It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

# The "Affordable Care Act" (AKA Obamacare) - a mathematical analysis

page: 1
8
share:

posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 03:53 AM
I decided to put this thread here, as i anticipate STRONG responses from both supporters, and opponents of the ACA.

now, my personal views on it are already well known, as i have been very vocal about them....i've been sitting on this for a while, because i hadn't decided if i thought it was worth it's own thread, and i haven't found the right thread to put it in....

oh well, here it goes..

a lot of us already know the ACA is bull, and we know it's just the government giving itself the authority to help itself to more of our money...what you may not know, is just how much money...

even if nobody buys this crap, the federal government still stands to make a LOT of money...now, keep in mind that a lot of my numbers here will be estimates, but they are based on the best information i can find.

According to the 23rd United States census, conducted on april 1st, 2010, there were 308,745,538 american citizens. factor in the four years since the census was conducted, we'll say that number is now an even 310,000,000..just to make the math a little easier.

ok, so 310 million americans...according to census bureau data, as of 2013, there were something like 48 million americans without health insurance. according to a site tracking ACA enrollments, there is an estimated 14.4M-23.5M people enrolled in ACA-compliant insurance plans.....so we'll high-ball the ACA monitoring figures, and say 23.5m people with compliant plans, that leaves an estimated 24.5 million americans still uninsured..

now..we have the 95-dollar non-compliance fine that you get charged for not buying insurance....

\$95.00 x 024,500,000 = \$2,327,500,000

that's quite a lot of money..and that's just with twenty-four and one half million uninsured....imagine if that number gets bigger...

so yeah, even if nobody buys it, the government still benefits....

now as i said, a lot of my numbers are estimates, if anyone can find verifiable better data, let me know.

for now though, i'm just gonna put this on....gimmie a sec..

there...better...

edit on 21-4-2014 by Daedalus because: spelling

posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 04:17 AM

...imagine if that number gets bigger...

I am fairly certain that it will get larger.
I know a lot of people that say they will not sign up when their current plan becomes non-compliant. THere are a lot of plans that have been 'pushed off' until next year... after the elections.

posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 08:20 AM
I always wonder if me and my family are included in that total number of participants signed up.

We had insurance - great insurance that worked for us. Being self-employed,we paid for it ourselves out of pocket. Then when the ACA came along our insurance company ended our plans and informed us we had to get other insurance. So we did. (Our new insurance isn't so great, by the way... to put it mildly.)

So, we were already insured... then forced out of our insurance by the ACA and forced to sign up for new insurance. Does that mean we are included in that tally? It seems like we shouldn't be because we weren't uninsured to begin with... but I have a feeling they don't remove the people that already had insurance and were forced to sign up for new insurance when they report their numbers.

It's hard to know what the real numbers are. There are so many variables and so many ways they can spin them.

edit on 21-4-2014 by VegHead because: lack of coffee

posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 08:27 AM
My father works for AFLAC selling supplemental insurance, he tells me that the majority of Americans have NO idea what they are in for when the ACA fully kicks in. Unpayable deductibles, being on the hook for 40% of the medical bills (40/60 plans), rates continuing to go up, the government fine is supposed to increase yearly as well. So many Americans are about to be so royally screwed, many of which naively supported this monstrosity of a bill because of good intentions, but as the saying goes, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions."

posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 09:39 AM
I'm pretty sure that just like Medicaid, the government will turn to putting liens on a person's estate when they are not able to pay their high deductible and outrageous health care expenses.
We are in the early stages of a totally government-owned society. Eventually, there will be very little property owned by US citizens.
How people can not see that the 'ACA' was designed to annihilate the last shreds of freedom is beyond reason.

posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 09:43 AM

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
My father works for AFLAC selling supplemental insurance, he tells me that the majority of Americans have NO idea what they are in for when the ACA fully kicks in. Unpayable deductibles, being on the hook for 40% of the medical bills (40/60 plans), rates continuing to go up, the government fine is supposed to increase yearly as well. So many Americans are about to be so royally screwed, many of which naively supported this monstrosity of a bill because of good intentions, but as the saying goes, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions."

Krazy, please tell me what you think is the real reason the government is doing this to us?

posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 10:31 AM

The easy answer: To make money for the health insurance industry.

The long answer: Democrats tackled a problem that they didn't have the knowhow or ability to fix. So they accepted help from the health insurance industry (why they didn't ask the health care industry is beyond me, but whatever). Obviously the health insurance industry doesn't want to regulate itself out of business. This results in the health insurance reps pitching an idea for health care, "If we mandate everyone to buy insurance, it will be LIKE universal health care, but you (democrats) won't have to worry about putting us out of business and losing the votes of all the newly unemployed people who worked at our companies. With everyone buying insurance, we can offset the costs of pre-existing conditions. To incite people to buy, we can just tack on a fine for non-compliance." The democrats probably looked at that solution and thought, "wow that's win-win, we give health care to everyone AND we don't have to worry about losing votes by putting a large section of the population out of work. We can then use those fines to pass out subsidies to the people who can't afford the insurance, thereby securing MORE votes." Except there is an obvious flaw in that line of thinking, they aren't "giving" insurance to anyone, they are forcing them to buy it, also there besides using shady math and accounting there is NO way that the fines from the ACA would EVER offset the cost of the subsidies, not to mention congress has a history of misappropriating taxes that are designed to be used for one thing but end up being used for something completely different. Like I said, good intentions, but wrong answer.
edit on 21-4-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 10:36 AM

It all seems so complicated to me, but your explanation was easy to understand, is it really that simple?

I seem to think there may be something more sinister going on.

Thank you

edit on 103030p://bMonday2014 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 10:50 AM

Possibly, but without proof, I can make no conjectures one way or the other. However, using Occam's Razor and applying the characteristics of greed to the insurance industry as well as assigning the value of seeking as MANY votes as possible to the politicians, it becomes quite easy to see how this process went down. The politicians these days are paralyzed by their fear of losing votes due to bad legislation, so everything that comes down the pipes is homogenized to appeal to as many people as possible, except that the opposite occurs and the homogenization makes everything unwieldy and to work poorly. HOPEFULLY, the American public will learn from this and vote these democrats out who passed this bill and teach them a lesson that if you are going to legislate, it is IMPOSSIBLE to please everyone.

posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 11:58 AM

that leaves an estimated 24.5 million americans still uninsured..

now..we have the 95-dollar non-compliance fine that you get charged for not buying insurance....

\$95.00 x 024,500,000 = \$2,327,500,000

Does that include the subtractions for people who will be exempt from the "fines" ?

There are some.

But regardless of how times you multiply "0" by any number, the answer is still always "0".

And multiplying a number by "1" always gives the same answer the 2nd time, the 3rd time, etc. etc.

posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 12:27 PM
While I agree with your opinion of Obama(doesn't)care, \$2.3 billion is nothing - It would operate the federal government for all of 5 hours.

posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 01:11 PM

you'd most likely be counted part of the 23.5 million people with a QHP (compliant plan)

posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 01:34 PM

it's funny you should mention the fine increasing...that's something most people have either forgotten, or didn't know about in the first place.....

i pulled this from wiki

Under the individual mandate provision (sometimes called a "shared responsibility requirement" or "mandatory minimum coverage requirement"[75]), individuals who are not covered by an acceptable health insurance policy will be charged an annual tax penalty of \$95, or up to 1% of income over the filing minimum,[76] whichever is greater; this will rise to a minimum of \$695 (\$2,085 for families),[77] or 2.5% of income over the filing minimum,[76] by 2016.[78][79] The penalty is prorated, meaning that if a person or family have coverage for part of the year they won't be liable if they lack coverage for less than a three-month period during the year.[80] Exemptions are permitted for religious reasons, members of health care sharing ministries, or for those for whom the least expensive policy would exceed 8% of their income.[81] Also exempted are US citizens who qualify as residents of a foreign country under the IRS foreign earned income exclusion rule.[82] In 2010, the Commissioner speculated that insurance providers would supply a form confirming essential coverage to both individuals and the IRS; individuals would attach this form to their Federal tax return. Those who aren't covered will be assessed the penalty on their Federal tax return. In the wording of the law, a taxpayer who fails to pay the penalty "shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty" and cannot have liens or levies placed on their property, but the IRS will be able to withhold future tax refunds from them.[83]

so it IS going to increase....and that amount of money they're collecting for non-compliance will increase with it....

it's guaranteed money...

posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 01:42 PM

Oh, I've never forgotten about it. It certainly is coming and it will be a HUGE surprise for people when their rebate check shrinks more and more each year because of the ACA.

posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 01:56 PM

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

The easy answer: To make money for the health insurance industry.

The long answer: Democrats tackled a problem that they didn't have the knowhow or ability to fix. So they accepted help from the health insurance industry (why they didn't ask the health care industry is beyond me, but whatever). Obviously the health insurance industry doesn't want to regulate itself out of business. This results in the health insurance reps pitching an idea for health care, "If we mandate everyone to buy insurance, it will be LIKE universal health care, but you (democrats) won't have to worry about putting us out of business and losing the votes of all the newly unemployed people who worked at our companies. With everyone buying insurance, we can offset the costs of pre-existing conditions. To incite people to buy, we can just tack on a fine for non-compliance." The democrats probably looked at that solution and thought, "wow that's win-win, we give health care to everyone AND we don't have to worry about losing votes by putting a large section of the population out of work. We can then use those fines to pass out subsidies to the people who can't afford the insurance, thereby securing MORE votes." Except there is an obvious flaw in that line of thinking, they aren't "giving" insurance to anyone, they are forcing them to buy it, also there besides using shady math and accounting there is NO way that the fines from the ACA would EVER offset the cost of the subsidies, not to mention congress has a history of misappropriating taxes that are designed to be used for one thing but end up being used for something completely different. Like I said, good intentions, but wrong answer.

while i agree that something happened behind the scenes, i don't think it was the democrats going to the health insurance industry, and asking them for help..

i think it was the health insurance industry coming to them, with an outline for a bill, and promises of huge campaign contributions if the democrats blindly support it....the bill benefits the insurance companies, and guarantees the federal government additional income, because there will ALWAYS be people who refuse to comply with unjust taxation..

i honestly don't think the federal government ever actually does anything because of a desire to do something good for the people..i don't think they give a fig about what's good for us....only about what enriches them...

posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 01:58 PM

originally posted by: xuenchen
Does that include the subtractions for people who will be exempt from the "fines" ?

There are some.

No, i didn't factor in exempt individuals...mostly because i can't find accurate data..

to figure that out, all one needs to do, is check census data, regarding people living at the financial level that would make them exempt....but again, that data is most likely VERY inaccurate.

But regardless of how times you multiply "0" by any number, the answer is still always "0".

And multiplying a number by "1" always gives the same answer the 2nd time, the 3rd time, etc. etc.

what's your point? or are you trying to say my maths are wrong?

posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 02:01 PM

yes, but as the fee increases, so will that revenue figure...2.3 billion, to us, is a LOT of money...more than any one of us could probably ever spend..to the federal government, you're right, it's not a lot, but think of how much you can actually buy with that much money....every little bit counts.

besides, when they have no business taking it in the first place, even a single dollar is a travesty..

posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 02:01 PM

Whether you go with my account or your account, in the end it is a half dozen in one and 6 in the other. The Democrats most assuredly looked at this as win-win for them and the rest is history.

posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 02:18 PM

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Oh, I've never forgotten about it. It certainly is coming and it will be a HUGE surprise for people when their rebate check shrinks more and more each year because of the ACA.

indeed. perhaps THEN, we'll finally see more outrage, and public opposition, and protests, and demonstrations...

ignorant america ignores warnings, and thinks numbers on a screen are nonsense.....when those numbers translate into tangible financial harm...THEN they'll finally understand...

posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 02:20 PM

fair enough...

new topics

top topics

8