Obamacare: Healthcare and Its Bill

by tyankee7 on August 31, 2016

As the ObamaCare plan faces negative feedback in the midterm elections, and if the republicans capture the majority, many ponder the fate of Illinois medical insurance policies. The polls illustrate that 30 percent of Americans, who participated in the AP’s Poll, surveyed by Stanford University and sponsored by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation commend ObamaCare and all the terms of the Patient Protection Affordability and Care Act PPACA)). Others are concerned about America’s financial stability, the medical profession’s future coupled with the quality of medical care.

At the moment, Illinois medical insurance agencies may not reject children under the age of 19, who suffer from a pre-existing medical condition. The legislation became effective in September. In turn, the vast majority of top Illinois medical insurance companies dropped child only policies.

Other health plans, where enrollment began after March 23trd, have to abide by the incorporated laws, deeming it essential to raise premiums in order to shield future losses. On the contrary, some republican pundits are of the opinion that the health reform bill requires major revisions.

Most Illinois health insurance representatives praise the newly enforced laws. Cholesterol testing, and cancer screening are now a required component of all Illinois medical insurance plans. These preventative health benefits, which became another requirement last month, would most likely be an irreversible benefit.

“That’s at least $ 2000 worth of out of pocket expenses. Since, this new policy went into effect, our clients understand the value of Illinois medical insurance benefits. As a result, the premiums reflect a percentage of these new benefits,” reveals Michael Novelli, president of IllinoisLifeandHealth.com.

Aside from making preventative health benefits and coverage for children with preexisting conditions, another required component of Illinois medical insurance is coverage for dependent children until 26 years old.

As health care companies have to offer all these benefits, coupled with the legality of taxing Americans, who do not have medical insurance sometime in 2014, market research publis0oohed by the Associated Press that 40 percent of the pollsters are not in favor of ObamaCare. The state of Missouri, Florida and 20 other states are taking the federal government to the Supreme Court, questioning the constitutionality of the enactment of ObamaCare.

Nevertheless, Mr. Novelli speculates: “Even if ObamaCare is repealed current benefits for children, preventative care as well as the rescission laws should not be discontinued from Illinois medical insurance plans.

It has now been just over 6 months since Obama’s Healthcare Bill, also known as “Obamacare”, passed Congress. The first of these Healthcare Bill benefits have just started. And Obama is spending his time reminding us to be grateful for his ingenious leadership.

But, especially as a senior citizen, what exactly are we supposed to be grateful for? Even if you’re not a senior citizen now, you will be one someday (God willing), so in other words, every one, from every stage and walk of life should be asking themselves, and their Government, this question

What he has been telling us about his Obamacare is this: insurance companies will not be allowed to compel yearly limits, lifetime restrictions on benefits, and all children will have the assurance of insurance (regardless of any pre-existing health conditions). And the President promises more of these good things in the future.

What is so odd about being grateful for these wonderful and good things, you ask? Nothing, absolutely nothing. But what is not a blessing, and the question our Leader refuses to answer is this: Who is going to be forced to pay for all these wonderful benefits? Even the extensive website that his administration has set up does not address who will bare the cost of this great bill. In fact, the wording lends more to the idea that no one will be responsible to pay, it will simply be “free”.

One of the first things I remember hearing my father say is, “there’s no such thing as a free lunch”. You’ve heard that saying too. And it’s still an accurate statement (and always will be), the money has to come from somewhere. And all this wonderful coverage The Healthcare Bill promises won’t be cheap. While the individual beneficiary of Obamacare might not pay, someone, somewhere, sometime, will have to. And those persons, at that time, will pay dearly.

Our President has told us many times over that the rich and upper class should be shelling out more money, much more money, for their government than they already do. And in the case of Healthcare Reform, he says it’s a great place for them to start. You know the people he’s talking about – those who haven’t been hit by the recession, those who have probably gained something from this economic hardship… the ones who had President Bush in their pockets.

According to a study done by Book and Capretts, that’s not the correct answer. In actuality, those who will bare the brunt of the high cost of Healthcare Reform will be those with low-income, minorities; all the people who are currently struggling to pay their own medical bills will apparently, eventually, also be burdened with the bills for the rest of the country. And these are the people the President has promised the Healthcare Bill will help the most. Particularly since the current recession, those who are lower-income and elderly are struggling the most. The way to fix that isn’t the Healthcare Bill.

For a better understand of what else is in President Obama’s Healthcare Bill, visit What’s in the Healthcare Bill. Or, to learn how to select the perfect bicycle cargo trailer, visit Bicycle Cargo Trailers .

You don’t have to be a political animal to be following the news on Obamacare. And for those with disabilities, the Supreme Court’s recent ruling to uphold the bill could certainly impact your life.

For the most part, the bill accomplishes the needs of people who live with disabilities – and a number of organizations such as the National Council on Disability, Easter Seals, the National Council on Independent Living and the United Spinal Association are on board and in favor.

One huge element of President Obama’s Affordable Care Act is that people with pre-existing conditions can no longer be denied insurance coverage – an issue that affects more than 17 million children in the U.S. alone. In the past, the risk of this happening was very real – and it could affect the medical care and even the happiness of an individual or entire family. Take for instance, someone who worked long hours at a job they hated. If that person – or their spouse or child – had been treated for certain conditions within a given period of time, that health concern would be considered a “pre-existing condition.” So if the employee wanted to find a new job, they might get the job offer – but not be eligible to get health insurance. So they stay where they are because they can’t afford not to. Under the new law, it would be illegal to deny that coverage.

Obamacare also prohibits policies that put a cap on coverage limits. In previous years, some insurance policies just plain stopped when certain coverage limits were reached. This amount may be determined as an annual amount or over a lifetime, but when a patient has a disability and needs ongoing treatment, costs can add up in a hurry. So previously, after that limit was reached, the insured was on their own. And the old pre-existing condition caveat made it hard for the person to get a different insurance, many times leaving them with no insurance at all.

And lastly, Obamacare increases the age of young adults on the parent’s policy to 26. This is potentially a huge cost savings for young adults with or without a disability. In addition, depending on the health insurance carrier, an individual with special needs may be able to stay on that coverage for life. This last statement is not new information, but important to recognize and check out prior to the age of 26 for an individual with disabilities.

Now, insurance plans have to provide decent coverage, too. Sounds simplistic, but it’s important. You want insurance that provides a certain level of care – annual physicals, mental health coverage and rehab services. Yearly check-ups help your doctor to find and keep on top of any health problems. Rehabilitation after an illness or injury gets people moving up and out and back to work sooner. And while people often think they don’t need mental health coverage, all it takes is a serious illness or loss (of anything from a loved one to a job) to turn your world upside down. You might be glad you have it.

The nation’s healthcare debate continues to rage on – with Democrats and Republicans each adding their own spin. And each of them has some very valid points. But one thing is clear – the ruling as upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court will certainly have a positive effect on the lives of many people currently living with a disability.

Maedi Tanham Carney, CFP is the founder of M&L Special Needs Planning,LLC. A special needs financial planning company that works with families creating their unique life plans, solving & understanding government benefit issues and creating life insurance needs analysis to fund the special needs trust. We also have workshops in all areas of special needs. www.specialneedsplanning.net

{ 0 comments }

On Nov. 4, 2008, Americans and much of the world was astounded as a man from Illinois approached the podium alongside his wife and daughters. Dozens of others had walked this seemingly endless journey; however, none made such an impact as the young man who would be elected 44th President of the United States.

The jury was in: an indelible “Obama Effect” had taken hold of the psyche of Americans everywhere.

Barack Obama, of African descent, affected American politics in a way never before seen. Across the country voters turned out in droves; volunteers went door-to-door distributing handbills and registering folks who had long given up hope of ever seeing an African American living in the White House. The strategy worked. The campaign brought energy, efficiency and effectiveness to the forefront, and the election proved a significant milestone in American history. Leaving the world flabbergasted, the Obama Effect was in full swing.

Today, less than two years later, however, polls indicate that the Obama Effect might be waning, with the President’s approval rating at a mere 48 percent. But another not-so-small yet often overlooked demographic – one not concerned with nationwide polls – recently expressed their views of President Obama’s leadership.

Not for adults only, the Obama Effect apparently has taken root in the minds of young African American men around the country. A handful of those young men (ages eight to 14) recently expressed those views regarding President Obama’s presidency, what his presidency means to them, and what they believe the future holds for them as Americans of African descent.

Youth and the Political Structure

Today’s African American youth are more politically-savvy than one might think. No longer satisfied with manual gadgets, this generation is ultra-wired to the world through their iPods, cell phones and, yes, their Wii. This might explain how, in 2008, the charismatic then-Senator Obama gained much of the advantage over his opponent, Senator John McCain, at least in part, because of utilizing the Internet at an unprecedented degree.

In short: these kids know their stuff. Case in point, when asked what he thought the phrase “Obama Effect” meant, 14-year-old K. Taylor responded, “It means how I feel about him [Obama] being our president.” Taylor went on to say he “feels great” with Obama as President because “…there’s somebody out there, who’s important, and looks like me.”

Children do not come to these types of conclusions on their own. Parents play a keen role in children’s perception of politics and life in general. In spite of what adults might think, children pay close attention to the things parents say, as is evident in 11-year-old J. Turner’s comment pertaining to the Obama Effect.

“My mom said that he did something no one else has before and that we [African Americans] should strive to be better too,” Turner said.

Parents must take an active role in persuading their children to understand and share an interest in politics. And African American parents owe it to their children to help them see the importance – and benefits – of the Obama Effect in their own lives.

Obama, The Man Behind the Presidency

Contrary to media hype, today’s African American youth are actually quite intelligent and insightful. In describing President Obama, one pre-teen called him “very smart” and noted that “he speaks well.” Adding to that comment was 14-year-old K. Taylor who interjected, “He seems like he really wants people to do better…and he means what he says.”

Nine-year-old J. Griffin was more to the point. When the group was asked if it mattered that President Obama was a Black man, he stated: “Not really, because I think President Obama is better for Black people and White people. It’s like he wants to help everybody more.”

Eight-year-old Q. James said, “I think he cares about all people, not just Black people and not just White people. All people.”

Cutting more to the chase, K. Taylor drew comparisons with former President George W. by saying: “Obama is not like President Bush. He cared a little bit about people, but then he started the war in Iraq and Obama is trying to end the war in Iraq.”

One 11-year-old said he believes the White presidents cared about Black people, “but not as much as President Obama,” who D. Douglas then added, is “more aware of Black people.”

Addressing President Obama’s ethnicity, J. Griffin said that the President had to be fair to all people because “his mom is White, and if he wasn’t it would insult his mom.” Then he added that “President Obama has to care about everybody because they’re all in his family.”

Looking Ahead to the Future

If the discussion is any indication, the Obama Effect is still alive – and will be for many years to come.

When asked what the President’s example has taught them, 9-year-old D. Douglas answered, “I think I can do anything I want in life.” And J. Griffin admitted, “I might not want be president, but I can do what I want.”

And 11-year-old J. Turner, though not sure of reaching presidential status, still looks to the future with hope. “I would like to be president someday but I’m not sure I’ll make it. But I can at least try. President Obama showed us that it can be done.”

“I think I can have a bright future as long as I study hard and go to school like President Obama did,” said 14-year-old K. Taylor.

Two things are clear: The Obama Effect, while perhaps waning in the hearts of adults, is alive and kicking in the hearts and minds of African American males in America; and indeed, kids do say the darndest things.

To President Obama bankrupting America fits into his plan to grow the size of government and thus make more people dependent on the state. Obama’s first Chief of Staff was Rahm Emanuel (he resigned 10/1/2010). In addition to having an abrasive personality and a foul mouth, he will probably be remembered most for saying, “A crisis is a terrible thing to waste.” A crisis gives a reason for existence and a savior mentality to all the bureaucrats, politicians, agencies, workers, organizations and probably even most lobbyists hanging around. A chance to, “Do things that they normally could not do,” is what Rahm Emanuel later told a liberal audience at a speaking engagement. The deflation economy nosedive leading into the GREATER DEPRESSION is the crown jewel of a crisis. What a stroke of luck having control of both houses of Congress. They can pass whatever legislation they want. They pass laws with out even reading them or writing them for that matter. They vote for anything as long as it grows the size of government. This is socialism run amok.

The President Obama bankrupting us with socialist wealth redistributing mistakes, meddling and Marxism is criminal. But, that is his plan – to bring our country down so a one-world-government/new-world-order can take over. This smacks of fascism also. Fascism is when government totally controls everything – especially business and the military. Hitler and Mussolini were fascists. In fact, Hitler’s government was called the NATIONAL SOCIALIST GERMAN WORKERS’ PARTY.

A new book, Roots Of Obama’s Rage, by Dinesh D’Souza maintains our president has an anticolonialist agenda attributable to his alchoholic African socialist father Barack Obama Senior. Barak Obama Junior’s self written autobiography is even titled DREAMS OF MY FATHER. Obama Sr. hated Britain and other nations of the West (U.S.) for invading, pillaging, looting and occupying the third world countries like his native country Kenya. Obama Jr. wants federal oversight of all aspects of American business and plans to tax them to the moon for ripping off the rest of the worlds resources. The dreams of Obama Sr. are fast becoming our nightmare.

Business has caught on to the fact that he is out to get them. Businesses are so uncertain and afraid that they have stopped expanding, hiring, borrowing, leasing, lending and buying. What a great way to make the jobless GREATER DEPRESSION worse.

ObamaCare is a prime example. Government suddenly taking over one sixth of a free market economy. When has government involvement not made things more efficient, more costly, with worse service and more red tape? A provision of the 2,500 page act requires businesses to file a separate IRS code 1099 for each and every transaction over $ 600. More job killing rules and red tape. Look a the U.S. postal system or state DMV if you want to know what I mean. Now, the Obama administration is letting many groups like the teachers union opt-out of the system. Weren’t they the ones paying for the ads in favor of nationalized heath care?

So, Obama Jr.’s mission, according to Dinesh D’Souza, is to get America to return it’s ill gotten gains. Obama wants to raise taxes on the rich. He is forcing the big bad corporations back into line with mountains of Fed oversite, reams of new laws, wealth redistribution and burdensome increased taxes. Unfortunately, Juniors anticoloniaist thinking also means lowering our standard of living, being sympathetic to muslim (freedom fighters), reducing nuclear defenses by 2/3, not blocking Irans nuclear ambitions, bowing to foreign dignitaries and anything else that will get America all wraped up around the axle.

It seems the darn government is always getting larger and more intrusive in our lives. Every year we loose more FREEDOMS. Multiply that tenfold when we get a real economic meltdown like we are having now. Same with a national security (9-11) or a natural disaster like Katrina in New Orleans or even a man made disaster like the Gulf oil well spill(boy did the Obama Administration drag it’s feet and mismanage that one). Mainstream liberal media keeps covering up all the cancerous acts. They so wanted Obama to succeed. They don’t even want to admit that President Obama is bankrupting them also.
We out to change our contry’s name to the UNITED STATES OF DENIAL.

Why did it take so long to plug the Gulf oil well? Obama wanted it to last. Don’t forget President Obama bankrupting the US is his mission in life. The whole country laid down like an old dog while he continues to work to pass all kinds of programs to hurt the oil industry, halt new oil drilling, make carbon dioxide a toxic (we breathe it out and all plants need it to grow) green house gas and cap-and-trade taxes and restrictions that will absolutley slay jobs. They are a smokescreen for taking our FREEDOM. Other countries offered to loan us their oil skimmer boats. He delayed giving a presidential OK to suspend the Brown Act for months. This meant not allowing the foreign oil cleanup boats to leave port and help with our problem The Brown Act controls boats in U.S. waters and harbors. George W. Bush suspended it in just days after hurricaine Katrina hit.

A disturbing turn of events over at the IMF, International Monetary Fund, hints at an expanded role for this world organization as “BIG BROTHER” and controller of the purse strings for the G-20 nations. They are quoted as saying to build “peace through economic stability.” HA! HA! I’m telling you right now it is a one-world-government/new-world-order fascist plot and we had better watch out for these power elite demagogs. The main demagog is Mr. Strauss-Khan, at the 12 story IMF world headquarters at the corner of 11th and Pennsylvania Ave., Washington DC. Down the street from the anointed one – Barack Hussein Obama – fascist country wrecker & job killer and wannabe messiah.

Why do you think Obama got the Nobel peace prize and the 1 million dollars that goes with it the first months in office without doing anything? It was an up front down payment from the power elite to their socialist secret agent for all the one-world-government fascism work Obama would be doing later on. A contract on our lives. Hitman Obama is weakening and ruining America with fascism, socialism and wealth redistribution. Right under our noses! You had better find out more about President Obama bankrupting America.

This is all part of a bankster power elite control conspiracy that has been going on since they set up their first agent of destrution the Federal Reserve in 1913. It was the Federal Reserves job to ruin the once strong America and weaken it’s currency under the smokescreen of economic crisis, wars and now climate change mania. Thanks to fraudulent leaders like Franklin Roosevelt carrying on the banner of socialism and huge government the dollar then is now 4 cents. Go figure!

Read THE CREATURE FROM JEKYLL ISLAND – A Second Look at the Federal Reserve 1994, by G. Edward Griffin if you don’t believe me. Both American polictical parties are in on the conspiracy, by the way. Every word is true! Chapter two is titled “Bailouts Name of the Game.” We the taxpayers pay and go deeper in debt with each bailout. We have been duped. It’s a big myth. The Federal Reserve is not even federal or a bank or subject to an audit. Ot’s a private corporation. Who owns it? The Rothchilds? The Morgans? The Warburgs? The control freak banksters aways financing both sides of wars all throughout history are the culprits. Now, they’ve got their boy President Obama bankrupting the once strong America in a deflation economy leading into the GREATER DEPRESSION.

Watch out! Fascist President Obama bankrupting the once strong America will lead to unholy alliances with the following dirty devils and one-world-government enablers: IMF, Trilateral Commision, Council of Foreign Nations, United Nations, World Bank, G-20 and finally any new world cap-and-trade organization they try to come up with.

PS The GREATER DEPRESSION started in 2000 with the dot com stock climax and will last into 2016 and mean a drop of 90 percent in most assests and 30 percent unemployment.

This is TYRANNY!

Copyright – 2010 by Delwyn Lounsbury – http://www.deflationeconomy.com
Use of this article allowed with attribution back.

Get Free 90 page download “Deflation eBook” at: http://www.deflationeconomy.com email: delwynlounsbury@aol.com By Delwyn Lounsbury – THE DEFLATION GURU

{ 0 comments }

After 1 Year, Obama vs. Reagan

by tyankee7 on August 26, 2016

As we approached the end of the year, we are also approached the end of President Obama’s first year in office. You might be wondering how he is doing, based on actual numbers (rather than political spin).

Obama clearly inherited a difficult situation economically. Only two others in the modern era came even remotely close. One, of course, was FDR, but unfortunately the data from then is rather sparse, and mostly available on just an annual basis, or at best quarterly (good economic data was one of the by-products of the New Deal).

The other who inherited a difficult economic situation was President Reagan. Granted, the type of difficulty was very different under Reagan, and presidents — like quarterbacks — get too much of both the praise for a good economy and the blame for a bad economy.

Still, I think comparing the numbers for the two during their first “year” in office could be instructive. The data I used for the comparison are all available monthly (at least, and if more frequently, I used the monthly data). The source of all data is the St. Louis Fed (except for the S&P 500).

The two presidents offered very different prescriptions for the economy. Reagan was all about cutting taxes and less government involvement in the economy. While most of the really big moves of government into the economy in response to the recent economic crisis actually took place under President George W. Bush, Candidate Obama saw them as needed. The Bush Administration was the one that bought the stakes in American International Group (AIG – Snapshot Report), Fannie Mae (FNM – Snapshot Report), Freddie Mac (FRE – Analyst Report) and the banks, while Obama’s support for a prepackaged bankruptcy resulted in large government stakes in the Auto industry.

There were no comparable big investments by the government into the private sector late in the Carter Administration, and certainly Reagan did not initiate any. Reagan did not have to deal with a financial meltdown when he took office, but on the other hand, Obama did not have to deal with runaway inflation. Both are serious diseases, but think of it this way: both cancer and heart disease can kill you, but you would not want to give chemotherapy drugs to a heart attack patient. Thus, perhaps it is appropriate that the prescriptions be different.

If one only looks at the unemployment rate (U-3), both did a poor job in their first year, and Obama was significantly worse. The unemployment rate in January 2009 was 7.6% and by November it had climbed to 10.0%. In January 1981, when Reagan took office, the unemployment rate was almost identical at 7.5%, and by November of 1981 it had climbed to “only” 8.3%.

Private employment actually rose during the first 11 months of 1981 by 0.55%, from 74.671 million to 75.084 million. Under Obama’s tenure so far, private payrolls have dropped by 2.95% to 108.495 million from 111.793 million.

So on the employment front, Reagan is the clear winner so far. However, over the course of 1982 and 1983 the employment situation deteriorated significantly. We do not know what unemployment will do in 2010 and 2011, and thus can only judge based on what we have seen so far and in the comparable period under Reagan.

Advantage: Reagan

Reagan also wins when it comes to real disposable personal income, which expanded by 2.3% in the first 11 months Reagan was in office, while it has only increased by 1.0% so far under Obama.

Advantage: Reagan

The dollar was also much stronger during the first 11 months of Reagan, although I am not sure if that is a positive or a negative. During the first 11 months of Reagan, the dollar relative to an index of major currencies gained 9.88%, while under Obama, the dollar has lost 9.70% relative to the same index.

Given that we are running chronic trade deficits now, but really were not back then, I would argue that today a weak dollar is good for the economy today since it will help out on the net export side of things. Inflation is not a big problem today, but was the number one problem with the economy when Reagan took office. The downside of a weak dollar is that it contributes to inflation, so back then having the dollar strengthening was a good thing.

No Advantage to Either

On the inflation front, however, things are far better under Obama. On a headline basis, prices have gone up by 2.39% so far under Obama, while they rose 7.57% during the first 11 months that Reagan was in office. On a core basis (ex-food and energy) the difference is even more stark, rising 8.31% under Reagan and up just 1.51% under Obama so far. Later in the Reagan Administration, inflation fell much more, but even when he left office in 1989 inflation was far higher than it is today.

Advantage: Obama

Industrial production fell slightly more during the first 11 months of Reagan (1.07%) than it has under the first 11 months of Obama (0.68%). Capacity Utilization started out at a much lower level when Obama took the oath than the Reagan did, at 71.1% (an all-time record low at the time) vs. 80.7% when Reagan took office. However, by November of 1981, the total capacity utilization rate had fallen to 77.9%. Under Obama, capacity utilization has actually risen to 71.3%, although it remains at a historically low level.

Advantage: Obama

Interest rates can tell a lot about the state of the economy. For example, the spread between the rate that gilt-edged companies have to pay on their bonds and what normal companies have to pay on their bonds tells a lot about how much bond investors fear companies going belly up. The former is measured by the Moody’s (MCO – Analyst Report) Aaa rate and the later by the Baa rate (not to be confused with “junk bond” rates; Baa is still investment grade).

In January of 1981, the best credits in America had to pay 12.81% on their bonds, while normal companies had to pay 15.03%, for a spread of 2.22% (or as a ratio, normal companies had to pay 17.3% more than the gilt-edged ones). By November of 1981, both the best and the ordinary had to pay more — the Aaa rate had surged to 14.22% while the Baa rate had risen to 16.39%, so the spread had fallen ever-so-slightly to 2.17. The ratio had come down a bit more, and the ordinary firms were paying 15.3% more than the best firms.

When Obama took office, the Baa rate was 8.14% while the Aaa rate was 5.05%, for a spread of 3.09. In other words, ordinary firms had to pay 61.2% more for money than the best firms did. Investors were very afraid that companies would go bankrupt, and so demanded a higher rate from normal companies than from firms that seemed to have very little risk of writing a new chapter (the eleventh) in their corporate histories.

Since then, the rate the highest-rated firms have to pay has actually increased slightly to 5.19% while the rate that normal firms have to pay has plunged to 6.32%, bringing the spread down to 1.13% and the ratio down to the point where normal companies are paying 21.8% more for their money than the Aaa firms.

(Given the huge difference in the overall level of interest rates between the two eras, it is important to look at both the spreads and the ratios. Clearly a spread of 2% has a very different meaning and significance if it is between 1% and 3% than if it is between 13% and 15%).

Advantage: Obama

Another important signal that comes from interest rates is the yield curve, or the difference between long-term and short-term interest rates. The curve is measured using Treasury notes or bills, since you only want to be looking at the differences due to maturity, not due to quality (the opposite of the Aaa-Baa spread, which is only looking at quality differences, not maturity differences).

While there are many different measures of the curve, the one that is used the most is the difference between the 2-year note and the 10-year note. Generally speaking, the steeper the yield curve, the better. An inverted yield curve is very bad news, and is probably the best single indicator that the economy is about to go into a recession.

When Reagan entered office, the 10-2 curve was inverted, with the yield on a 2-year note at 13.26% and the yield on the 10-year at 12.57%, for a spread of -0.69. On a ratio basis, the 10-year was providing only 0.95 of the 2-year. By the time November of 1981 rolled around, the curve had returned to normal but was still pretty flat. The yield on the 2-year had fallen to 12.88%, while the yield on the 10-year had increased to 13.39, resulting in a positive curve of 0.51. On a ratio basis, the 10-year was 1.08 of the 2-year.

When Obama entered office, the 2-year was at a very low 0.81% while the 10-year was 2.52%, for a positive spread of 1.71%. On a ratio basis, the 10-year was yielding over three times as much as the 2-year (3.11x to be exact). By the end of November, the curve had expanded even further, with the 2-year virtually unchanged at 0.80%, while the yield on the 10-year had risen to 3.40%, for a spread of 2.60% and a ratio of 4.25x. Again, given the vastly different overall levels of rates, it is important to consider both the spreads and the ratios when making the comparisons.

Advantage: Obama

Mortgage rates were both far higher and moving in the wrong direction early in the Reagan presidency. When he took office they were at 14.90%, and by November they had risen to 17.83%. When Obama took office, the rate on a 30-year fixed mortgage was 5.06% and has since fallen to 4.88%.

Not surprisingly, then, the housing market was far worse under Reagan than it has been under Obama (at least if measured by direction, not levels). In January of 1981, housing starts were running at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 1.547 million, and by November of that year they had plunged to 837,000, a decline of 45.9%. Since January of 2009, housing starts have risen from an annualized rate of 488,000 to a rate of 574,000 in November, an increase of 17.6%.

Advantage: Obama

Similarly, single family new home sales plunged by 25.2% early in the Reagan years to a rate of 382,000. Since Obama came into office, new single family home sales have risen by 22.2% to an annualized rate of 402,000. Existing home sales are not particularly important to the economy (just like used car sales are not very important).

Auto sales also fared worse under the early part of the Reagan Administration than they have so far under Obama (at least as measured point-to-point). When Reagan took office, auto and light truck sales were running at an annualized rate of 11.03 million and had fallen to 9.21 million, a decline of 16.5%. Under Obama, auto and light truck sales have risen from an annualized rate of 9.59 million in January to a rate of 10.89 million in November, an increase of 13.6%.

Advantage: Obama

Finally, while people sometimes make too much of the day-to-day fluctuations in the stock market, it is a good reflection of the overall health of the economy when you look at longer time periods — and almost a year is long enough to qualify there. On that metric, there is simply no contest. Between inauguration day and Christmas Eve in 1981, the S&P 500 lost 7.65%. Since Obama took office, the S&P 500 has gained 39.9%.

Advantage: Obama

Weighing these different economic indicators is inherently subjective, and thus I am not sure that one can come to a clear-cut case that one has done a better job than the other — at least so far. This is also far from a complete list of economic indicators and I focused on only those that were available at least monthly, and many of the most important economic numbers come out quarterly.

Arguably, the economic mess that Obama inherited was worse than the one that Reagan inherited, although both were pretty nasty — yet very different. The U.S. economy is more of an oil tanker than a speedboat, and does not turn around on a dime, so it really is too early to tell how Obama is doing.

However, the indicators that are most forward-looking and leading for the economy (stock market, yield curve and quality spreads, housing starts) are the ones that favor Obama over Reagan. Overall, 11 months in, one must conclude that Obama is doing at least as good a job on the economy as Reagan did in his first 11 months.

As we approached the end of the year, we are also approached the end of President Obama’s first year in office. You might be wondering how he is doing, based on actual numbers (rather than political spin).

Obama clearly inherited a difficult situation economically. Only two others in the modern era came even remotely close. One, of course, was FDR, but unfortunately the data from then is rather sparse, and mostly available on just an annual basis, or at best quarterly (good economic data was one of the by-products of the New Deal).

The other who inherited a difficult economic situation was President Reagan. Granted, the type of difficulty was very different under Reagan, and presidents — like quarterbacks — get too much of both the praise for a good economy and the blame for a bad economy.

Still, I think comparing the numbers for the two during their first “year” in office could be instructive. The data I used for the comparison are all available monthly (at least, and if more frequently, I used the monthly data). The source of all data is the St. Louis Fed (except for the S&P 500).

The two presidents offered very different prescriptions for the economy. Reagan was all about cutting taxes and less government involvement in the economy. While most of the really big moves of government into the economy in response to the recent economic crisis actually took place under President George W. Bush, Candidate Obama saw them as needed. The Bush Administration was the one that bought the stakes in American International Group (AIG – Snapshot Report), Fannie Mae (FNM – Snapshot Report), Freddie Mac (FRE – Analyst Report) and the banks, while Obama’s support for a prepackaged bankruptcy resulted in large government stakes in the Auto industry.

There were no comparable big investments by the government into the private sector late in the Carter Administration, and certainly Reagan did not initiate any. Reagan did not have to deal with a financial meltdown when he took office, but on the other hand, Obama did not have to deal with runaway inflation. Both are serious diseases, but think of it this way: both cancer and heart disease can kill you, but you would not want to give chemotherapy drugs to a heart attack patient. Thus, perhaps it is appropriate that the prescriptions be different.

If one only looks at the unemployment rate (U-3), both did a poor job in their first year, and Obama was significantly worse. The unemployment rate in January 2009 was 7.6% and by November it had climbed to 10.0%. In January 1981, when Reagan took office, the unemployment rate was almost identical at 7.5%, and by November of 1981 it had climbed to “only” 8.3%.

Private employment actually rose during the first 11 months of 1981 by 0.55%, from 74.671 million to 75.084 million. Under Obama’s tenure so far, private payrolls have dropped by 2.95% to 108.495 million from 111.793 million.

So on the employment front, Reagan is the clear winner so far. However, over the course of 1982 and 1983 the employment situation deteriorated significantly. We do not know what unemployment will do in 2010 and 2011, and thus can only judge based on what we have seen so far and in the comparable period under Reagan.

Advantage: Reagan

Reagan also wins when it comes to real disposable personal income, which expanded by 2.3% in the first 11 months Reagan was in office, while it has only increased by 1.0% so far under Obama.

Advantage: Reagan

The dollar was also much stronger during the first 11 months of Reagan, although I am not sure if that is a positive or a negative. During the first 11 months of Reagan, the dollar relative to an index of major currencies gained 9.88%, while under Obama, the dollar has lost 9.70% relative to the same index.

Given that we are running chronic trade deficits now, but really were not back then, I would argue that today a weak dollar is good for the economy today since it will help out on the net export side of things. Inflation is not a big problem today, but was the number one problem with the economy when Reagan took office. The downside of a weak dollar is that it contributes to inflation, so back then having the dollar strengthening was a good thing.

No Advantage to Either

On the inflation front, however, things are far better under Obama. On a headline basis, prices have gone up by 2.39% so far under Obama, while they rose 7.57% during the first 11 months that Reagan was in office. On a core basis (ex-food and energy) the difference is even more stark, rising 8.31% under Reagan and up just 1.51% under Obama so far. Later in the Reagan Administration, inflation fell much more, but even when he left office in 1989 inflation was far higher than it is today.

Advantage: Obama

Industrial production fell slightly more during the first 11 months of Reagan (1.07%) than it has under the first 11 months of Obama (0.68%). Capacity Utilization started out at a much lower level when Obama took the oath than the Reagan did, at 71.1% (an all-time record low at the time) vs. 80.7% when Reagan took office. However, by November of 1981, the total capacity utilization rate had fallen to 77.9%. Under Obama, capacity utilization has actually risen to 71.3%, although it remains at a historically low level.

Advantage: Obama

Interest rates can tell a lot about the state of the economy. For example, the spread between the rate that gilt-edged companies have to pay on their bonds and what normal companies have to pay on their bonds tells a lot about how much bond investors fear companies going belly up. The former is measured by the Moody’s (MCO – Analyst Report) Aaa rate and the later by the Baa rate (not to be confused with “junk bond” rates; Baa is still investment grade).

In January of 1981, the best credits in America had to pay 12.81% on their bonds, while normal companies had to pay 15.03%, for a spread of 2.22% (or as a ratio, normal companies had to pay 17.3% more than the gilt-edged ones). By November of 1981, both the best and the ordinary had to pay more — the Aaa rate had surged to 14.22% while the Baa rate had risen to 16.39%, so the spread had fallen ever-so-slightly to 2.17. The ratio had come down a bit more, and the ordinary firms were paying 15.3% more than the best firms.

When Obama took office, the Baa rate was 8.14% while the Aaa rate was 5.05%, for a spread of 3.09. In other words, ordinary firms had to pay 61.2% more for money than the best firms did. Investors were very afraid that companies would go bankrupt, and so demanded a higher rate from normal companies than from firms that seemed to have very little risk of writing a new chapter (the eleventh) in their corporate histories.

Since then, the rate the highest-rated firms have to pay has actually increased slightly to 5.19% while the rate that normal firms have to pay has plunged to 6.32%, bringing the spread down to 1.13% and the ratio down to the point where normal companies are paying 21.8% more for their money than the Aaa firms.

(Given the huge difference in the overall level of interest rates between the two eras, it is important to look at both the spreads and the ratios. Clearly a spread of 2% has a very different meaning and significance if it is between 1% and 3% than if it is between 13% and 15%).

Advantage: Obama

Another important signal that comes from interest rates is the yield curve, or the difference between long-term and short-term interest rates. The curve is measured using Treasury notes or bills, since you only want to be looking at the differences due to maturity, not due to quality (the opposite of the Aaa-Baa spread, which is only looking at quality differences, not maturity differences).

While there are many different measures of the curve, the one that is used the most is the difference between the 2-year note and the 10-year note. Generally speaking, the steeper the yield curve, the better. An inverted yield curve is very bad news, and is probably the best single indicator that the economy is about to go into a recession.

When Reagan entered office, the 10-2 curve was inverted, with the yield on a 2-year note at 13.26% and the yield on the 10-year at 12.57%, for a spread of -0.69. On a ratio basis, the 10-year was providing only 0.95 of the 2-year. By the time November of 1981 rolled around, the curve had returned to normal but was still pretty flat. The yield on the 2-year had fallen to 12.88%, while the yield on the 10-year had increased to 13.39, resulting in a positive curve of 0.51. On a ratio basis, the 10-year was 1.08 of the 2-year.

When Obama entered office, the 2-year was at a very low 0.81% while the 10-year was 2.52%, for a positive spread of 1.71%. On a ratio basis, the 10-year was yielding over three times as much as the 2-year (3.11x to be exact). By the end of November, the curve had expanded even further, with the 2-year virtually unchanged at 0.80%, while the yield on the 10-year had risen to 3.40%, for a spread of 2.60% and a ratio of 4.25x. Again, given the vastly different overall levels of rates, it is important to consider both the spreads and the ratios when making the comparisons.

Advantage: Obama

Mortgage rates were both far higher and moving in the wrong direction early in the Reagan presidency. When he took office they were at 14.90%, and by November they had risen to 17.83%. When Obama took office, the rate on a 30-year fixed mortgage was 5.06% and has since fallen to 4.88%.

Not surprisingly, then, the housing market was far worse under Reagan than it has been under Obama (at least if measured by direction, not levels). In January of 1981, housing starts were running at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 1.547 million, and by November of that year they had plunged to 837,000, a decline of 45.9%. Since January of 2009, housing starts have risen from an annualized rate of 488,000 to a rate of 574,000 in November, an increase of 17.6%.

Advantage: Obama

Similarly, single family new home sales plunged by 25.2% early in the Reagan years to a rate of 382,000. Since Obama came into office, new single family home sales have risen by 22.2% to an annualized rate of 402,000. Existing home sales are not particularly important to the economy (just like used car sales are not very important).

Auto sales also fared worse under the early part of the Reagan Administration than they have so far under Obama (at least as measured point-to-point). When Reagan took office, auto and light truck sales were running at an annualized rate of 11.03 million and had fallen to 9.21 million, a decline of 16.5%. Under Obama, auto and light truck sales have risen from an annualized rate of 9.59 million in January to a rate of 10.89 million in November, an increase of 13.6%.

Advantage: Obama

Finally, while people sometimes make too much of the day-to-day fluctuations in the stock market, it is a good reflection of the overall health of the economy when you look at longer time periods — and almost a year is long enough to qualify there. On that metric, there is simply no contest. Between inauguration day and Christmas Eve in 1981, the S&P 500 lost 7.65%. Since Obama took office, the S&P 500 has gained 39.9%.

Advantage: Obama

Weighing these different economic indicators is inherently subjective, and thus I am not sure that one can come to a clear-cut case that one has done a better job than the other — at least so far. This is also far from a complete list of economic indicators and I focused on only those that were available at least monthly, and many of the most important economic numbers come out quarterly.

Arguably, the economic mess that Obama inherited was worse than the one that Reagan inherited, although both were pretty nasty — yet very different. The U.S. economy is more of an oil tanker than a speedboat, and does not turn around on a dime, so it really is too early to tell how Obama is doing.

However, the indicators that are most forward-looking and leading for the economy (stock market, yield curve and quality spreads, housing starts) are the ones that favor Obama over Reagan. Overall, 11 months in, one must conclude that Obama is doing at least as good a job on the economy as Reagan did in his first 11 months.

How President Obama fascist policies will make the deflation economy and coming GREATER DEPRESSION worse. Webster’s New World Dictionary defines fascism as: A system of government characterized by rigid one-party dictatorship, forcible suppression of opposition, private enterprise under centralized governmental control, belligerent nationalism, racism and militarism, etc. See also NAZI – and defines Nazi as: …Political party (National Socialist German Workers’ Party) … systematically eliminated opposition, and put into effect its program of nationalism… Note the word socialist! So, a socialist/Marxist can be a fascist. Obama wins the tripple crown.

Since all the political power is now in one party, the definition fits. The Democrats have control of both houses of congress and can pass any law they want. This has given President Obama fascist force to suppress opposition from the Republicans, the Tea Party, the Libertarians and the conservative independents. Most Americans are middle-of-the-road to conservative with only some 20 percent being true left-wing liberal. The President Obama fascist policies of beating up on the opposition. Like saying the Republicans drove the economy into a ditch. Bailing out the banksters and unions(GM’s unions got to stay while investors were wiped out). Beating up on business (killing free enterprise and regulating and taxing the daylights out of those bad businesses making too much money with the audacity to create private sector jobs). Bringing big swaths of private enterprise under government mandate and control(think ObamaCare). Beating up on western countries for past and present colonialism (the west must pay dearly for ripping off the third worlds resources was Barack Obama Senior’s socialistic dream but it’s now our nightmare). More socialism (more government controls like cap-and-trade and all his other wealth redistribution and increased tax ideas. Your taxes will rise too. Yes, you! We will all pay and pay for this mountain of debt the progressives are hanging around the worlds neck. All governments are Keynesian these days. John Maynard Keynes advocated pumping downturns in the economy with stimulus money. The problem is stimulus creates violent whipsaw effects in the economy.

President Obama fascist policies aren’t even missing militarism. He is the one that ramped up sending more troops into Afghanistan to appease the military industrial complex just after getting elected.

Racist? David Limbaugh’s new book, Crimes Against Liberty says he is deeply racist. Obama spent years listening to his pastor Reverend Wright saying, “God d**m America.”

The only thing missing from President Obama fascist policy is belligerent nationalism. The Obama administration has focused on “hitting the reset button” and avoiding the “arrogance of power.” Consequently, his weak position is saying to the world -the United States was crucial in establishing a system of global inequalities and poverty by an undue privileged few. Is that more Marxist speak or what? Karl Marx wanted capitalism to fail. So does Obama. Russia, Iran, China and North Korea will just keep causing havoc because Obama will do nothing to stop them. Obama is helping bring on world war three.

Then there is his stupid bowing to third rate political heads of tiny nations. Why? Doesn’t he know that is a sign of weakness. I say he is doing it on purpose. He is saying – thank you for giving me the Nobel Peace Prize and the one million dollars when I hadn’t done anything to deserve it yet. The power elite bought and paid for their President Obama fascist first thing after his election. A down payment up front to their new not so secrete socialist agent for a one-world-government/new-world-order fascist future .

In the area of foreign policy, the President Obama fascist intent actually threatens our national security and leaves the world more open to terrorist attack. His policies are geared to hastening a crisis so that government’s size and control can grow larger. Rahm Emanuel, Chief of Staff until he left the position on 10/1//2010 said, “A crisis is a terrible thing to waste.” Why do you think Obama drug his feet and did virtually nothing for months in the Gulf Oil spill crisis?

The sinister message here is the Anglo American power elite will use every means to grow their new-world-order/big brother socialist fascist big government. Now in a disturbing turn of events the IMF, International Monetary Fund, headquartered in a 12 story building right on the corner of H Street and Pennsylvania Avenues in Washington D.C. is ramping up plans to be the world central banker of the G-20 nations and big brother us all to death. It blatantly plans to use “money as the medicine” to build “peace through economic stability.” It’s going to be cradle to grave control if we don’t watch out. Total control of you and your children! Is that what you want? Watch out! The IMF is out for domination at warp speed. Forget about the World Bank and the United Nations. The IMF is trouble.

Obama is beating brother Israel up over it’s Sinai settlements situation. He pulled planned Polish and Czech Republic missile defense systems first thing when he got into office – a slap to democratic nations freed from communist control by the old Soviet Union. He won’t pressure Iran. They now have two nuclear installations. Obama’s policy of doing nothing with Iran has made an Israeli strike more likely. Can you say World War Three!

He campaigned that he would stop the opium poppy growing in Afghanistan. Nope. Liar. Corruption and heroin money still buys guns to kill our own soldiers. It’s still a fact of life. Poppies growing everywhere is bad karma. It’s heroin for crying out loud. I also fault George W. Bush for not doing anything about this problem.

Obama is constantly subordinating American policy to international consensus like the socialistic World Bank and United Nations. A global cap-and-trade commission will be the next giant leap toward a one-world government and the loss of what is left of our FREEDOM.

Putin and Russia realize a nuclear bomb armed Iran is more of a problem to America. Huge Russian oil income and a history of unrelenting propaganda against the U.S. mean they will keep up the war with neighbors. With no peer pressure possible coming from a weak President Obama fascist foreign hidden agenda, we are in for more trouble. This is all leading into WORLD WAR THREE that started with the 9/11/2001 World Trade Center attack, according to Robert Prechter.

21st century American “Liberal Fascism” is a movement of the left leaning Democratic Party with a secondary smaller culprit the Republican Party. So far, there is no visible racism or cults. Let’s be honest here. Fascism is when big business is fused at the hip with big government. Think Hitler and Mussolini. Obama has government owning 60 percent of General Motors or should I say Government Motors. Fascism!

Franklin D. Roosevelt’s, New Deal experimentation, was patterned after Russian and German fascism. Both Hitler and Mussolini praised FDR. They had similar policies like the New Deal in effect such as: setting maximum work day hours and minimum wages, a progressive tax system, state run schools, control of money, the constant growth of government and the military controlled by those at the very top. FDR started us down the road to socialism leading to the next and worse depression. He even outlawed gold ownership and made up government jobs instead of lowering taxes which would have helped business create jobs that would last. Instead the jobs disappeared when the d**m dam or other government project was done. FDR and his (hair) brain trust even decided low prices were the problem. They sought to restrict supply by paying farmers subsidies not to grow or produce and thereby raise prices. Even though people were starving! We still have those farm supports and subsidies today. They were never repealed. What’s up with that?

Leftist intellectuals saw the New Deal as a good thing. Likewise, the President Obama fascist facts are: Use the government to coerce people into preferred behavior. Use the environmentalist movement as a smokescreen for taking more control of the citizens and funding pet projects. Back a socialist health care movement taking 20% of a free economy and putting it under government control. Did our congress representing only 20 percent of the people do this without even reading (or writing for that matter) the 2,500 pages of the act? Wow! Now, that is an example of fascism. They don’t care what the law says as long as it means more government control.

American progressive thinking has a fascist
mindset! “Enlightened” (anointed) leaders and technocrats like this Obama piece of work rejoice in taking away individual choice and the use of the power of the state to sway peoples moral and material well-being without even asking. The anti-messiah is here! We elected him to the highest office in the land! Every law, regulation, rule, code, ordinance, permit fee, fine, citation, ticket, tax, influence, politician, bureaucrat, ambassador, agency and even lobbyist behind the anti-capitalist push for socialism and wealth redistribution is in an unholy marriage with fascism when they reach these exorbitant levels. They are not following the CONSTITUTION. The new Republican platform says every law and act proposed will reference and point out the specific language in the Constitution enabling and validating it. YES! I’ll believe it when I see it.

The Federal Reserve and many in both parties of your government are in on a new-world-order/one-world-government 100 year long conspiracy. They don’t care how it’s done or how long it takes. There I’ve said it. OUR FREEDOM FAVORING FOUNDING FATHERS would not believe what TYRANNY is going down. Read the book, THE CREATURE FROM JEKYLL ISLAND 1994, by G. Edward Griffin if you don’t believe me. Banksters as big brother. Every word is true.

What we have today is one big “PRICE FIX! It’s not FREEDOM. If you tell me what to do and back it up with the police power of penalty of jail time or fine you are “fixing the market.” LIBERTY goes out the window and a little more fascism leaks in under the door. Of course, you get the increased prices, waste and and inefficiency of bigger and bigger government in the bargain. Government was only 6 percent of the economy before the 1930’s depression. Here in the middle of a deflation economy leading into the GREATER DEPRESSION the parasite that is government at all levels sucks in over 25 percent of the wealth. Government employment was up 10% last year, while business unemployment rose 10%. Who is getting bigger and more top-heavy here? Where does it end? Where do you draw the line and get the nightmare to stop and reverse?

All this government has lead to a credit inflation mania blow off commensurate with a 96% loss of value of the money in 100 years time. A huge deflation economy and the GREATER DEPRESSION are the only cure for credit inflation. Even fiat money leading to inflation is a tax for gods sake. Credit inflations always end in a deflation economy and depression, by the way.

Let’s just not abdicate more freedoms and let government get bigger in this depression.

Free markets and free money (private gold money – not government paper gold – ha!) are best for job creation. Gold money would keep everyone honest. It’s not someone else’s debt. Small limited government would mean society would have to take up the slack and peer pressure people into behaving. Religion and the blinding light speed of the Internet would fill the vacuum of reduced government. New grassroots services and individuals could be “whistle blowers” and “squeaky wheels” and “Squawker Geese” pointing out potential problems and “bad apples.” Don’t cockroaches scatter when you turn the light on them? Same with a dirty politician, a fraudulent businessmen and a control freak International Monetary Fund.

Go Libertarian! Contract out a smaller government to the lowest bidder. Keep an army though.

When “God is dead” again you can bet law-making killed him. Don’t let a President Obama fascist fraud fool you. Is this guy even a citizen? Where is his birth certificate? Impeach this fascist fanatic Barack Hussein Obama!

Copyright 2010 by http:www.deflationeconomy.com Reprint rights and use OK with attribution back

Delwyn Lounsbury – THE DEFLATION GURU is and Eagle Scout. He has been an award-winning real estate agent with Coldwell Banker in California since 1969. Get FREE DOWMLOAD 90 page “Deflation eBook” at: http;//www.deflationeconomy.com. Email: delwynlounsbury@aol.co d

{ 0 comments }

US Judge Rules ObamaCare Unconstitutional

by tyankee7 on August 24, 2016

Obamacare facts differ from some of the misconceptions being promoted. The debate over the Affordable Care Act or ACA is a contentious one. However, regardless of how one feels about the Act, it is important to understand the facts and debunk the myths about the law.

Although it is sometimes derided as a government takeover of health care, the Act does not replace private insurance with government health care. It does add new regulations to private insurance companies. However, this is a far cry from socialized medicine, as the bulk of insurance will still be provided by for profit companies.

The individual mandate portion which was upheld by the Supreme Court is misunderstood. Some people think it means a person could be sent to jail if they do not buy insurance. This is not true.

The law actually provides subsidies for families earning up to four hundred percent of poverty level, so even a family of four that makes ninety thousand dollars a year could receive a partial subsidy. Furthermore, households that are too impoverished to file federal income taxes (for example, a married couple making nineteen thousand dollar a year) would be exempt from the mandate on hardship grounds.

The penalty for not purchasing insurance is small and the enforcement mechanism weak, Initially in 2014, the penalty is only 95 dollars annually. By 2016 it increases to 2.5 percent of household income or 695 dollars, whichever is greater. But even then it is only enforced by taking money out of a tax refund. Wages will not be garnished and fines will not be assessed otherwise.

Some more Obamacare facts are that insurance providers can no longer refuse to cover somebody because of a pre-existing health condition. They also must refund you if they do not spend at least 85 percent of their proceeds on actual coverage. In addition, children can stay on their parents policies until they are 26 or older.

A Florida federal judge, Justice Roger Vinson of the U.S. District Court in Pensacola, Florida ruled, 1/31/2011, that the thinking behind the 2700 page, $ 938 billion health reform bill passed last year – the individual mandate – is illegal. Right. You heard me – the entire Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act – ObamaCare unconstitutional. Typically, they put a severability clause in legislation so that if one part of the law is held to be unconstitutional the rest stands. Guess what! They didn’t put in that clause. Judge Roger Vinson bravely followed long standing precedent and case law in ruling ObamaCare unconstitutional.

Justice Vinson wrote, “Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void.. This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications…”

There was a similar ruling by Judge Henry Hudson in Virgina last year and 26 states have joined in a suit seeking to overturn the bloated bill that would take 16 percent of the American economy and put it under historically inefficient governmental control.

Judge Henry Hudson in an earlier ruling had found that to force citizens to buy only government insurance and then fine them if they didn’t was actually a tax. President Obama has consistently maintained that it was not a tax. Liar!

The United States Constitution does not force someone to do something they were not already doing. “It would be a radical departure from existing case law to hold that Congress can limit inactivity under the Commerce Clause… Everyone must participate in the food market…under this logic, Congress could (mandate) that every adult purchase and consume wheat bread daily. If they didn’t buy wheat bread they might have a bad diet which would put a strain on the health care system,” Vinson writes.

Then he gave another analogy, “Congress could require that everyone above a certain income threshold buy a General Motors automobile – now partially government owned – because those who do not by GM cars (or those who buy foreign cars) are adversely impacting commerce and a taxpayer-subsidized business. The individual mandate exceeds Congress’ commerce power, as it is understood, defined and applied in the existing Supreme Court case law.”

U.S. Representative Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyoming) issued this, “A federal judge in Florida confirmed today what I have been hearing all over Wyoming – President Obama’s budget-busting health care law simply does not pass constitutional muster. The ObamaCare mandate, which is central to the President’s health care law, represents an unprecedented overreach that encroaches on the rights guaranteed to all Americans under the Constitution. Today’s ruling hit the bull’s-eye.”

Next step is for the case to go the Supreme Court where Justice Anthony Kennedy is the swing vote. This probably won’t happen in 2011 and the mandate element of this unconstitutional ObamaCare doesn’t kick in until 2014. There is still time for you to lobby against the Obama administration tyranny. President Obama has appointed two left leaning judges recently to the Supreme Court of our land.

What if you were a young person struggling to start a business and made the decision to not pay to join the unconstitutional ObamaCare because you needed every cent to keep it going? You would be fined plus have to pay the policy. Dark ages all over again! Is debtor prison next?

There is bound to be health care rationing in a deflation economy and Greater Depression. Reduced property, sales, income and capital gains tax revenues due to the downturn will hurt city, county and state government the most since they cannot print money. The U.S. government will, however, be stressed to the max in a depression three times as large and three times longer than the 1930’s depression. Plan on it! This will lead to long lines, long waits and denial of service because of age. The economic reality of deflation and the Greater Depression will cause governments at all levels to tighten their belts.

No matter how bad the deflation economy and Greater Depression gets we need to protect out Constitution from being further eroded by statist socialist subterfuge if we want any freedom and liberty at all. Free enterprise is the only system that works. President Obama policies of monetary stimulus, government regulation, increased taxes and bashing business will only make the Greater Depression worse. Government run Medicare and Medicaid are already projected to bankrupt our whole country as all the baby boomers retire, live longer and have health issues. Don’t let them do this ObamaCare unconstitutional dirty-work. Stop the government power-grab!

Copyright 2011 by Delwyn Lounsbury – THE DEFLATION GURU
Use of this article allowed with attribution back to:
http://www.deflationeconomy.com

Free 90 page DOWNLOAD “Deflation Guidebook” at: http://www.deflationeconomy.com Delwyn Lounsbury – THE DEFLATION GURU is an Eagle Scout

As the ObamaCare plan faces negative feedback in the midterm elections, and if the republicans capture the majority, many ponder the fate of Illinois medical insurance policies. The polls illustrate that 30 percent of Americans, who participated in the AP’s Poll, surveyed by Stanford University and sponsored by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation commend ObamaCare and all the terms of the Patient Protection Affordability and Care Act PPACA)). Others are concerned about America’s financial stability, the medical profession’s future coupled with the quality of medical care.

At the moment, Illinois medical insurance agencies may not reject children under the age of 19, who suffer from a pre-existing medical condition. The legislation became effective in September. In turn, the vast majority of top Illinois medical insurance companies dropped child only policies.

Other health plans, where enrollment began after March 23trd, have to abide by the incorporated laws, deeming it essential to raise premiums in order to shield future losses. On the contrary, some republican pundits are of the opinion that the health reform bill requires major revisions.

Most Illinois health insurance representatives praise the newly enforced laws. Cholesterol testing, and cancer screening are now a required component of all Illinois medical insurance plans. These preventative health benefits, which became another requirement last month, would most likely be an irreversible benefit.

“That’s at least $ 2000 worth of out of pocket expenses. Since, this new policy went into effect, our clients understand the value of Illinois medical insurance benefits. As a result, the premiums reflect a percentage of these new benefits,” reveals Michael Novelli, president of IllinoisLifeandHealth.com.

Aside from making preventative health benefits and coverage for children with preexisting conditions, another required component of Illinois medical insurance is coverage for dependent children until 26 years old.

As health care companies have to offer all these benefits, coupled with the legality of taxing Americans, who do not have medical insurance sometime in 2014, market research publis0oohed by the Associated Press that 40 percent of the pollsters are not in favor of ObamaCare. The state of Missouri, Florida and 20 other states are taking the federal government to the Supreme Court, questioning the constitutionality of the enactment of ObamaCare.

Nevertheless, Mr. Novelli speculates: “Even if ObamaCare is repealed current benefits for children, preventative care as well as the rescission laws should not be discontinued from Illinois medical insurance plans.

IllinoisLifeandHealth.com provides complimentary illinois medical insurance quotes, advice and a wealth of information regarding Illinois medical insurance. Bookmark the site for the latest news, resources and no obligation quotes, online.

{ 0 comments }

Facts Surrounding The Motion To Repeal Obamacare

by tyankee7 on August 22, 2016

There is a massive plot to repeal Obamacare by their rivals, the republicans. The vote to such a bill will be significantly symbolic. This is owed to the fact the fact that the Senate is largely occupied by the Democrats. The same assembly has supported to remove the decree during the congress that is prepared for a reelection.

The Senate Democratic leaders condemned their counterparts for proceeding with, yet, another reverse vote. This happened after the Supreme Court ruled that the major provisions were actually constitutional. This makes it more difficult for reversal of the decree before June 2013.

The intricacies are hinged on three victories that the Republicans are compelled to have. First, Mitt Romney will be compelled to defeat Obama. Secondly, they will have to gain majority of the House and thirdly, they will have to win most of Senate seats. This will enable them to have a good number of their own members in the right positions.

Many people opposed to the law are quite enraged. This follows the ruling of the high court on Thursday which upheld the enactment. This included the controversial individual directive to buy health insurance. On the other hand, the supporters are ecstatic, having prepared themselves for defeat.

This has seen the law taking a center stage even in the ongoing presidential campaigns as well as Senate races and the House. The Republicans, Mitt Romney (the presidential candidate) included, insist to remove and replace the act. On the contrary, for any law to defund or overturn it, the GOP must be in control of the two Houses of congress so as to be able and take over White house as well.

With the determination to repeal Obamacare, republican have to brace themselves for tough times ahead. Even though they are burning with the ambition, they have to know that it would not be a walk in the park. They have to be equipped with well thought, clear cut and intelligent strategies.

Although United States citizens without health insurance may have initially found President Obama’s new health care mandate appealing, a motion to repeal Obamacare is underway. This is because, upon further evaluation, it has been discovered that this new regulation may not offer the advantages its proponents claim. Below are a few of the most obvious reasons for the controversy currently surrounding the plan.

The President has repeatedly assured American’s that those who are happy with their current health insurance will not lose their plan under the new regulations. However, this may not be the case after all. Studies concluded in 2011 found that almost 50 percent of United States employers plan to drop or change the health insurance plans they offer after 2014.

Such studies have also concluded that over 60 million United States citizens could lose their employee-sponsored benefits through this regulating of private industry with regard to medical insurance. Numerous moderate sized business proprietors stated that they would save a greater amount of money by paying the government-imposed penalties associated with this regulation than they would if they provided the required medical coverage.

Additionally, many Americans have legitimate concerns about the effect of this mandate on new job growth. The latter is in the worst decline the country has seen since the Great Depression. The United States Chamber of Commerce conducted recent surveys that indicated 73% of small business owners blame the recent mandate on their inability to expand and offer additional jobs to the American public.

This can have no other outcome than to encourage the decline of job opportunities. Federal courts have ruled that the individual mandate ordering U. S. Citizens to purchase health coverage or pay a fine, and the regulation of private industry are unconstitutional. For this reason, on Wednesday, July 11, 2012, House lawmakers voted to repeal these regulations.

A recent Gallup poll survey published in USA Today shows that United State’s citizens overwhelmingly believe that both mandates are a breech of the American constitution by a margin of 72-20 percent, with eight percent undecided. Regardless of the current mandates set forth by president Obama, the decision to repeal Obamacare or accept it will ultimately be determined by the citizens of the United States.

Get involved in Repeal Obamacare now by joining our group at Doctors Against Obamacare.

Obamacare facts differ from some of the misconceptions being promoted. The debate over the Affordable Care Act or ACA is a contentious one. However, regardless of how one feels about the Act, it is important to understand the facts and debunk the myths about the law.

Although it is sometimes derided as a government takeover of health care, the Act does not replace private insurance with government health care. It does add new regulations to private insurance companies. However, this is a far cry from socialized medicine, as the bulk of insurance will still be provided by for profit companies.

The individual mandate portion which was upheld by the Supreme Court is misunderstood. Some people think it means a person could be sent to jail if they do not buy insurance. This is not true.

The law actually provides subsidies for families earning up to four hundred percent of poverty level, so even a family of four that makes ninety thousand dollars a year could receive a partial subsidy. Furthermore, households that are too impoverished to file federal income taxes (for example, a married couple making nineteen thousand dollar a year) would be exempt from the mandate on hardship grounds.

The penalty for not purchasing insurance is small and the enforcement mechanism weak, Initially in 2014, the penalty is only 95 dollars annually. By 2016 it increases to 2.5 percent of household income or 695 dollars, whichever is greater. But even then it is only enforced by taking money out of a tax refund. Wages will not be garnished and fines will not be assessed otherwise.

Some more Obamacare facts are that insurance providers can no longer refuse to cover somebody because of a pre-existing health condition. They also must refund you if they do not spend at least 85 percent of their proceeds on actual coverage. In addition, children can stay on their parents policies until they are 26 or older.

Get involved in Repeal Obamacare now by joining our group at People Against Obamacare.

{ 0 comments }

Despite a Detroit judge’s confirmation about the constitutionality of individual Michigan health insurance, certain residents fret over the ramifications of a repeal. With the primary elections, a quarter away, along with the conclusion of Governor Jennifer Granholm’s term, concern over the fate of Michigan health insurance is mounting, should ObamaCare be repealed.

Stanford University conducted an AP Poll about ObamaCare, sponsored by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The survey results indicated a 30 percent satisfaction rating for the Patient Protection Affordability and Care Act (PPACA) and ObamaCare.

An analysis conducted by the Levin Group calculated that or an estimated $ 3.3 billion in tax credits would impact 860,000 Michigan families in 2014. Households, ranging from $ 30,000 and $ 90,000 would not have to spend more than 4 percent of their income for Michigan health insurance.

In spite of the obvious Michigan health insurance benefits, certain Republican candidates, such as Bill Schuette, who is running for Michigan Attorney General, oppose the government spending and implications of ObamaCare asserts that the health reform bill requires an overhaul or repeal.

Most Michigan insurance representatives commend the newly enforced provision for preventative care. Cholesterol testing and cancer screening are two vital inclusions with all Michigan health insurance plans. These preventative health benefits were added to the ObamaCare or PPACA’s requirements last month.

“That’s an estimated value of $ 2000 of out-of-pocket expenses. Since, this new policy went into effect, our clients understand the value of Michigan health insurance benefits. Premiums account for a percentage of these benefits,” articulates Michael Novelli, president of MichiganHealthandLife.com.

Coverage for children who suffer from a preexisting medical condition, preventative health benefits, coverage for dependent children until 26 years old as well as new rescission laws demarcate the amendments to Michigan health insurance.

As health care agencies have to extend these benefits, along with the tax breaks scheduled for 2014, market research published by the Associated Press illustrates 40 percent dissatisfaction with t ObamaCare. Mr. Novelli speculates: “Even if ObamaCare is repealed current benefits for children, preventative care as well as the rescission laws should remain a constant for Michigan health insurance policies.

MichiganHealthandLife.com provides hassle-free Michigan health insurance

Despite a Detroit judge’s confirmation about the constitutionality of individual Michigan health insurance, certain residents fret over the ramifications of a repeal. With the primary elections, a quarter away, along with the conclusion of Governor Jennifer Granholm’s term, concern over the fate of Michigan health insurance is mounting, should ObamaCare be repealed.

Stanford University conducted an AP Poll about ObamaCare, sponsored by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The survey results indicated a 30 percent satisfaction rating for the Patient Protection Affordability and Care Act (PPACA) and ObamaCare.

An analysis conducted by the Levin Group calculated that or an estimated $ 3.3 billion in tax credits would impact 860,000 Michigan families in 2014. Households, ranging from $ 30,000 and $ 90,000 would not have to spend more than 4 percent of their income for Michigan health insurance.

In spite of the obvious Michigan health insurance benefits, certain Republican candidates, such as Bill Schuette, who is running for Michigan Attorney General, oppose the government spending and implications of ObamaCare asserts that the health reform bill requires an overhaul or repeal.

Most Michigan insurance representatives commend the newly enforced provision for preventative care. Cholesterol testing and cancer screening are two vital inclusions with all Michigan health insurance plans. These preventative health benefits were added to the ObamaCare or PPACA’s requirements last month.

“That’s an estimated value of $ 2000 of out-of-pocket expenses. Since, this new policy went into effect, our clients understand the value of Michigan health insurance benefits. Premiums account for a percentage of these benefits,” articulates Michael Novelli, president of MichiganHealthandLife.com.

Coverage for children who suffer from a preexisting medical condition, preventative health benefits, coverage for dependent children until 26 years old as well as new rescission laws demarcate the amendments to Michigan health insurance.

As health care agencies have to extend these benefits, along with the tax breaks scheduled for 2014, market research published by the Associated Press illustrates 40 percent dissatisfaction with t ObamaCare. Mr. Novelli speculates: “Even if ObamaCare is repealed current benefits for children, preventative care as well as the rescission laws should remain a constant for Michigan health insurance policies.

There is a massive plot to repeal Obamacare by their rivals, the republicans. The vote to such a bill will be significantly symbolic. This is owed to the fact the fact that the Senate is largely occupied by the Democrats. The same assembly has supported to remove the decree during the congress that is prepared for a reelection.

The Senate Democratic leaders condemned their counterparts for proceeding with, yet, another reverse vote. This happened after the Supreme Court ruled that the major provisions were actually constitutional. This makes it more difficult for reversal of the decree before June 2013.

The intricacies are hinged on three victories that the Republicans are compelled to have. First, Mitt Romney will be compelled to defeat Obama. Secondly, they will have to gain majority of the House and thirdly, they will have to win most of Senate seats. This will enable them to have a good number of their own members in the right positions.

Many people opposed to the law are quite enraged. This follows the ruling of the high court on Thursday which upheld the enactment. This included the controversial individual directive to buy health insurance. On the other hand, the supporters are ecstatic, having prepared themselves for defeat.

This has seen the law taking a center stage even in the ongoing presidential campaigns as well as Senate races and the House. The Republicans, Mitt Romney (the presidential candidate) included, insist to remove and replace the act. On the contrary, for any law to defund or overturn it, the GOP must be in control of the two Houses of congress so as to be able and take over White house as well.

With the determination to repeal Obamacare, republican have to brace themselves for tough times ahead. Even though they are burning with the ambition, they have to know that it would not be a walk in the park. They have to be equipped with well thought, clear cut and intelligent strategies.

Get involved in Remove Obamacare now by joining our group at Citizens Against Obamacare.

{ 0 comments }

Protests target Confederation Cup match in Rio

RIO P JANEIRO (AP) — A lot more than 5,000 anti-government protesters marched Sunday close to the Maracana stadium before a significant worldwide soccer match, ventilation their anger concerning the vast amounts of dollars the Brazilian government is investing on major sporting occasions instead of public services.See all tales about this subject

MAMPU Needs To Lessen Government Investing By 20 Percent

Kl, This summer 1 (Bernama) — The Malaysian Administrative Modernisation and Management Planning Unit (MAMPU) needs to have the ability to reduce government investing by 20 percent following a mandate given because the driver for Access Point Project Two-One (EPP2-1) — Information and Communications TechnSee all tales about this subject

Point &lifier CounterPoint: Should government cut back?

Would you support government investing to correct, maintain and upgrade public infrastructure like streets? Otherwise, who should pay to help keep streets along with other public infrastructure who is fit?See all tales about this subject

{ 0 comments }

The Many Real Dangers of Soaring National Debt

by tyankee7 on June 30, 2013

The Numerous Real Risks of Soaring National Debt

Authorities debt has nearly bending since Leader Obama required office. Recent progress toward lowering the annual budget deficit is welcome, yet federal debts are still forecasted to improve 50 % within the next decade—and then rise quickly thereafter—under existing guidelines.See all tales about this subject

Sovereign bond cuts on agenda

European government authorities look set to get rid of the backing of the greatest number of creditors, with a few of the region’s banks prone to trim the €1.72tn they own in low-yielding government debt in coming quarters, inside a bid to enhance profitability.See all tales about this subject

India to market $7.15 billion indebted quotas to foreign traders

India will auction Rs420.22 billion in unused government debt limits to foreign traders on June 20See all tales about this subject

{ 0 comments }

Abenomics will fail if Japan doesn’t address its debt problem. Here’s the important answer

Japan’s government debts are so excessive that, some way, many think it is going to default. But there is a way Japan can start sloughing off its debt and growing its economy: by privatizing …See all tales about this subject

Condition Bank Pares Debt Holding to enhance Profit: Corporate India

Condition Bank asia, the nation’s biggest loan provider, stated make money from purchase of opportunities will discover a “substantial” jump following the rupee’s plunge motivated the organization to accelerate selling its government debt holdings.See all tales about this subject

Soaring National Debt Remains a Grave Threat

Authorities debt has nearly bending since Leader Obama required office and it is forecasted to improve 50 % within the next decade—and then rise quickly thereafter—under existing guidelines.See all tales about this subject

{ 0 comments }

People from other countries Leave U.S. Government Bonds in April

Foreign traders left U.S. government debt in April and were internet retailers of lengthy-dated U.S. investments for that third consecutive month.See all tales about this subject

Fitch: Inflation, Government Intervention, and Capital Controls Test Argentine Corporates

Strong capital structures mitigate inflation, government intervention, capital controls and limited use of debt marketplaces for Argentine corporates, according to a different Fitch RatingSee all tales about this subject

Yields rise as traders dump government debt papers

GOVERNMENT debt yields in the secondary market a week ago rose following a massive foreign sell-off in Asian marketplaces and Bangko Sentral’s unchanged financial policy.See all tales about this subject

{ 0 comments }