up for ACA

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by JP5, Mar 6, 2014.

  1. JP5

    JP5 Former Moderator Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2004
    Messages:
    45,584
    Likes Received:
    278
    Trophy Points:
    0
    ....and only 1/2 of those who are uninsured have even looked for information about the plans online. It looks like Republicans won't have to do anything....Obamacare is falling on its own petard. It's already a massive failure.
    I think we'll see Obama continue to move parts of it back to get him through the next 2 1/2 years......and then he'll walk away and leave his mess for someone else to try to clean up. Oh.....and blaming Republicans, of course. Or maybe George Bush. :)


    Health insurance marketplaces signing up few uninsured Americans, surveys say

    By Amy Goldstein, Updated: Thursday, March 6, 2:00 PM

    The new health insurance marketplaces appear to be making little headway so far in signing up Americans who lack health insurance, the Affordable Care Act’s central goal.

    A pair of surveys released on Thursday suggest that just one in 10 uninsured people who qualify for private health plans through the new marketplace have signed up for one — and that about half of uninsured adults has looked for information on the online exchanges or plans to look.

    Taken together, the snapshots shown by the surveys provide preliminary answers to what has been one of the biggest mysteries since HealthCare.gov and separate state marketplaces opened last fall: Are they attracting their prime audience?

    One of the surveys, by the consulting firm McKinsey & Co., shows that, of people who had signed up for coverage through the marketplaces by last month, just one-fourth described themselves as having been without insurance for most of the past year.

    The survey also attempted to gauge what has been another fuzzy matter: how many of the people actually have the insurance for which they signed up. Under federal rules, coverage begins only if someone has started to pay their monthly insurance premiums."

    And this comes from The Washington Post. Even liberal outlets are being forced to finally report on this disaster truthfully.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...ae3152-a54d-11e3-84d4-e59b1709222c_print.html
     
  2. Husky23

    Husky23 New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2013
    Messages:
    718
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Wasn't that the whole supposedly "lofty moral" purpose?
     
  3. JP5

    JP5 Former Moderator Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2004
    Messages:
    45,584
    Likes Received:
    278
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Uh.....yep!

    I said from Day One of the "You have to pass this before finding out what's in it" legislation....that you 't throw out the baby with the bathwater in trying to fix something as massive as the nation's healthcare system. We had a private system that was working for 90% of the nation! And now.....we don't. What a fiasco.
     
  4. LivingNDixie

    LivingNDixie New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2013
    Messages:
    3,688
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    0
    How many would be insured under the GOP's plan?
     
  5. fiddlerdave

    fiddlerdave Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    Messages:
    19,057
    Likes Received:
    2,676
    Trophy Points:
    113
    :roll:

    That private system was NEVER working for 90% of the nation. As the state of Mass. found out, the people without access to proper care was triple the estimate.

    Remember, the numbers bandied about about how many people actually have health care coverage is from surveys of people themselves, so all the MILLIONS sadly misled folks who were paying good money for lousy discount cards, annual maximum limits of $4000 or $5000, or who got sick or injured with one of the many plans that had excluded whole areas of coverage to become "affordable" ALL proudly answered "Oh yes, I have insurance" until they actually needed it, then they became a taxpayer-supported statistic. Or dead from lack of treatment.
     
  6. Trinnity

    Trinnity Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2011
    Messages:
    10,645
    Likes Received:
    1,138
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you couldn't afford ins before, ya can't afford it now.
     
  7. JP5

    JP5 Former Moderator Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2004
    Messages:
    45,584
    Likes Received:
    278
    Trophy Points:
    0
    At least 90%.
     
  8. JP5

    JP5 Former Moderator Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2004
    Messages:
    45,584
    Likes Received:
    278
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sounds like you are describing the current situation. It was much better before Obama and Pelosi messed with it.
    IF Obamacare was so great....then why aren't the uninsured running to the website to get signed up? It's not...and they aren't.
     
  9. Husky23

    Husky23 New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2013
    Messages:
    718
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Why a central gov'ment plan required? Why does the GOP or DNC or anyone need to devise a national plan?

    Is this one working?

    How's that centralized planing going?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Riiiight...pull that number right outta your ass.

    Gee, how ever did we survive, grow, prosper?
     
  10. fiddlerdave

    fiddlerdave Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    Messages:
    19,057
    Likes Received:
    2,676
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You aren't paying attention.
    The "90%" figure came out of JP5's ass.
    We had strong unions that meant most employers had to offer comprehensive health insurance to compete for employees (along with other benefits that are disappearing for the last 20 yearst as well, like sick time, vacation, permanent full-time positions, and so much more.

    We also had tax rates more than double what they are now for the wealthy, and we grew strong and prospered wonderfully as they created more and more jobs every year.
     
  11. awesome bossum

    awesome bossum Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2013
    Messages:
    2,594
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And I always thought JP5 was jet fuel...

    And no FiddleDee, we have never lived in France no matter what your public school teachers told you. Just look at the architecture and you begin see why America actually prospered......

    But you'd actually have to have worked with your hands with more than one selfish purpose to actually know that one particular fact...
    .
    .
    .
    ;
     
  12. Dispondent

    Dispondent Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2009
    Messages:
    34,259
    Likes Received:
    8,082
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Idiots, don't they know a free country in which the USSC is a taxing entity and the gestop...err the IRS gets to tell you how much you need healthcare is exactly what we voted for, oh wait, that was actually done outside the normal rules of the game...
     
  13. Radio Refugee

    Radio Refugee New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2008
    Messages:
    24,800
    Likes Received:
    318
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No. The lofty purpose was to destroy the status quo,.

    Done.

    Boehner need to defund every single aspect of this abomination he can. And yes, I know that he can't do much but....DO IT!
     
  14. AmericanNationalist

    AmericanNationalist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2013
    Messages:
    35,763
    Likes Received:
    16,976
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Tax Rates don't create jobs. If Trickle-down is a fallacy, "strangle them" is even more of a fallacy and is even more dangerous to our economic system.

    ("Strangle them", Haha. I just came up with the perfect moniker for Democratic Economic thesis). To create a job, simply follow the rules of Supply and Demand.

    There's demand for jobs. Why's the supply limited? To the top-20 %(which that 1 % is included), it seems like it would be a hassle for job creation. Why? Many of them cite economic rules, many of them have equally cited this miserable law. In which the Liberals believe they should cover health insurance fully for ALL of their employees.

    Much like a raising minimum wage, this creates significant cost expenditures for businesses. I'm sure you're saying "Aww, they can afford it." They're rich, they're not gods. They don't run the printing presses. They play by the same rules we do, they just happen to have played it better than most of us.

    So even if they could afford it, they wouldn't ideally want to. In essence, they are cost-adverse. If you want to get the economy moving again, you do need to lower taxes. Significantly. We have a Corporate Tax Rate of 30% and other tax rates which are even more fixed costs.

    In terms of the Middle-Class, it's particularly devastating: The Middle-Class pays State AND Federal Taxes, VAT Tax, Income Tax, ETC. Do you wanna know what a tax does? A tax takes dollars OUT of circulation. It doesn't matter if you "tax the 1%" or if the taxes hit the Middle-Class, taxes are BAD for the economy period.

    If you feel like the 1 % don't deserve a break, that's a perfectly valid feeling, but the bottom 40% is getting killed. State AND Federal Taxes is a double whammy that isn't really profitable nor efficient. We can't keep churning out dollars from the treasury to make up for inflation.

    So my solution is very simple: If Liberals believe, as they say that States have 'no rights', it's absurd for people to continue to pay for an impotent government. Remove the State taxes, and have the federal government pay the entire tab. OR, on the contrary if the government doesn't want to pay for the entire tab, then eliminate the federal taxes and have the federal government be subsidized by the States.

    This would be a prudent economic fix.
     
  15. RichT2705

    RichT2705 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    28,887
    Likes Received:
    4,820
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm not surprised.
    They were banking on young people signing up to float this thing, however at the same time they're allowing young people to ride their parents insurance until 26 or 27??

    So why would they sign up? They're already getting it for "free".

    The whole thing was a shining example of supposedly "smart" people not really thinking things through.
     
  16. LivingNDixie

    LivingNDixie New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2013
    Messages:
    3,688
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    0
    How do you figure? There is no mandate in the GOP plan, what is going to convince the uninsured to purchase insurance?
     

Share This Page