[PAULYPOKER]

●The more budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes.
●Until the 99% understand the need for federal deficits, the 1% will rule.
●To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments.
●Austerity = poverty and leads to civil disorder.
●Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.

[PAULYPOKER]

Okay, explained like you're a five year-old (well, okay, maybe a bit older), without too much oversimplification, and (hopefully) without sounding too biased:
What people call "Obamacare" is actually the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. However, people were calling it "Obamacare" before everyone even hammered out what it would be. It's a term mostly used by people who don't like the PPACA, and it's become popularized in part because PPACA is a really long and awkward name, even when you turn it into an acronym like that.
Anyway, the PPACA made a bunch of new rules regarding health care, with the purpose of making health care more affordable for everyone. Opponents of the PPACA, on the other hand, feel that the rules it makes take away too many freedoms and force people (both individuals and businesses) to do things they shouldn't have to.
So what does it do? Well, here is everything, in the order of when it goes into effect (because some of it happens later than other parts of it):
(Note: Page numbers listed in citations are the page numbers within the actual document, not the page numbers of the PDF file)
Already in effect:

• It allows the Food and Drug Administration to approve more generic drugs (making for more competition in the market to drive down prices) ( Citation: An entire section of the bill, called Title VII, is devoted to this, starting on page 747 )
  
• It increases the rebates on drugs people get through Medicare (so drugs cost less) ( Citation: Page 216, sec. 2501 )
  
• It establishes a non-profit group, that the government doesn't directly control, PCORI, to study different kinds of treatments to see what works better and is the best use of money. ( Citation: Page 665, sec. 1181)
  
• It makes chain restaurants like McDonalds display how many calories are in all of their foods, so people can have an easier time making choices to eat healthy. ( Citation: Page 499, sec. 4205 )
  
• It makes a "high-risk pool" for people with pre-existing conditions. Basically, this is a way to slowly ease into getting rid of "pre-existing conditions" altogether. For now, people who already have health issues that would be considered "pre-existing conditions" can still get insurance, but at different rates than people without them. ( Citation: Page 30, sec. 1101, Page 45, sec. 2704, and Page 46, sec. 2702 )
  
• It forbids insurance companies from discriminating based on a disability, or because they were the victim of domestic abuse in the past (yes, insurers really did deny coverage for that) ( Citation: Page 47, sec. 2705 )
  
• It renews some old policies, and calls for the appointment of various positions.
  
• It creates a new 10% tax on indoor tanning booths. ( Citation: Page 923, sec. 5000B )
  
• It says that health insurance companies can no longer tell customers that they won't get any more coverage because they have hit a "lifetime limit". Basically, if someone has paid for health insurance, that company can't tell that person that he's used that insurance too much throughout his life so they won't cover him any more. They can't do this for lifetime spending, and they're limited in how much they can do this for yearly spending. ( Citation: Page 14, sec. 2711 )
  
• Kids can continue to be covered by their parents' health insurance until they're 26. ( Citation: Page 15, sec. 2714 )
  
• No more "pre-existing conditions" for kids under the age of 19. ( Citation: Page 45, sec. 2704 and Page 57, sec. 1255 )
  
• Insurers have less ability to change the amount customers have to pay for their plans. ( Citation: Page 47, sec. 2794 )
  
• People in a "Medicare Gap" get a rebate to make up for the extra money they would otherwise have to spend. ( Citation: Page 379, sec. 3301 )
  
• Insurers can't just drop customers once they get sick. ( Citation: Page 14, sec. 2712 )
  
• Insurers have to tell customers what they're spending money on. (Instead of just "administrative fee", they have to be more specific).
  
• Insurers need to have an appeals process for when they turn down a claim, so customers have some manner of recourse other than a lawsuit when they're turned down. ( Citation: Page 42, sec. 2719 )
  
• Anti-fraud funding is increased and new ways to stop fraud are created. ( Citation: Page 699, sec. 6402 )
  
• Medicare extends to smaller hospitals. ( Citation: Starting on page 344, the entire section "Part II" seems to deal with this )
  
• Medicare patients with chronic illnesses must be monitored more thoroughly.
  
• Reduces the costs for some companies that handle benefits for the elderly. ( Citation: Page 492, sec. 4202 )
  
• A new website is made to give people insurance and health information. (I think this is it:http://www.healthcare.gov/ ). ( Citation: Page 36, sec. 1103 )
  
• A credit program is made that will make it easier for business to invest in new ways to treat illness by paying half the cost of the investment. (Note - this program was temporary. It already ended) ( Citation: Page 830, sec. 9023 )
  
• A limit is placed on just how much of a percentage of the money an insurer makes can be profit, to make sure they're not price-gouging customers. ( Citation: Page 22, sec. 1101 )
  
• A limit is placed on what type of insurance accounts can be used to pay for over-the-counter drugs without a prescription. Basically, your insurer isn't paying for the Aspirin you bought for that hangover. ( Citation: Page 800, sec. 9003 )
  
• Employers need to list the benefits they provided to employees on their tax forms. ( Citation: Page 800, sec. 9002 )
  
• Any new health plans must provide preventative care (mammograms, colonoscopies, etc.) without requiring any sort of co-pay or charge. ( Citation: Page 14, sec. 2713 )

1/1/2013

• If you make over $200,000 a year, your taxes go up a tiny bit (0.9%). Edit: To address those who take issue with the word "tiny", a change of 0.9% is relatively tiny. Any look at how taxes have fluctuated over the years will reveal that a change of less than one percent is miniscule, especially when we're talking about people in the top 5% of earners. ( Citation: Page 818, sec. 9015 )

1/1/2014
This is when a lot of the really big changes happen.

• No more "pre-existing conditions". At all. People will be charged the same regardless of their medical history. ( Citation: Page 45, sec. 2704, Page 46, sec. 2701, and Page 57, sec. 1255 )
  
• If you can afford insurance but do not get it, you will be charged a fee. This is the "mandate" that people are talking about. Basically, it's a trade-off for the "pre-existing conditions" bit, saying that since insurers now have to cover you regardless of what you have, you can't just wait to buy insurance until you get sick. Otherwise no one would buy insurance until they needed it. You can opt not to get insurance, but you'll have to pay the fee instead, unless of course you're not buying insurance because you just can't afford it. (Note: On 6/28/12, the Supreme Court ruled that this is Constitutional, as long as it's considered a tax on the uninsured and not a penalty for not buying insurance... nitpicking about wording, mostly, but the long and short of it is, it looks like this is accepted by the courts) ( Citation: Page 145, sec. 5000A, and here is the actual court ruling for those who wish to read it. )

Question: What determines whether or not I can afford the mandate? Will I be forced to pay for insurance I can't afford?
Answer: There are all kinds of checks in place to keep you from getting screwed. Kaiser actually has a webpage with a pretty good rundown on it, if you're worried about it. You can see it here.
Okay, have we got that settled? Okay, moving on...

• Small businesses get some tax credits for two years. (It looks like this is specifically for businesses with 25 or fewer employees) ( Citation: Page 138, sec. 1421 )
  
• Businesses with over 50 employees must offer health insurance to full-time employees, or pay a penalty.
  
• Insurers now can't do annual spending caps. Their customers can get as much health care in a given year as they need. ( Citation: Page 14, sec. 2711 )
  
• Limits how high of an annual deductible insurers can charge customers. ( Citation: Page 62, sec. 1302 )
  
• Cut some Medicare spending
  
• Place a $2500 limit on tax-free spending on FSAs (accounts for medical spending). Basically, people using these accounts now have to pay taxes on any money over $2500 they put into them. ( Citation: Page 801, sec. 9005 )
  
• Establish health insurance exchanges and rebates for the lower and middle-class, basically making it so they have an easier time getting affordable medical coverage.
  
• Congress and Congressional staff will only be offered the same insurance offered to people in the insurance exchanges, rather than Federal Insurance. Basically, we won't be footing their health care bills any more than any other American citizen. ( Citation: Page 81, sec. 1312 )
  
• A new tax on pharmaceutical companies.
  
• A new tax on the purchase of medical devices.
  
• A new tax on insurance companies based on their market share. Basically, the more of the market they control, the more they'll get taxed.
  
• The amount you can deduct from your taxes for medical expenses increases.

1/1/2015

• Doctors' pay will be determined by the quality of their care, not how many people they treat. Edit: a_real_MD addresses questions regarding this one in far more detail and with far more expertise than I can offer in this post. If you're looking for a more in-depth explanation of this one (as many of you are), I highly recommend you give his post a read.

1/1/2017

• If any state can come up with their own plan, one which gives citizens the same level of care at the same price as the PPACA, they can ask the Secretary of Health and Human Resources for permission to do their plan instead of the PPACA. So if they can get the same results without, say, the mandate, they can be allowed to do so. Vermont, for example, has expressed a desire to just go straight to single-payer (in simple terms, everyone is covered, and medical expenses are paid by taxpayers). ( Citation: Page 98, sec. 1332 )

2018

• All health care plans must now cover preventative care (not just the new ones).
  
• A new tax on "Cadillac" health care plans (more expensive plans for rich people who want fancier coverage).

2020

• The elimination of the "Medicare gap"

.
Aaaaand that's it right there.
The biggest thing opponents of the bill have against it is the mandate. They claim that it forces people to buy insurance, and forcing people to buy something is unconstitutional. Personally, I take the opposite view, as it's not telling people to buy a specific thing, just to have a specific type of thing, just like a part of the money we pay in taxes pays for the police and firemen who protect us, this would have us paying to ensure doctors can treat us for illness and injury.
Plus, as previously mentioned, it's necessary if you're doing away with "pre-existing conditions" because otherwise no one would get insurance until they needed to use it, which defeats the purpose of insurance.
Whew! Hope that answers the question!
Edits: Fixing typos.
Edit 2: Wow... people have a lot of questions. I'm afraid I can't get to them now (got to go to work), but I'll try to later.
Edit 3: Okay, I'm at work, so I can't go really in-depth for some of the more complex questions just now, but I'll try and address the simpler ones. Also, a few I'm seeing repeatedly:

• For those looking for a source... well, here is the text of the bill, all 974 pages of it (as it sits currently after being amended multiple times). I can't point out page numbers just now, but they're there if you want them.
  
• The website that was to be established, I think, is http://www.healthcare.gov/.
  
• A lot of people are concerned about the 1/1/2015 bit that says that doctors' pay will be tied to quality, not quantity. Because so many people want to know more about this, I've sought out what I believe to be the pertinent sections (From Page 307, section 3007). It looks like this part alters a part of another bill, theSocial Security Act, passed a long while ago. That bill already regulates how doctors' pay is determined. The PPACA just changes the criteria. Judging by how professionals are writing about it, it looks like this is just referring to Medicaid and Medicare. Basically, this is changing how much the government pays to doctors and medical groups, in situations where they are already responsible for pay.

Edit 4: Numerous people are pointing out I said "Medicare" when I meant "Medicaid". Whoops. Fixed (I think).
Edit 5: Apparently I messed up the acronym (initialism?). Fixed.
Edit 6: Fixed a few more places where I mixed up terms (it was late, I was tired). Also, for everyone asking if they can post this elsewhere, feel free to.
Edit 7: Okay, I need to get to work. Thanks to everyone for the kind comments, and I hope I've addressed the questions most of you have (that I can actually answer). I just want to be sure to say, I'm just a guy. I'm no expert, and everything I posted here I attribute mostly to Wikipedia or the actual bill itself, with an occasional Google search to clarify stuff. I am absolutely not a difinitive source or expert. I was just trying to simplify things as best I can without dumbing them down. I'm glad that many of you found this helpful.
Edit 8: Wow, this has spread all over the internet... and I'm kinda' embarrassed because what spread included all of my 2AM typos and mistakes. Well, it's too late to undo my mistakes now that the floodgates have opened. I only hope that people aren't too harsh on me for the stuff I've tried to go back and correct.
Edit 9: Added a few citations (easy-to-find stuff). But I gotta' run, so the rest will have to wait.
Edit 10: Adding a few more citations (it'll probably take me a while to get to all of them) and a few more additional entries as well.
Edit 11: Tons more citations!
Edit 12: I updated this with a reference to the recent court ruling on the mandate, and address the question everyone seems to be asking about it ("What if I can't afford to buy insurance?")
Edit 13: Okay, I've started up a "Obamacare" Point-By-Point, where I'm starting to go through the bill point by point and summarize it in the same order that everything is actually in the bill, so that hopefully, when I'm done, you can just use my version as a sort of Cliff's Notes version of the bill. Whether or not I continue doing this depends on how much interest people have in it, but I figured I'd let you guys know about it here.

• permalink

[–]a_real_MD 449 points 8 days ago

Doctors' pay will be determined by the quality of their care, not how many people they treat.

Doctor here. I'm seeing a lot of questions about how exactly this will be implemented and what it will mean for physicians and patients. I will do my best to explain what's already happening, and what will happen in the future. The basic idea is that there will be an established list of "ideal care" criteria that must be met, and reimbursement will be adjusted accordingly. This is already happening, but in a different form.
What we have now
There are several groups that come by to certify and accredit hospitals based on a set of national guidelines. The major group for Hospital accreditation is the much-feared Joint Commission (http://www.jointcommission.org/stand...ion/npsgs.aspx) who comes by every so often and performs an intensive review of the hospital and it's policies and outcomes which are then compared to their National Patient Safety Goals. Public quality reports are generated based on their results and accreditation is granted. Here is the public report for UCSF, for example: http://www.qualitycheck.org/qualityr...95#comparative. They identify deficiencies and mandate swift policy changes to ensure adherence to guidelines.
Even more feared and applicable is CMS, The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (http://www.cms.gov/). CMS also comes by and performs an intensive review of the hospital's outcomes and adherence to nationally established safety guidelines. For example, as part of the SCIP (Surgical Care Improvement Project), they will look at how often patients received their dose of pre-operative antibiotics within 1 hour prior to incision. CMS knows what the national average adherence rate among hospitals is and thus, can quickly identify centers that are not compliant. Non-compliant centers are generally notified of their deficiencies formally and then must quickly remediate or risk losing Medicare/Medicaid reimbursements, the loss of which would essentially kill any hospital.
The reason I mention these groups is because they are already beginning to extrapolate on their national data collection programs, as I will detail below.
What's to come
The nationalized accreditation and quality monitoring groups such as CMS and The Joint Commission already know how well hospitals are doing regarding established patient safety measures. What's next is the providers. Already, mandatory reporting regarding provider outcomes is beginning. For example, Dr. Johnson, who is a Surgeon, will have to report his average operative time for a cholecystectomy and his post-operative wound infection rate. If he falls below a certain percentile nationally, his reimbursement will be negatively affected. If he is in say, the top 10% nationally, he will receive a small bonus (this is the tentative plan as I've heard it from the higher-ups at my hospital).
How this will work for primary care is a little murkier. The general consensus seems to be that they will try to reimburse based on a similar set of nationally defined "quality measures" like they are using for hospital accreditation, Medicare center status, etc. For example, is Dr. Smith keeping his patient's HbA1C below 7.0%? (An indication of good long-term diabetes control). Is he keeping his patient's LDL less than 100? So on and so forth.
This all seems like a great idea on the surface, but without putting my own opinions into this, I offer the following scenarios for your consideration:

1. Dr. Smith and Dr. Johnson are both primary care physicians. They both have 10 identical patients with diabetes, for whom each physician prescribes the exact same, evidence-based, standardized diabetes protocol. 4 of Dr. Smith's patients are non-compliant with their insulin regimens, despite optimal counseling and the best efforts of Dr. Smith, thus their HbA1C values will be above the cutoff that qualifies them for a "good outcome." In the end, medication compliance is a patient choice which cannot be controlled by the physician and although Dr. Smith did everything right from a medical standpoint, those patients will be red-flagged and reimbursement decreased.
   
2. Dr. Unlucky is a cardiologist, and Bill is a patient of his with Congestive Heart Failure. Bill is receiving the evidence-based optimal medical management for his CHF (Carvedilol, ACE inhibitor, etc). Bill has been counseled extensively on the importance of a low sodium diet and careful fluid intake because of his CHF. Bill is a Cleveland Browns fan and they make it to the Superbowl for the first time since god only knows. Bill has a Superbowl party with his buddies and eats a ton of potato chips and drinks a few beers and ends up in the hospital with a CHF exacerbation. Dr. Unlucky is now dinged for a hospitalization for CHF exacerbation for a patient under his care, which will be reported and affect his pay.

It's situations like this that are worrying physicians. I urge you to remember these are just example scenarios, to give you, the reader, pause to consider what could be a greater problem.
What criteria will comprise these quality of care outcomes remains to be seen, so no one knows yet exactly how it will look, but believe me when I say that it's not the mandate that's the game-changer, it's what I've discussed above. This will fundamentally alter the face of the medical field, whether it's for better or for worse remains to be seen. Hopefully this was helpful.

[PAULYPOKER]

US States Filing State Sovereignty Laws

Executive Summary- In the USA states have rights under the US constitution. These rights are those not specifically delegated to the Federal Government and those specifically not prohibited from being exercised by the States in the Constitution. In recent years the USA has been seriously infringing on the rights of the individuals and the States. Now on the heels of the financial crisis, which is still ongoing and even increasing in magnitude, the States (20 of them) are putting their foot down and saying no to the Federal Government. They are stating that the Federal Government has no right to govern the States in a way that restricts their rights under the constitution.
The areas of concern seem to be mainly spending but the various bills in the different States do focus on numerous other issues. The states have been mandated to increase state payroll to comply with federal laws. Now the states are going broke but they do not have the ability to print money like the Federal Government does, so they are in a more serious form of trouble. Please not the Federal Government is trying to bailout the States to put them back to sleep.
Other concerns brought out in the States right legislation are abortion being forced on the States who do not approve of this practice, infringement of right to own guns, certain guns, and ammunition, the Real ID Act telling them how to do the States driver licenses (some states have already flat out refused to comply), and a warning to the Federal Government not to suspend the constitution, and not to declare martial law without the permission of the States. The Arizona bill has jail sentences for any Federal official who violates their rights. Hawaii has a bill that essentially puts them out of the Union. Several other States have been trying to pass legislation to drop out of the USA as well. New Hampshire has a bill that is warning the Federal Government that if they infringe on States rights they will consider the Federal Government invalid since it violates the very document that empowers it and thus reaffirm the constitution, and elect a new congress and president but they do need 2/3 of the States in agreement to do this and that is not so far away.
There are 20 states with such bills now (almost 50%) and the number is growing. It will be interesting to see if these bills move forward, get enacted and if the Federal Government listens to them or resorts to violence to enforce their will on the states. It is felt that Obama is too insecure, too new and too inexperienced to have to deal with something like this but as the case may be he may have to deal with it. Since Obama is a minority he could trigger serious discrimination riots if he plays this wrong. A lot of people who were gravely offended by the Bush violation of civil rights will push against Obama very hard to test his mettle and see if he will reverse what Bush did. So far no good. Obama is sticking to “Extraordinary Rendition” which is where the USA kidnaps people without any due process from any country in the world and detains them without any trial, lawyers etc.
Bush was a scary character and many felt if he were threatened he would invoke martial law, suspend the elections and lo and behold a USA version of Chavez would be born. If Bush did this it would undoubtedly have been an ugly scenario for many. Obama contrary to his campaign promises pushed his financial rescue bill through, all 1000 pages without any member of Congress having any time to really read it. Obama did not accept comments as he said he would either. One could say Obama was in a mad rush to keep order in the country but everyone knows if this were the case Obama could have just went to direct grants or suspended the income tax for a few month etc. Obama did not want the people to think that a suspension of income tax was possible because then it would never come back easily. Same for grants. They do not want the people to know such a thing is possible. It looks like Obama is conditioning the people to shut up and take what he dishes out. Let’s see how the states do in their fight for freedom and if Obama gets shaken enough to give the people back some of the rights Bush took away.


Discussion – Arizona, New Hampshire and other States are waking the people up to the actual document that empowers the federal government called the constitution. Arizona is saying that if they are joined by 34 other states they can re-affirm the constitution, elect a new Congress and a New President. This is essentially a peaceful overthrow of the Federal Government. A weak novice like Obama is a great asset to those seeking a revolution of any sort. If you were going to do a peaceful overthrow of the Federal Government he is exactly the guy you want in the White House. Obama is failing fast and the people are getting the idea that they have been had. If you are out of work and cannot pay your bills three months is a long time and Obama is talking about years. He does not have years. The people do not have years. Being homeless, without health insurance etc is life threatening.




Implications - Not so sure about the success of this one but it does show revolution is in the air in the USA. The USA is a divided country. There is a lot of racial strife and prejudice. There is a lot of hatred concerning sexual rights, religious rights, abortion, firearms, and a number of other issues. They have several languages in the USA – English, Spanish, Cantonese and Mandarin. This always hurts a country. They have 12 to 20 million illegal aliens not paying taxes, taking work from out of work citizens and getting public benefits they do not pay for. The USA is fighting wars they cannot afford to fight far away from their shores. They are still playing world policeman, which again they have never been appointed to this role by anyone and they cannot afford it. Their own country is in shambles with bank failures, high unemployment, people unable to afford medical care or insurance for this, their real estate market is crumbling, the people have debt they cannot pay, jobs are being lost by the millions, their states are facing bankruptcy, the stock market and pensions have taken a big beating and it is getting worse daily.
Crime is high, prisons are overcrowded, their streets are generally not safe, and drug addiction is widespread. The USA is a country where people do not even know where the Indian Ocean is and many would not be able to show you where Washington D.C. is on a map. A large percentage of the USA is illiterate. Millions are in prison. Millions are on one or another form of public welfare or assistance. In other words a large percentage of the USA is so uneducated they have no idea of what the constitution is, let alone having ever read it. Forget about reading it and understanding it. Another large part of the USA is being supported by the government and can care less about anything as long as their check comes every week they are happy. There is a small but growing part of the population that wants to take back their country and restore their civil rights. In their first revolution only 15% of the population got active in the revolution. Many just sat by and watched the two sides fight it out, neutrality if you will.
I think the USA government has way more than 15% of their country mad at them to the point of wanting a real change, not an Obama change. Later on with States rights comes the talk of declaring the Federal Reserve System an illegal Ponzi scheme and the states will nullify that debt thus taking the burden of the national debt off of the people. This will hurt at most a few hundred bankers. If you kill the Federal Reserve you kill the IRS too. How many Americans have you ever met who are not working for the US government or being supported by them who think the IRS is a good thing. Probably none. The ones that work for the US Government, or the state governments or are being supported by these governments cannot carry the load; they are service employees intended to service those that work productive jobs. The government employees cannot be the top of the food chain, it is ridiculous to have it this way but that is what they have now.
Kill the federal debt relieving 300 million people at the expense of a few bankers, this is easy to sell to people out of work, being foreclosed on and scared about being homeless and dying in the streets. Who operated a flawed system that caused all of this grief to start with anyway? Remember Bush caused a world wide economic crisis and many countries are really mad and they too would welcome an end to this financial madness that the USA dishes out. If the States get out from under the debt to the private Federal Reserve then the US dollar will be defunct, the bonds worthless and it can get very dramatic all over the world. BY the way if the States cancel the debt to the Federal Reserve those with mortgages will just have title to their homes and the same for financed cars since the banks will be closed and out of business. This is an easy sell, compared to what Obama is offering, Got it! Just wait a bit and watch. This is a peaceful easy revolution not requiring any heroics; guts or fighting that benefits the people as a whole.
It seems the states right campaign embraced in 20 states so far can really get legs and run. More states will join in. The states, which have a majority of the people on public welfare or government payrolls, will not want this. The large corporations are so screwed up they will probably secretly support the change. They will get out from under their bank loans and being to sprint out of the box into profitability quite easily. The Federal Government has regulated them into the ground. They are facing bankruptcy. They know the bailout is not going to do much good in the long run. They know the debt load on the people after the bailout is going to mean way more taxation and the government just keeps growing. Whatever is left of the unions is scared. They will want change.
A Russian of some renown not too long ago predicted the USA would break up into four or five countries. This seems plausible. If the States cannot get a majority of 35 States to confirm the Constitution, and elect a new Congress and President they may just group together in clusters and drop out of the USA forming their own nations individually or in clusters. This is similar to what happened in the USSR. It is very doubtful that any of these newer nations would continue to pay the Federal Reserve debt. The USA has no recourse against them; war is out since they are their own people. The Federal Reserve Bank will just have to accept that they had a good run for almost 100 years and it came to an end. They bankrupted countless others and so it came back to them and they go bankrupt.




Warning – The mainstream media will not carry these stories regarding States rights. Look to the alternative media for updates. If this goes and they eventually dissolve the Federal Reserve the money of the USA will need changing. They will probably go to gold and silver direct as per the constitution. You could take a big hit if just holding dollars. Diversify with several currencies, real estate in multiple countries, foreign money markets, foreign government bonds (the ones not heavily holding US monetary reserves or debt), gold, silver, diamonds, collectables, etc. The transition will be tough but what Obama offers is real tough with no light at the end of his tunnel. A new government without the Federal Reserve debt has a bright light at the end of the tunnel.
The new nations will go to a more constitutional government with a government that would be about 5% in size per capita as the one that they have now. The government would serve the people not the other way around. They will stick to the constitution and not tax income. They will be tax and privacy havens par excellence. Government would have precious little ability to tell the people what to do other than no stealing, no murder etc. Freedoms would abound. Law and order would be enforced with serious consequences for violators to keep the streets very safe. Businesses without all the red tape, regulations, taxes etc would flourish. Exports would soar. Their goal would be to minimize imports. They would start growing crops again. They would close their borders. Inflation and deflation would be a thing of the past. The government would not be able to fluctuate the money supply like now causing depressions and inflation.




Parting Thought – When the people have no ability to go to the doctor when they or their children are sick it is a sign that change is coming. When 6900 people a day get foreclosed on it is a sign that change is coming. When 3 million people lose their jobs in one year it is a sign that change is coming. In 2009 the first month tally for lost jobs was 600,000. We are now seeing articles about white-collar homelessness. This means college educated people are becoming homeless due to a lack of work. It will be worse as the year progresses.
There maybe as many as 5 or 6 million jobs lost during 2009. This means change is coming. When people cannot pay their electric bills, heating bills, buy gasoline, make their car payments, keep their phone on, keep their Internet on etc it is a sign that change is coming. The USA is a country with more guns than people. No one really knows how much ammunition is stored in homes but many people have several thousand rounds of ammunition. If change has to come better it comes peacefully and the States rights method is a great way to start over and fix things. The law Obama is signing will not do much and it will take a long time.
People are very quickly getting off the Obama bandwagon. Probably a lot faster than Obama realized. He inherited an overwhelming mess. Obama did not cause the problem. Maybe no one could fix it. The obvious conclusion here is change. States rights is actually a way to effect change through the system. If the Federal Government goes to direct grants to the people to let them pay their bills, pay off their mortgages, provides free healthcare coverage, suspends income taxes etc then the people will calm down and be patient since the help will be on the way in days not years. If this bill Obama will sign does not work (it is expected to not do much at all) in a couple of months he may be forced to go the direct way, if they have that much time and if they can afford to keep printing money.
Remember before they lose control of the country they will print massive amounts of money, hyper inflation when they are in control is better than losing control. Well let’s wait and watch but in the meantime watch your assets and remember the former USSR and the breakup. Don’t think it cannot happen to the USA, especially since 20 states already have drafted legislation in process.

[paco]

Sounds good. Why are people against it?

[PAULYPOKER]

Sounds good. Why are people against it?

I can't speak for anybody but myself,this is why I'm against it...........


●The more budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes.
●Until the 99% understand the need for federal deficits, the 1% will rule.
●To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments.
●Austerity = poverty and leads to civil disorder.
●Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.

[Trident]

You really need to get out more.

[PAULYPOKER]

Sounds good. Why are people against it?

Opponents of the law -- a majority of Americans, according to polls -- claimed the mandate was nothing short of the federal government intruding on the private lives of citizens. While the high court was divided on this issue, the majority ruled that Congress' taxing power was more important.

There are many Americans who believe the U.S. has headed down the slippery slope to a British-style health care system and while leftists believe its a good idea, several horror stories in the United Kingdom show the dangers of socialized medicine.

Syndicated radio talk show host attorney and director of the Landmark Legal Foundation Mark Levin reported that an investigation of a British health care facility revealed horrible conditions including hundreds of deaths and unsanitary conditions.
Levin, who served as chief of staff at the U.S. Justice Department during the Reagan Administration, stated on the night edition of his highly rated show that the British Secretary of Health Andy Burnham commissioned a probe of a medical facility. The probe revealed a shockingly high death rate at that hospital.
According to the report -- which confirmed the earlier findings of a March 2009 probe -- 400 to 1,200 patients died from 2005 to 2008 while at the medical center Mid-Staffordshire NHS.
The probe revealed that aside from the disturbing high rate of deaths in that health care facility, the investigators discovered neglect because the hospital cut corners in a bid to reach government targets. Britain possesses a socialized medical system that includes targeted cost savings at the expense of patients' well-being.
For example, the evidence gathered by the inquiry shows clearly that for many patients the most basic elements of care were neglected. Calls for help to use the bathroom were ignored and patients were left lying in soiled sheeting and sitting on commodes for hours, often feeling ashamed and afraid. Patients were left unwashed, at times for up to a month.

[PAULYPOKER]

So-called anti-corporate crusader Michael Moore reacted with glee to the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Obamacare, despite the fact that the bill was written primarily by the very insurance companies Moore claims to oppose.

[frogsrangers]

No one is going to read all that crap

We get it, you love Ron Paul

[FuzzyDunlop]

You really need to get out more.

Nope, more people need to seek information on sites like Reddit before turning on the tube. Having a place where millions of people come together to discuss, research, analyze and democratically vote on what information is the most relevant to a topic is an incredibly effective way to acquire information.

[PAULYPOKER]

No one is going to read all that crap

We get it, you love Ron Paul

^You have no clue whatsoever about me...............

[Balco10]

Obama supporters still don't get he is a communist. He is out to destroy America! Most dangerous man in the USA! Another Jimmy Carter, but more left.

[PickWinnerAllDay]

Sounds good. Why are people against it?

Medical care will get worse overall. Trust me on that.

[FuzzyDunlop]

Medical care will get worse overall. Trust me on that.

Worse than dead last?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/...65M0SU20100623

[PAULYPOKER]

Medical care will get worse overall. Trust me on that.

Again, your overall view is severely limited............

[muldoon]

Opponents of the law -- a majority of Americans, according to polls

Yet when asked about specifics, people supported it. Seems weird. Oppose something, but when given details (like the list you posted at the start) they support it.

Very weird indeed

[PAULYPOKER]

Yet when asked about specifics, people supported it. Seems weird. Oppose something, but when given details (like the list you posted at the start) they support it.

Very weird indeed

Exactly........

[Thor4140]

No one is going to read all that crap

We get it, you love Ron Paul

Typical neo-con. Refuse to read something and live by sound bites from misleading people. If it wasn't so sad it would be hilarious.

[TheBayouBengal]

Thank You for sharing.

[ChalkyDog]

I can't speak for anybody but myself,this is why I'm against it...........


●The more budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes.
●Until the 99% understand the need for federal deficits, the 1% will rule.
●To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments.
●Austerity = poverty and leads to civil disorder.
●Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.

Assuming this is the same as the original post - I will go out on a limb and say this has nothing to do with the bill. Just some grandiose ideaological ideas.

Good though.

[ChalkyDog]

Also, to be fair to Pauly - I applaud him for adding something actually meaningful to the conversation. The media is doing a terrible job, and is in fact making it so much worse than it has to be. The left is making overbroad statements of its usefulness and the right are making it sound like this will bankrupt the nation.

Doing what media does, using polarizing talking points that have next to nothing to do with the subject matter. Unfortunately, the public at large never takes the time to understand the issue and just simply go along with their like minded idealogues spouting BS from their favorite news channel.

[PAULYPOKER]

Assuming this is the same as the original post - I will go out on a limb and say this has nothing to do with the bill. Just some grandiose ideaological ideas.

Good though.

This has everything to do with the bill,it is part of the many anti sovereign underlying effects........

[ChalkyDog]

This has everything to do with the bill,it is part of the many anti sovereign underlying effects........

Meh, we can argue about the wealth of nations all we want. Fact is, it has little to do with the actual cost of the bill.

Simple regulation of an industry. Student loans were recently taken over by the fed, and absolutely regulated. As a result, I can no longer continue my education. If the fed got involved before I finished school, I would be flipping burgers with two bachelor degrees in social sciences.

Unfortunately, the student loan bubble is going to burst, and burst hard. They are only mitigating the damage. Much worse than the housing crash when it happens.

Regulation. Expanding the pool. Health insurance industry is getting rich off this bill.

[PAULYPOKER]

Meh, we can argue about the wealth of nations all we want. Fact is, it has little to do with the actual cost of the bill.

Simple regulation of an industry. Student loans were recently taken over by the fed, and absolutely regulated. As a result, I can no longer continue my education. If the fed got involved before I finished school, I would be flipping burgers with two bachelor degrees in social sciences.

Unfortunately, the student loan bubble is going to burst, and burst hard. They are only mitigating the damage. Much worse than the housing crash when it happens.

Regulation. Expanding the pool. Health insurance industry is getting rich off this bill.

So what are you going to do about it?

[ChalkyDog]

So what are you going to do about it?

Nothing, I have a job with health insurance. This effects me for nothing.

My brother has been benefitted from it, as he has been able to remain on my dads healthcare while he is in school. Gets too keep it for a few more years.

In Arizona, a family friend of mine who was kicked off of Medicade, might get another shot to get back on - but I doubt this state will go back to where it was 2 years ago.

Like I said, not that big an issue in the scheme of things. The Medicade base isn't expanding. The "tax" is optional, as in you only get "taxed" on opting out of the mandate. I am sure we will have to kick in a few bucks to help pay for the credits to the low income earners, but it is worth it.

I am of the opinion, that I am willing to pay for better teachers and roads. I prefer social infrastructure to the alternative. I am not well to do, but I have been poor and without health care - and it is terrible.

Kids should not be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions. Nobody should. I understand that it will cost more. I am willing to pay.

[PAULYPOKER]

Nothing, I have a job with health insurance. This effects me for nothing.

My brother has been benefitted from it, as he has been able to remain on my dads healthcare while he is in school. Gets too keep it for a few more years.

In Arizona, a family friend of mine who was kicked off of Medicade, might get another shot to get back on - but I doubt this state will go back to where it was 2 years ago.

Like I said, not that big an issue in the scheme of things. The Medicade base isn't expanding. The "tax" is optional, as in you only get "taxed" on opting out of the mandate. I am sure we will have to kick in a few bucks to help pay for the credits to the low income earners, but it is worth it.

I am of the opinion, that I am willing to pay for better teachers and roads. I prefer social infrastructure to the alternative. I am not well to do, but I have been poor and without health care - and it is terrible.

Kids should not be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions. Nobody should. I understand that it will cost more. I am willing to pay.

This is the very reason this country will loose all freedoms,people who are taught by design to only care about their own personal materialistic false egos instead of their own true nature..........

[ChalkyDog]

This is the very reason this country will loose all freedoms,people who are taught by design to only care about their own personal materialistic false egos instead of their own true nature..........

What exact freedoms did we lose with this bill? Or am I reading that wrong?

Natural rights are academic. The guise of safety trumps them all.

[The Kraken]

Anyone that smokes should be denied coverage for any pre-existing codition related to smoking amd any illneses that may affect that person after coverage begins. Same with obesity and people eating like shit. Tax payers are picking up the bill for these people. I am being double whammied because I pay hogher dedutibles as well. At some point we have to say you can keep your personal freedoms like smoking, drinking and eating like shit but dont come looking for someone to pay your tab come closing time.

[PAULYPOKER]

What exact freedoms did we lose with this bill? Or am I reading that wrong?

Natural rights are academic. The guise of safety trumps them all.

You will see, stay tuned or start searching for truth, you are an intelligent man.............

The Anti populace rights plan is simple to see, but you have to look into it on your own to grasp the reality of it..........

I can't tell you the truth,you have to realize it...........

[ParlayininHTown]

This sucks. If there's a mandate, it needs to be as part of a single-payer system ... something that resembles what they have in Canada.

Honestly, I want my only "health insurance" or "health care" payment each year to come when I have to pay my taxes in April. It simplifies things for me.

[PAULYPOKER]

Anyone that smokes should be denied coverage for any pre-existing codition related to smoking amd any illneses that may affect that person after coverage begins. Same with obesity and people eating like shit. Tax payers are picking up the bill for these people. I am being double whammied because I pay hogher dedutibles as well. At some point we have to say you can keep your personal freedoms like smoking, drinking and eating like shit but dont come looking for someone to pay your tab come closing time.

Obesity/heart disease/cancer/diabetes/ETC is caused by the "american all for profit diet",where have you been?

[PAULYPOKER]

Typical neo-con. Refuse to read something and live by sound bites from misleading people. If it wasn't so sad it would be hilarious.

This is his list of top political forum posters,need I say more?

5 Best

1. Sam Odom - Always hits the nail on the head when it comes to politics and doesn't over do it
2. no gnu taxes - Might post a bit too much, but he is always right
3. frogsrangers - Might be bad taste to put me in here, but I have owned many leftists on this forum so it wouldn't be fair not to put me

[Gdog]

Thanks for taking the time to post this. I had some "facts" confused and misunderstood a few things

[PAULYPOKER]

Thank You for sharing.

Thanks for taking the time to post this. I had some "facts" confused and misunderstood a few things

You're welcome

[rickbo528]

All the people that think they will be getting all this "free stuff" forever are gonna have that dear in the headlights look down the road. Maybe I missed it but nobody talked about the 21 taxes associated with Obamacare. It already costs double what they said originally. A better estimate will be multiply the original estimate by at least 5. Name one government program that hasn't cost exponentially more than they sell this to you at. For that matter name one program the government runs efficiently. Never has, never will. This kind of debt that will be run up by this is UNSUSTAINABLE!!!!!!!!!! When the debt reaches 100% of GDP what do you think will happen. Where will all the Doctors come from to handle all the supposed 30 million additional people. My Dr is 52 and he told me he is quitting if this is all fully implemented and he won't be by himself. Where my wife works the HR people have hinted that it would be much more cost effective to drop coverage and pay the penalty.... oh I forgot, the TAX!!!!!! That will throw us into the wonderful world of those state medical exchanges. Just imagine the wonderful efficiency those will be run with. The lies and bribery the Democrats used to ram this thru with under reconcilliation is absolutely despicable. So good luck people cause you will definitely need it.