September 11, 2013

The above video clip is from Alex Jones' interview of Hollywood producer and documentary filmmaker Aaron Russo, which was conducted on January 29, 2007, seven months before his death. Russo tells the story of his friendship with Nick Rockefeller and what he learned from him. He goes in depth on the astounding admissions of Rockefeller, who told him that the global elite's ultimate goal was to get everyone microchipped so that they could have absolute power and control. Rockefeller told him that "if someone got out of line, they would just turn off their chip." Russo and Rockefeller's friendship ended before September 11, 2001. Russo was diagnosed with bladder cancer in 2002; he died on August 24, 2007.

Obamacare, Wall Street, RFID Chips and 666

By Whiteout Press
March 5, 2012

There’s a strange convergence occurring in America today that is more than lending itself to millennia-old conspiracy theories that say a handful of evil men are going to take over the world and usher in the second coming of Christ. What could cause religious leaders, Wall Street executives, the US federal government and healthcare providers nationwide to unite under one single, well-defined goal? As crazy as it sounds, some think the answer is the Mark of the Beast.

There’s a new world on the doorstep of humanity that will revolutionize life as we know it. It’s called the RFID chip and it’s already here.


Two decades ago, Dr. Carl W. Sanders blew the lid off a multi-pronged effort to develop a microchip, not for any electronics device, but for a human being. As a lead engineer and consultant to corporations like IBM, General Electric, Honeywell and Teledyne, Dr. Sanders had spent most of his life on the cutting-edge of microchip technology.

As Sanders tells NEXUS Magazine in 1994, 
“Thirty-two years of my life was spent in design engineering and electronics – designing microchips in the bio-med field. In 1968, I became involved almost by accident, in a research and development project in regard to a spinal bypass for a young lady who had severed her spine. They were looking at possibly being able to connect motor nerves.”
Dr. Sanders went on to explain,
“There were one hundred people involved and I was senior engineer in charge of the project. The project culminated in the microchip that we talk about now – a microchip that I believe is going to be the positive identification and the Mark of the Beast.” 
At one point toward the end of the doctor’s efforts, he describes,
“We noticed that the frequency of the chip had a great effect upon behavior and so we began to branch off and look possibly at behavior modification.”
Sanders explains further saying,
“One of the projects was called the Phoenix Project which had to do with Vietnam veterans. This chip would actually cause extra adrenaline flow. I was in one meeting where it was discussed, ‘how can you control a people if you cannot identify them’?”
M.A.R.C (of the) B.E.A.S.T.

Back in the late 1980’s, a number of underground pamphlets warning of the coming of the anti-Christ were being widely distributed among America’s various underground political and religious movements. Members of the religious community had reportedly crossed paths with government whistleblowers and the result was the MARC and the BEAST.

MARC allegedly stood for, ‘Multi-Area Readout Chip’, while BEAST allegedly stood for, ‘Battle Engine Area Simulation Technology’. The two components were relics of the 1970’s that were being accused of creating the system and methodology for ushering in Armageddon. In theory, the MARC would be a microchip implanted into every American citizen, followed by every global citizen, while the BEAST was the super-computer that read and processed the massive amount of data.

Start with pets

In 1993, a well-executed PR campaign was launched across America’s mainstream media touting the latest technology to aid pet owners. The blockbuster advancement was a tiny microchip that could be implanted into every pet in the US. If or when an animal is lost, simply scanning for the microchip would lead to an instant location and recovery of the much beloved pet. The idea spread like wildfire.

In one article from a local paper called the Prescott Courier dated July 8, 1993, the article describes the process by which the local town veterinarian is implanting microchips into area pets. The 1993 article announces, ‘Star Wars for pets has arrived in Prescott’. The report goes on to quote Dr. Elaine Chambers confirming that ‘more than a million animals in the United States have had the microchips implanted since 1991’. Keep in mind, the article is from July 1993.

Walmart and Procter & Gamble

While the above was going on, a parallel advancement was occurring on Wall Street. RFID chips, the size of a grain of rice, could revolutionize the entire way Americans shop, pay and conduct everyday business. The chips also had the potential to provide brands and their corporate owners more consumer information than they could ever dream. Retailers discovered they could lay off practically their entire workforce and still function.

During those early days, not many understood the concept of RFID technology, what it meant to the world of business and what the very near future would look like.

The two largest corporations in America’s manufacturing and retailing industries had understood. Together, Walmart, Procter & Gamble and a half dozen hand-selected corporations embarked on what they called the first phase of the coming transition to RFID technology. At the time, Walmart warned its suppliers that they would only have a couple years to adapt to the technology or be excluded from the world’s largest retailer.

What those corporations envision is a new world, unimaginable to most Americans.

Here is a brief run-down of what the typical citizen can expect.

RFID practices of today
  • Shopping. Imagine walking into your local store, any store, and there are no employees. Every single product in the store has a small RFID chip embedded into it. Every movement of every product, including the shopper, is transmitted by the RFID chip, through the scanner, into an off-sight computer. Stores and brands will know if their product was picked up, looked at and put back. They’ll know if their item was left at the register as the result of a last-minute change of heart. They’ll know when one of their items falls behind a counter or is on the floor.
And they’ll follow those products all the way to your house where they’ll watch and record your every interaction with those products to get a better understanding of your habits. Current laws force corporations to stop monitoring shoppers via the chips the instant the products leave the store. How well brands and the information-hungry agencies are adhering to the laws is unknown.
  • When you walk out of the store, the RFID scanner mounted above the exit will automatically scan all your items and your personal RFID chip and deduct the charges from your assigned bank account. Without lines, employees or transactions, the shopping experience is much cheaper, quicker and more convenient.
  • Inventory. As each item leaves the store, the retailer’s computer will deduct it from the shelf count. When the shelf runs low, the computer will automatically order more product from the manufacturer’s computer. Delivered and placed with authoritarian precision, robots retrieve the new product and restock the shelves. The computer also knows when a product expires. With the guidance of the RFID chip, the computer can retrieve the spoiled merchandise and remove it from the shelves. In reality, every major online retailer already uses these robots and technology in their warehouses.
  • Your own personal RFID chip. Most of you already have one. It’s already embedded in your credit cards and cell phones. Some states are trying to put them into drivers licenses. Pay attention for local news articles about shoppers being charged for items they didn’t buy simply because their wallet or purse was too close to the store’s scanner. Criminals are also well aware of the shift in technology. They simply walk past a person with a hand-held RFID scanner, scanning fraudulent purchases on every credit card with a chip. The fact is, both occurrences are happening and they’re happening everyday.
RFID practices of tomorrow
  • Regardless of how many bank accounts or credit lines you have, they will all be processed through your own personalized RFID chip. You have the freedom of setting up your payment methods, frequencies and limits as you choose. But every purchase goes through the chip.
  • Forget a national ID card for voting, driving or personal identification. Your RFID chip is your national ID.
  • Currently, chips are only embedded into pets, credit cards, cell phones, retail products and voluntary people. When the one, government-sanctioned chip is officially assigned, it will either be put in a card and required to be carried at all times, or be embedded into a body part.

In a surprise twist, the Obama administration has embarked on a policy that merges both paths the technology has taken. With the signing into law of a national healthcare program, President Obama created the framework for what could be one, government-mandated, RFID chip for every American citizen.

The root of many critics’ outcries lies in the specific wording of the Obamacare law. A 2010 documentary from the religious right raises concerns saying, 
‘The portion of the law pertaining to eligibility (if you’re covered and how you prove that you are covered) is now found on page 30. It was on page 62 of HR3590, and reads: …in a manner ensuring that such operating rules are effective no later than Jan 1, 2013, and may allow for the use of a machine readable identification card’. 
Opponents fear the national medical ID card will actually be a national ID chip embedded into a useless, but socially acceptable plastic card.

Dr. Laurie Roth

One prominent critic of the government’s plans for RFID chips is Dr. Laurie Roth. Roth is a former PBS producer and currently the host of her own program – The Roth Show. Two weeks ago, Dr. Roth put out a statement condemning the merger of the recently signed National Defense Authorization Act and the gradual implementation of President Obama’s national healthcare program.

In her statement, the doctor warns,
“Obamacare – HR 3200 is unfolding its carnage now – forced RFID chips.” 
Roth draws the obvious correlation between the above-described current practices already in use by corporate giants Walmart and P&G, and merges it with the Obamacare dilemma of assigning a national patient identification number.

Dr. Roth goes on to explain the key correlation,
“This RFID chip, control scheme hides behind all the practical issues and terms; patient identification, health information to hold medical data, do patient surveys and hold records and billing information.”
The Bible

A hesitant fear about the RFID chip, its capabilities and the government’s plan for it is slowly and quietly sweeping the nation. Once a mere conspiracy theory among Christian fundamentalists and anti-government rebels, the idea of the RFID chip being the historic ‘Mark of the Beast’ is now raising its head in more and more circles, but nowhere more so than America’s religious communities.

From the Catholic Bible

Apocalypse 13:16-18 – ‘And it will cause all, the small and the great and the rich and the poor, and the free and the bond, to have a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads, and it will bring it about that no one may be able to buy or sell, except him who has the mark, either the name of the beast or the number of its name. Here is wisdom. He who has understanding, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man; and its number is six hundred and sixty-six.’

From the King James Version

Revelation 13:16-18 – ‘And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.’

Americans Receive a Microchip Implant in 2013 Per Obamacare?

By Paul McGuire
July 23, 2012

A major news story broke on AOL and countless other mainstream news media outlets, this past week, that the Obama Health Care Bill will require all U.S. citizens and babies to receive a microchip or Medchip by March 23, 2013. Whether or not the microchip requirement in the bill is implemented by 2013, remains to be seen.

In 2010, my book “Are You Ready for the Microchip?” was released, and I asked the question, “Is the microchip implant hidden in the Healthcare Bill? Are newborn children starting in 2013 going to receive a microchip shortly after birth?” Then in the book, I wrote,
“In the massive US HEALTHCARE BILL, which your elected representatives voted for without reading, there is a section titled: Subtitle C-11 Sec. 2521 – National Medical Device Registry which states:
“The Secretary shall establish a national medical device registry (in this subsection referred to as the ‘registry’) to facilitate analysis of postmarket safety and outcomes data on each device that—(A) is or has been used in or on a patient; and (B) is a class III device; or (ii) a class II device that is implantable.”
The language is deliberately vague but it provides the structure for making America the first nation in the world that would require every U.S. citizen to receive an implanted radio-frequency (RFID) microchip for the purpose of controlling medical care.

A number of states, like Virginia, have passed “stop the mark of the beast legislation” in an effort to stop this kind of legislation.

As with numerous other things that I have written and spoken about based on solid documentation, I am regularly challenged by some, and especially those in the Christian community, who are clueless about what is going on. Their criticism has never prevented me from presenting the facts because I never take a poll about what I write or speak on. A Christian is called to speak the truth in love, whether or not it is accepted. I am not trying to disparage any ministry, but I don’t determine what I say based on whether or not it is “seeker friendly” or popular. The only issue is, is it true and is it wise to communicate it at that particular time?

There are many things that I could say but don’t because there many people in our nation who, when confronted with a truth that is outside the box of their socially engineered consciousness, go into cognitive dissonance. 

As the microchip implant moves closer day by day, along with the “manufactured crisis” of illegal immigration, the problems of states like Arizona are creating an environment where Senators Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) are moving legislation forward that would require all U.S. workers, citizens and resident alike, to obtain and carry a National Biometric ID Card in order to work within the United States.  

It does not matter where you stand on the issue of amnesty or immigration, everyone is going to have to have a National Biometric ID Card that will eventually contain an RFID transmitter which will allow Big Brother electronic data bases to track all of your personal information. It is a simply a national ID card under another name. The national ID card will transition into a microchip implant because that is technically more efficient. All of this, which is about to happen very soon, is just the tip of the iceberg.

President Ronald Reagan refused to pass what he called this “Mark of the Beast” legislation. In my book, “Are You Ready for the Microchip?,” I examine the careful wording in the Health Care Bill which calls for a Med-Chip and a microchip implant. It was never hidden: it is simply Republican and Democrat, along with our corporate-controlled and Orwellian media, who deliberately chose to ignore it.

The Bilderberg Group gave orders to microchip the entire U.S. population and then the world. Before the Health Care Bill was passed, the target date was set for the year 2013, when every baby born in the U.S. will receive a microchip at birth. Many are attacking President Obama for this, but although it is the Obama Health Care Bill, the microchip plan was created decades ago and put onto the fast track by the Republican Administration of President George Bush and his allegedly “born-again” Attorney General, John Ashcroft, after 911. It seems Ashcroft was more concerned about covering up the breasts of a Lady Liberty statue in the hallway of the Department of Justice than he was about protecting our Constitutional liberties, which include the freedom of religion.

Unfortunately, Evangelical Christians make excellent political pawns because they focus on secondary issues, rather than the important issues. This is because Evangelical Christianity in America today does not have a truly Biblical worldview. I truly do not want to sound unkind, but the historical reality is that Evangelical Christians have played the part of what Lenin called “useful idiots.” Obviously, this is not what God planned for His people. But, by rejecting a Biblical worldview, the Scripture, “My people perish for lack of knowledge,” is fulfilled. The majority of Evangelical Christians in America have a very superficial faith as a result of what they are being taught in many of their churches and seminaries.

The new microchip technology with an RFID chip is so advanced it sounds like science fiction. The Apostle Paul explains how this fits into Revelation 13, where the False Prophet will head a one world religion and force people to accept the mark of the beast. A microchip implant, biochip implant or med chip, in and of itself, is not necessarily the mark of the beast. The mark of the beast under the direction of the False Prophet, requires the conscious rejection of Jesus Christ as Lord and a commitment to worship the Antichrist as God.

The challenge for Christians and others will be the very act of taking a microchip implant, biochip implant or med chip, simply because of its parallel to the Biblical mark of the beast. Will people of faith be exempted for religious reasons or will they be forced to take it or be imprisoned.

In addition, any microchip technology could be activated with enhanced controls after it is implanted. So what starts out as a simple microchip implant could become a technology where, at some future time, you must worship the Antichrist as God and reject Jesus Christ as Lord in order to participate in the economic system. The built-in and evolving capacity of microchip technology makes this a dangerous possibility.

In the final analysis, the simple act of accepting the implantation of a microchip for medical reasons appears harmless on the surface. However, there is no guarantee that once it is implanted, that it will not be activated for mark of the beast technology. This is the danger and challenge that lies before us. 

Byproduct of Obamacare Could Be the Institution of National ID Card

By Frank Whalen
March 28, 2011

The high cost of complying with the new federal healthcare laws, known informally as Obamacare, has been reported in detail by AMERICAN FREE PRESS. But there is another issue that is quickly becoming a hot topic: Who is going to enforce these new, complicated regulations that are being imposed on the American people? The Internal Revenue Service is slated to monitor compliance with the rules, and a proposed national ID card may be just the tool that revenuers need to be able to keep track of everyone.

The Hill reported in March 2010 that the IRS will “handle the increased workload to oversee, administer and collect penalties for people who don’t buy health insurance.” The Capitol Hill daily added that “the Congressional Budget Office expects the IRS will need roughly $10 billion over the next 10 years, and nearly 17,000 new employees to meet its new responsibilities under health reform.”

These are staggering figures, and one might wonder why the Obama administration would allow such a fiscal debacle to tarnish the celebratory passage of a law that has encountered some, but not necessarily enough, congressional resistance.

Allowing for financial surveillance and government sanctioned thievery is almost certainly a significant Obamacare objective. However, with some Americans even questioning the tax code’s legitimacy, IRS involvement by itself doesn’t guarantee revenue from all people. However, a healthcare ID card, something a lot like the well-publicized but delayed Real ID card, would.

In the stated interests of “streamlining medical services” and “avoiding errors” in providing them, such a card could be required for all persons—containing a person’s medical history, financial history and even their criminal history. It would also likely contain biometric information, such as a fingerprint or retinal scan, and perhaps also serve as a drivers license and passport.

While it might be possible to hide from the IRS, dismiss a Social Security number or avoid getting a drivers license, the first time someone gets sick, such a card could very well be required for treatment. Total surveillance of every person in the United States, both legally and illegally, might just be worth these astronomical costs to Big Brother. But with opt-outs and waivers continuing to arise regarding participation in the healthcare reform plan, a major question centers around who will actually pay for this legislation.

Unions, typically a Democratic Party voting base, will get exemptions as they were promised. The Washington Examiner reports:
“There are 166 union benefit funds now exempted from this requirement, which account for about 40 percent of the exempted workers.”
There is also discussion about removing the individual mandate portion by allowing states to create their own healthcare systems. This bipartisan proposal seems to have Obama’s support. However, in a Dec. 14, 2010 article for Bloomberg, Tom Schoenberg and Margaret Fisk wrote, 
“Justice Department lawyers in court papers called the mandatory insurance measure the cornerstone of the overhaul” while attempting to block state challenges to the law.
New York-based news outlet Bloomberg also stated,
“Without payments generated from the required policies, the health-insurance market would face extinction.”
So, how is it possible to sustain such a pricey piece of legislation when the primary sources of revenue are being eroded?

Compounding concerns is the number of additional qualifiers for Medicaid and those who cannot afford other options due to unemployment and poverty. Online news website Newsmax quoted Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) as saying there was a $105 billion appropriation deceitfully hidden in the healthcare reform legislation by Democrats. 
“This is why Speaker Pelosi said we need to pass the bill to know what’s in it,” Bachmann stated.
Removing the individual mandate would eliminate Mrs. Pelosi’s threatened fines and jail time she proposed in her legislation. A November 2009 letter fromthe nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation revealed,
“Americans who do not maintain acceptable health insurance coverage and who choose not to pay the bill’s new individual mandate tax are subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years.”
But the costs to implement this legislation remain. NBC Connecticut revealed in October 2010 that Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield were raising their premiums nearly 50 percent. When Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal questioned this hike, Insurance Commissioner Thomas Sullivan told him,
“These rates reflect the current cost to deliver care and the impact of more comprehensive benefit designs required under the federal healthcare reform law. If the attorney general wants to complain . . . he should complain to Congress.”
In 2010, large companies stated that the healthcare reform bill would bring vast additional expenses on companies that continue to do business in the United States. Boeing claimed its cost would be $150 million, while Caterpillar put its amount at $100 million in the first year alone. John Deere expects a $150 million increase, and AT&T expects to spend an additional $1 billion.

Frank Whalen has been a radio talk show host for the past 17 years, and worked as a consultant for Maxim magazine. To read more from Frank Whalen or to tune in to his radio show, Frankly Speaking, go to his uncensored website at There you will see a vast archive of information on a wide range of topics.

The Obamacare Rabbit Hole

The Illuminati Conspiracy Blog
June 30, 2012

Obamacare is a scam – a delusion to convince the American people to let themselves be suckered into fascist socialist healthcare plan that will increase the profits of the medical conglomerates to new heights.

A great part of the plan consists of ‘end of life’ planning and restrictions on just how much healthcare Americans will have access to – which isn’t going to be much.

But one thing it will do – it will make Americans part of an added surveillance system.

It will require that every American acquire the new smart card national ID congress approved in 2008 – as a health insurance card, of course.

This new Obamacare card will contain very private information like your address, social security number, a description of your appearance, an iris scan, and DNA information, all inside a smart chip card which will also act as a tracker and transmitter.

Like social security, the Obamacare card WILL be eventually used as a national ID.

Obamacare also represents a complete takeover of medicine by a fascist public-private government consortium with absolute authority over how much doctors will earn and even how much capital (clinical space and equipment) they can own.

In other words, the American people will be asked to pay through the nose for an obligatory private health insurance plan (unsurprisingly, there are no restrictions on how much health care plans can charge).

So Americans will be forced to invest in private health insurance plans for which they will pay half while the other half is paid with their own tax dollars.

Obamacare is a win-win for the medical industry, which wrote the plan in the first place.

It is a forceful fascist law with the sole purpose of making money for corporate medical conglomerates through the use of government coercion.

Which is a shocking statement on the present day corporate America – the entire shebang has gone completely fascist!

American corporations see nothing wrong in using government to FORCE the American public into earning them a profit [see Coporatism].

This is criminal power-based fascist behavior, and it is an indicator of just how far American corporations have degenerated.

The end result of Obamacare will be a socialist, European-style health care system under corporate control which will milk, dictate, force, coerce and guide the American public into the health care they are allowed to have instead of the health care they really need.

Because it will be profit-based, it will function in the interests of profit…not health.

The American public will be spoon fed a bare minimum of health care while paying for it through the nose.

Those costing the health care system too much money will be allowed to die or perhaps even be killed (euthanasia).

In its final form, Obamacare will amount to a coercive system under which people will be registered, tracked, numbered, judged, graded, restricted, and forced into all types of invasive procedures like vaccination, DNA registration, iris registration over which they will have no choice.

The likely punishment for refusing to participate in the Obamacare system will most likely start with exclusion from medical attention and eventually increase to suspension of civil rights (driving license, welfare, etc) or imprisonment.

In a very short time, Obamacare will become as obligatory as Social Security, but with a lot more demands and requirements.

The final result of Obamacare will be a hellish coercive socialist medical dystopia, where Americans no longer have any rights over their own bodies and medicine itself is in the hands of an arbitrary fascist authority.

Obamacare: How do you feel about a national identity card and giving the federal government access to your employment, financial and health records?

By Steve
September 28, 2011

Are you prepared to have your medical records turned over to the federal government by private health insurers?

To be accessed by local, state and federal entities to administer existing laws – and exposing your personal data to unionized government workers and hyper-partisan or curious healthcare workers without procedural safeguards and stiff legal penalties for planned or accidental release of an individual’s medical data?

It is not so much that I care that my medical records are used to provide me with superior medical care, but that the same records can be used for denying or pricing other insurance products or influence employment decisions. Or for blackmailing or coercing individuals who have something that they do not want make public. And perhaps being used by hyper-partisans or union-members to influence political actions.

The legislators were derelict in their duty …

If you remember, the 2000+ page outline of what was to become ObamaCare was released to legislators at the last minute and there was no physical way that legislators could read and understand the legislation they were voting on.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi actually stood before the cameras and declared:
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."
Thus a strong prima facie case can be made for dereliction of duty or malfeasance while in office.

Nobody knew the totality of the medical, financial and political implications of the bill when it was signed …

In reality, the bill, written in dense and incomprehensible bureaucratic legalese, mandated that the Secretary of Health and Human Services had the duty to implement the new legislation; creating boards, commissions, rules, regulations and guidelines.


Of course, we have come to learn that the legislation may actually be unconstitutional because it mandates that all citizens must purchase a product from a non-governmental (private) corporation or face penalties. The compliance portion of the law being policed by the Internal Revenue Service.

National Identity Card and Medical Records Database …

In addition, the legislation requires the creation of a national identification card to receive healthcare and a database which will contain details regarding the eligibility, medical, behavioral and financial  affairs of all citizens – and probably non-citizen illegal aliens.


From a Request for Comments by September 28, 2011 as published in the Federal Register …
SUMMARY: This proposed rule would implement standards for States related to reinsurance and risk adjustment, and for health insurance issuers related to reinsurance, risk corridors, and risk adjustment consistent with title I of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, referred to collectively as the Affordable Care Act.

These programs will mitigate the impact of potential adverse selection and stabilize premiums in the individual and small group markets as insurance reforms and the Affordable Insurance Exchanges (‘‘Exchanges’’) are implemented, starting in 2014.
The transitional State-based reinsurance program serves to reduce the uncertainty of insurance risk in the individual market by making payments for high-cost cases. The temporary Federally-administered risk corridor program serves to protect against uncertainty in the Exchange by limiting the extent of issuer losses (and gains).

On an ongoing basis, the State-based risk adjustment program is intended to provide adequate payments to health insurance issuers that attract high-risk populations (such as individuals with chronic conditions).

To see the process of creating this database, let us review how the database will be populated …
5. Data Collection Under Risk Adjustment (§ 153.340)
As described above, a robust risk adjustment process requires data to support the determination of an individual’s risk score and the corresponding plan and State averages.
In paragraph (a) we propose that a State or HHS on behalf of the State, is responsible for collecting the data for use in determining individual risk scores.

HHS considered three possibilities for data collection:
(1) A centralized approach in which issuers submit raw claims data sets to HHS;

(2) an intermediate State-level approach in which issuers submit raw claims data sets to the State government, or the entity responsible for administering the risk adjustment process at the State level; and

(3) a distributed approach in which each issuer must reformat its own data to map correctly to the risk assessment database and then pass on self-determined individual risk scores and plan averages to the entity responsible for assessing risk adjustment charges and payments. [Source]
This approach is analogous to telling a child that they can choose to go to bed NOW or WAIT five minutes. In either case, the child goes to bed within the parent’s chosen time period. Likewise, no matter which option is chosen, your medical records will be forwarded to the federal government where they will be analyzed and used to determine “cost effective best practices.”

The results of this research will be used to insert a bureaucrat between the doctor and their patient which would tell the doctor that your care was to be denied or delayed … or in worst case, counseled on “end of life” choices.

Cost Effective Best Practices don’t always work …

The human body is a complex of individual and overlapping systems and what works for one person many not work for another.

Are you willing to take the chance that your treatment is one of the uncovered outliers that is either too expensive or not effective for the majority cases. Thus curtailing your doctor’s ability to use “experimental” cures or treatments not specifically approved by the Federal Drug Administration or the bureaucrats? Like the breast cancer drug which has been effective for some women, but not all women.

An inherent conflict of interest?

How can you trust any government entity when they have been incentivized to cut back on entitlement costs, especially to relatively non-productive (in a labor sense) senior citizens nearing the end of their lives where cutting back on medical treatment also has a beneficial effect on further Medicare and social security costs?

Privacy, Yeah Right?

How many people remember when a contractor to Health and Human Services lost a laptop containing medical information relating to 50,000 Medicare beneficiaries. Or the government employee whose laptop was stolen from his home – and contained information on 26,500 veterans, spouses and dependents.
For more bad news directly from the source, you can see data breaches involving hundreds of thousands of people at the Health and Human Services website: Breaches Affecting 500 or More Individuals

Competition Killer …

There is little or no doubt in my mind that the government wanted to implement a “one payor” solution where the government was actually your healthcare provider and the actual administration was outsourced to insurance companies and “approved” physicians and facilities.

Since the pricing and proprietary operations of private insurance companies would be exposed to competitors, competition is likely to be stifled rather than encouraged.

A question of power …

By ceding their lawmaking responsibilities and spelling out how things should work, Congress has, once again, empowered the executive branch to usurp its authority – in essence, allowing the Administration to create additional power without constitutional authority.

Bottom line …

The worst part of ObamaCare is the ineptitude of the government. Simply put, they are going to add millions of new patients to the system without a corresponding increase in physicians, facilities, diagnostic devices, durable medical equipment and other critical infrastructure; especially in view of reducing reimbursements for physicians, facilities and supplies.

This is another example of the institutional violation of patient-doctor confidentiality and an unwarranted intrusion into the personal affairs of all Americans.

There is no action that cannot be justified on the grounds of healthcare, from gun control which subverts the Second Amendment, to the violation of the Tenth Amendment by coercing states into performing activities which would be unconstitutional at the federal level simply by withholding taxpayer funds.

We need to elect honest brokers to serve “We the People.” We need to throw out the bums and miscreants who are in the process of destroying what is the world’s best healthcare system to amass political power and control over individuals at their most vulnerable moment – when they are sick or dying. It is bad enough that the state grabs the fruits of your hard labor and prevents it being passed down to your heirs – now they want to hasten the death in death taxes.

Obamacare will require an ID card correct?

‘(i) ELIGIBILITY FOR A HEALTH PLAN AND HEALTH CLAIM STATUS- The set of operating rules for eligibility for a health plan and health claim status transactions shall be adopted not later than July 1, 2011, in a manner ensuring that such operating rules are effective not later than January 1, 2013, and MAY allow for the use of a machine readable identification card.
Page 58: Every person will be issued a National ID Healthcard. Barely True: Section 163 sets out goals for electronic health records. It says one goal should be real-time confirmation of which services a person qualifies for and how much they will have to pay. That could be achieved by machine-readable beneficiary cards, according to the legislative language. But the legislation does not require the cards.


National Health Care Identification Card:

The bill explicitly states that in order for any individual to be eligible for a health insurance plan and health claim status, they will be issued a machine readable national health identification card. All operating rules set forth in the bill for health plan and claim eligibility must allow for the use of this ID card.
The set of operating rules for eligibility for a health plan and health claim status transactions shall be adopted not later than July 1, 2011, in a manner ensuring that such operating rules are effective not later than January 1, 2013, and may allow for the use of a machine readable identification card.” - H.R. 3590 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Page 62
This national health identification card is similar to the Danish national health ID card. It’s just another little trick the federal government will use to render the population manageable.

European Health Insurance Card

To facilitate access to health care for European citizens, the EU member states have issued a European Health Insurance Card. You can find information about the European Health Insurance Card at:
If you are an EU citizen, you can order the blue EU health insurance card by contacting Borgerservice (citizen service) in your municipality. For Copenhagen, the number is 33 66 33 66. If you are a spouse of an EU citizen and you live in Copenhagen, you must contact "Sygesikringen - EU afdelingen" at tel 33 66 33 66 or go to Citizen Service at Nyropsgade 1 between 10 - 14. Here, you must ask for a case worker from "Sygesikringen - EU afdelingen". You must bring your passport and your marriage certificate. If you live outside of the municipality of Copenhagen, you must contact your local Borgerservice.

The blue European health card must be used for trips to another EU member state lasting more than one month. If you have to receive medical attention in a country that charges for health care, you will be reimbursed either immediately, or after you go home to your own country.

If the trip is shorter than one month, you can use either your yellow health card or the blue EU health card.

Denmark's National Health ID Card (known as "The Yellow Card"):

How Will The Obamacare Implantable Chip Option Pass Congress & The American People?

By Short Little Rebel
January 10, 2013

I was thinking about the health care bill that ‘allows’ for implantable devices that would carry a person’s entire data history. Makes me think immediately of a National ID card -- something the GOP has been pushing to ‘control immigration’ for years.  uh, huh..

Both parties are in on this chipping thing AND on the whole unique ID business. If I were a consultant developing the database for these new numbers, I would absolutely recommend a WORLD ID.

We consultants always think 10 years in advance.

A National ID would be too limiting. It’s just logical with the global markets and travel options today.

My prediction: a National ID will be introduced, but it will be run at the UN level. No two people in the world will have the same ID. Concurrently, implantable chips will be recommended and then enforced. 

The first people who will be forced to have these chips will be those who are currently receiving government food stamps, section 8 housing and EBT cards. It will be done to ‘ensure’ against fraud and abuse. Heck, maybe they will throw in mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients to sweeten the pot for conservatives. Drug test results will be stored on the chip. Too many strikes, you’re out!

I have no doubt they will also market this idea as a safeguard against illegal aliens defrauding the welfare system. While they’re at it, why not include protection against voter fraud to get us really excited?  Americans on both side of the aisle will love it. It will be heralded as ‘one good thing the government has done in a long, long time.’

Don’t be one of the sheep. Think long term.
“For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.”- Matthew 24:24

Make the National Health Card a National Voter ID Card as Well

By Denis Kleinfeld,
August 19, 2013

The fact is Obamacare cannot come into existence without there being a national identification method to keep track of 300 million U.S. legal and illegal persons who are already part of the healthcare system.

People already either have private insurance, Medicare, Medicaid or the emergency room.

With Obamacare, all 300 million persons will have to have their healthcare records on the national database computer system.

The same number will be issued at birth and continue until terminated by death.

The Obamacare system is to encompass 50 state exchanges, overseen at least by three federal departments or agencies, including the IRS.

Doctors, hospitals, pharmacies and hundreds of thousands of other service providers, as well as medical device manufacturers and thousands of local, county, state and federal commissions and agencies, all need access to the system.

New rules under Obamacare require that before medical services can be provided, the patient must provide his or her unique health plan identifier.

SmartCare, funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a division of the Department of Health and Human Services, is an already existing national electronic patient and medical records card used in Africa. It is based on everyone having a unique computer number.

It is true that Congress has expressed its displeasure at having an official national identification card. Actually, Congress was in favor of the idea in 1996, but after some major outrage by the public, they then prohibited (but didn't repeal) the idea in 1998.

With the shift of the purpose of a national health system from one of paying for disease treatment to one of promoting health and wellness, records will follow the consumer. They will be needed to be available no matter where the medical consumer will be at any point in time or place.

There are some who argue that this is an invasion of privacy and a violation of the Fourth Amendment. With the disclosures of the National Security Agency on spying, well-supported and funded by both Democrats and Republicans, the Fourth Amendment argument is a dead issue legally, but will likely remain a hot topic for conspiracy bloggers.

What Obamacare does is create a defacto national identity card. It will be a machine-readable plastic card that everyone, young and old, must have or will be denied medical care.

This then is the ideal method of having a verified voter registration card as well.

It is a computer-readable card that will contain the unique numerical identifier for everyone wanting to vote. Any issues of race, creed, color, national origin, sexual preference, voter suppression and all the rest are absolutely irrelevant.

There are no needs for last day voter registration, motor-voter laws or any other of the possibilities of voter fraud that has been a standard part of every election.

Every state will have an insurance exchange and medical registration requirement. The federal government may well not be allowed to have a national voter identification number, but that certainly does not apply to the states.

Every state decides what it takes, subject to the limitations of U.S. Constitution, for a voter to register for elections.

Using a state medical identification number on a verified computer-readable card, all made necessary and coordinated as part of the Obamacare state exchanges, is an ideal way to control or even eliminate voter fraud in elections.

No doubt the juxtaposition of Obamacare and voter identification will cause more than a few politicians to consider or rethink their view of Obamacare for entirely opposite reasons.

The Not So Affordable Obamacare Taxes

Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh, Canada Free Press
July 2, 2012

Political pundits have been eating crow since the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare. Nobody foresaw that the individual mandate to buy insurance would be judged as a tax. Everyone expected the court to find the individual mandate unconstitutional since it would be forcing Americans to buy something as a condition of their mere existence.

Taxes permissible under the Constitution are excise taxes, direct taxes, and income taxes. This “new tax” for the privilege of living in the U.S. falls in neither category. It will be collected by the IRS and given to insurance companies. Is that constitutional? Are we taxing “moral hazard?”

Keynesian economists view insurance, including health insurance, as a protection against risk, a useful commodity like shoes or furniture. Insurance “encourages the very risks against which it provides protection.” If a person owns a valuable item which is insured against theft or destruction, that person has little incentive to protect it and store it in a safe place.
“This problem—the tendency of insurance to encourage the source of risk—is called moral hazard.” (William J. Baumol and Alan S. Blinder, Principles and Policy, 2007, p. 322)
If a person is insured medically and puts little effort into making sure that the risk of getting sick is minimal and runs to the emergency room for minor issues, we should expect an overwhelming of the health care system unless more doctors, nurses, and hospitals are provided. In any case, because millions more Americans and illegal aliens will be added to the insurance rolls, expect huge shortages of drugs, patient care, lab work, x-rays, long waiting lines, extended wait time for tests and surgical procedures, and rationing of care based on age and usefulness to society via complicated formulas. Rationing and death will occur by emergency care not being provided on time, in addition to the deliberate denial of treatment by a 15-member bureaucratic death panel.

The Obamacare case has been presented to the Supreme Court and argued by the administration based on the Commerce Clause -- the government has the right to force Americans to buy insurance, to buy something they do not want. That is how it was expected to be judged.

People were shocked when the Obamacare bill was rewritten by the Supreme Court in order to save it. It was the most glaring, extensive, and expensive example of liberal judicial activism from the bench. Five of the Supremes have redefined purchasing health insurance as a tax although the administration and Congress have gone to great lengths to assure the public that it was not a tax. Yet, now, health insurance is no longer a premium for health insurance provision but a tax.

Health care has never been a right; it has always been a service like any other that we have purchased from a health care provider. It is now an unconstitutional tax that we are forced to pay before a service is even provided to us.

Here is an abbreviated list of taxes on families and businesses introduced by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), known as Obamacare, totalling more than $500 billion over the next ten years as prepared by the Americans for Tax Reform:
  • Excise taxes on charitable hospitals ($50,000 per hospital if they do not meet HHS criteria of “community health assessment needs,” billing and collection,” and “financial assistance” (PPACA, 2010, pp. 1,961-1,971)
  • Codify “economic substance doctrine” (IRS will not allow any legal deductions or tax-minimizing plans because it lacks “substance” and is intended to reduce taxes owed); this is a tax increase of $4.5 billion (Bill Reconciliation Act, 2010, pp. 108-113)
  • “Black liquor” tax on a special bio-fuel (Bill Reconciliation Act, 2010, p. 105)
  • Tax on innovating drug companies (PPACA, 2010, p. 1,971-1,980)
  • Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Increase (PPACA, 2010, p. 2,004)
  • Ten percent tax on indoor tanning (PPACA, 2010, pp. 2,397-2,399)
  • Medicine cabinet tax disallows Americans to use health savings accounts, flexible spending accounts, or health reimbursement pre-tax money to buy over the counter medicines except insulin (PPACA, 2011, pp. 1,957-1,959
  • HSA Withdrawal tax hike from 10 to 20 percent (PPACA, 2011, p. 1,959
  • Employer reporting of insurance on W-2 forms, taxing health benefits on individual tax returns (PPACA, 2012, p. 1,957)
  • Surtax on investment income for families that make at least $250,000 or $200,00 single (Bill Reconciliation Act, 2013, pp. 87-93)
  • Medicare payroll tax increase (PPACA, Reconciliation Act, 2013, pp. 2,000-2,003, pp. 87-93)
  • A 2.3 percent excise tax on medical device manufacturers (PPACA, 2013, pp. 1,980-1,986)
  • Medical expenses can be itemized if they exceed 10 percent, no longer the previous 7.5 percent, resulting in fewer people being able to itemize (PPACA, 2013, pp. 1,994-1,995
  • Flexible spending account cap of $2,500 which is now unlimited (PPACA, 2013, pp. 2,388-2,389)
  • Eliminate tax deductions for employer-provided retirement prescription drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D (PPACA, 2013, p. 1,994)
  • Limit of $500,000 annual executive compensation for health insurance executives (PPACA, 2013, pp. 1,995-2,000)
  • Individual mandate excise tax starting in 2014 if a person does not buy a “qualifying” health insurance, 1 percent in 2014, 2 percent in 2015, 2.5 percent in 2016; exempted are hardship cases as determined by HHS, religious objectors, undocumented immigrants, prisoners, those earning less than the poverty line, members of Indian tribes (PPACA, 2014, pp. 317-337)
  • Employer mandated tax, non-deductible of $2,000 per employee if the employer does not offer health coverage and at least one employee qualifies for a health tax credit; if an employee receives coverage through the government exchange, the employer penalty for that employee increases to $3,000 (PPACA, 2014, pp. 345-346)
  • Tax on health insurers based on premiums collected per year (PPACA, 2014, pp. 1,986-1,993 (this all but forces employers to stop offering insurance, forcing their employees onto the government exchanges)
  • 40 percent excise tax on comprehensive health insurance plans or “Cadillac plans” (PPACA, 2018, pp. 1,941-1,956)
The White House has threatened to veto the Defense Appropriation Bill if it did not include increases in Tricare insurance premiums and increased medical fees for the military as part of the $500 million reduction in spending.

The Obama administration would like to persuade the military to switch over to the government health care exchanges by offering cheaper rates than Tricare. Exchange fees will be cheaper temporarily -- they will go up once everybody is enrolled. Our president wants every American dependent on the government for their existence.

The Washington Post published an article, “High Court Speculation: Did Roberts Switch his vote?,” echoing Dr. Michael Savage’s accurate prediction of the Supreme Court decision on Obamacare, after he had heard the Supreme Court’s decision on the Arizona Immigration Law, read by Justice Roberts. The question was raised whether Roberts was competent in his decision or was persuaded to change his vote. (Washington Post, June 30, 2012)

Obamacare was passed in the dead of night by bribing Senators and Representatives with sweet deals for their states, government posts for relatives, by using strange vote manipulations such as “deemed passed,” and the bill was not read by legislators. We had to pass the bill in order to find out what was in it. Misrepresentations and lies every step of the way ended in a gloating victory march outside of the Capitol by Nancy Pelosi with her oversized gavel and her cohorts. Her deranged smile reminded me of what this bill will do to people’s health care in the future, long after she is gone and forgotten.

Here we are at the crossroads, America is going down the path of socialism of a third world nation, and Americans are going willingly. Those who wanted Obamacare are jubilant today about the decision: Democrats, 48 percent of welfare recipients, and illegal aliens. The rest of the country who works and pays the taxes from which welfare is given, is unhappy but has no other recourse.

All three forms of government have now bought into socialism, into President Obama’s radical transformation of America, and we cannot appeal to any other power. The three branches of government are on the same page, working in concert to destroy this country. There is no other option.

The sting of the Obamacare will not be felt immediately, it will be a gradual transformation. By the time people will realize down the road, it will have degraded our health care system. Rationing will occur, long lines, lack of drugs, lack of doctors who are trained to perform difficult surgeries, there will be a levelling point for doctors who cannot be as good at what they do as others, all doctors will be paid the same, and will work eight-hour days. There will be no malpractice accountability since everyone will work for the government. The value of life will be cheap.

Nobody flies to Cuba or third world nations to have surgery, they come to the United States for state of the art, first class care. That option will be gone because our medical care will be just as terrible as anybody else’s.

We have passed a turning point. Americans have not realized what they have done to themselves and to their once great nation. Those who are jubilant today and celebrate free medical care do not realize that no good comes from anything that is free if there is nobody to deliver it. Additionally, free contraception, Viagra, and abortion do not constitute medical care.

The epidemic of socialism is spreading like a metastasizing cancer everywhere. Life is not fair - you cannot make it just by government order, decree, laws, dictates, executive orders, or proclamations. Life is what it is, the luck of the draw.

Doctors will be unionized, the quality of doctors will decline incrementally. We will have to accept and embrace socialism because we have no other choice, the country is almost entirely socialist.

Obama, once re-elected, will do away with term limits, and will automatically become president for life. As a young man, he will be able to complete the fundamental transformation of America into Marxism. We will be uniform, equal, paid the same, poor, no more creativity, individualism, only the elites in power at the top will still have a capitalist lifestyle but the rest of us will have to live by the tenets of Marxism.

Congressional representatives who voted for this failed socialist model of health care behind closed doors have exempted themselves and their families from it. The equal protection under the law has long been forgotten. If you do not think so, check Protection for American Indians and Alaska Natives in Obamacare.

Page 58 says that government will have real time access to individuals’ finances and a national I.D. card will be issued.

A subsidized plan for retirees and their families in unions and community organizations such as ACORN is found in section 164. The government will use groups such as ACORN and AmeriCorps to sign up individuals for Obamacare (page 95, lines 8-18).

The government will mandate “Advance-Care Planning Consultation” for end-of-life decision (Page 425, lines 4-12). Is this a good idea when people are lonely, depressed, or may not have a family to care for them? Apparently it is, because page 425, lines 22-25 and page 426, lines 1-3 describe how the government provides an “approved list” of end-of-life resources to help with death panel decisions.

The government will mandatorily instruct and consult in regards to living wills, power-of-attorney, and other end-of-life business. Why pay for care and pensions if ending lives is cheaper and more convenient? Subtitle G-Miscellaneous provisions, Section 1553 states the prohibition against discrimination on assisted suicides.

Section 123 spells out the government committee that decides what treatments and benefits will be approved.

American voters have short memory. They have forgotten what little American history they knew. They will turn out by busloads in November to re-elect their hero who gave them free socialist medical care, the final nail in the coffin of their demised liberty.

Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh, (Romanian Conservative) is a freelance writer (Canada Free Press, Romanian Conservative,, author, radio commentator (Silvio Canto Jr. Blogtalk Radio, Butler on Business WAFS 1190, and Republic Broadcasting Network), and speaker. Her book, “Echoes of Communism, is available at Amazon in paperback and Kindle. Short essays describe health care, education, poverty, religion, social engineering, and confiscation of property. A second book, “Liberty on Life Support,” is also available at Amazon in paperback and Kindle. A third book, “U.N. Agenda 21: Environmental Piracy,” is a best seller at under Globalism, Politics, and Environmental Policy.

Her commentaries reflect American Exceptionalism, the economy, immigration, and education.Visit her website,

Re: No ID needed for Obamacare?

By Wino
July 7, 2012

We have been asked to show our photo ID at the doctor's office for a couple years now. I don't know if they would turn a patient away if they didn't have one.
"In order to comply with the Federal Trade Commission's new identity theft prevention program requirements, we are asking patients ages 18 and over to show photo identification at check-in."
'Obamacare' health care reform legislation requires that everyone be implanted with ... 2521, page 1,000 will establish a National Medical Device Registry. ... transponder system for patient identification and health information. - Snopes, Aug 12, 2012

Belgian Law Allows Doctors to Euthanize "Suffering" Patients Who Are "Mentally Sound, Over 18 and Want to Die"; Belgian Lawmakers Considering a Law That Would Extend Euthanasia to Dementia Patients and Children

NBC News
January 14, 2013

Two deaf twin brothers in Belgium were euthanized by their doctor after realizing they were going blind and would be unable to see each other ever again, their physician says.

The 45-year-old men, whose names have not been made public, were legally put to death by lethal injection at the Brussels University Hospital in Jette, on Dec. 14.

The men, who were born deaf, had a cup of coffee and said goodbye to other family members before walking into hospital room together to die, their doctor told Belgian television station RTL.
"They were very happy. It was a relief to see the end of their suffering," said Dr. David Dufour.

"They had a cup of coffee in the hall. It went well and a rich conversation. Then the separation from their parents and brother was very serene and beautiful," he said. "At the last there was a little wave of their hands and then they were gone."
More than 1,000 people legally availed themselves of doctor-assisted deaths in Belgium in 2011, most of them were terminally ill cancer patients.

The brothers are unique in that their illness was not terminal. Belgian law, however, allows doctors to euthanize "suffering" patients who are both mentally sound, over 18 and want to die.

Belgian lawmakers are considering a law that would extend euthanasia to dementia patients and children, whose families and doctors consented.

NWO Order Plans Exposed by Insider in 1969: Euthanasia and the Demise Pill (Excerpt)

On March 20, 1969, Dr. Richard Day, an insider to the NWO plans, gave a lecture to a gathering of pediatricians at a meeting of the Pittsburgh Pediatric Society. In his introductory remarks, he commented that he would not have been able to say what he was about to say, even a few years earlier, but he was free to speak at this time because, 'Everything is in place and nobody can stop us now.'

The new system would be brought in — if not by peaceful co-operation with everybody willingly yielding national sovereignty, then by bringing the nation to the brink of nuclear war. Everybody would be so fearful — as hysteria is created by the possibility of nuclear war — that there would be a strong public outcry to negotiate a public peace; and people would willingly give up national sovereignty in order to achieve peace, and thereby this would bring in the 'New International Political System.' If there were too many people in the right places who resisted this, there might be a need to use one or two or possibly more nuclear weapons. By the time one or two of those went off then everybody, even the most reluctant, would yield. This negotiated peace would be very convincing," as in a framework or in a context that the whole thing was rehearsed but nobody would know it. People hearing about it would be convinced that it was a genuine negotiation between hostile enemies who finally had come to the realisation that peace was better than war.

His purpose in telling our group about the changes which were to be brought about [especially regarding medicine and their planned control over it, including eliminating solo practitioners and limiting access to affordable health care] was to make it easier for us to adapt to these changes. Indeed, as he quite accurately said, "There would be changes that would be very surprising, and in some ways difficult for people to accept," and he hoped that we, as sort of his friends, would make the adaptation more easily if we knew somewhat beforehand what to expect.

Change was to be brought about, change was to be anticipated and expected, and accepted, no questions asked. A comment he made from time to time during the presentation was, "People are too trusting; people don't ask the right questions." Sometimes, being too trusting was equated with being too dumb. But sometimes when he would say that "people don't ask the right questions," it was almost with a sense of regret as if he were uneasy with what he was part of, and wished that people would challenge it and maybe not be so trusting.

- Dr. Lawrence Dunegan, Pittsburgh pediatrician on his recollections of the lecture (recorded on tape in 1988)


Everybody has a right to live only so long. The old are no longer useful. They become a burden. You should be ready to accept death. Most people are. An arbitrary age limit could be established. After all, you have a right to only so many steak dinners, so many orgasms, and so many good pleasures in life. After you have had enough of them and you're no longer productive, working and contributing, then you should be ready to step aside for the next generation.

He mentioned several of the things that would help people realise that they had lived long enough. I don't remember them all but here are a few. The use of very pale printing ink on forms that people are necessary to fill out — older people wouldn't be able to read the pale ink as easily and would need to go to younger people for help. Automobile traffic patterns — there would be more high-speed traffic lanes that older people with their slower reflexes would have trouble dealing with and thus, lose some of their independence.


A big item that was elaborated on at some length was that the cost of medical care would be made burdensomely high. Medical care would be connected very closely with one's work but also would be made very, very high in cost so that it would simply be unavailable to people beyond a certain time. Unless they had a remarkably rich, supporting family, they would just have to do without care. And the idea was that if everybody says, "Enough! — what a burden it is on the young to try to maintain the old people," then the young would become agreeable to helping Mom and Dad along the way, provided this was done humanely and with dignity. Then the example was — there could be a nice, farewell party, a real celebration. Mom and Dad had done a good job. Then after the party's over they take the 'demise pill'.


The next topic is Medicine. There would be profound changes in the practice of medicine. Overall, medicine would be much more tightly controlled. The observation that was made in 1969 that,
"It is now abundantly evident that Congress is not going to go along with national health insurance. But it's not necessary — we have other ways to control health care".
These would come about more gradually, but all health care delivery would come under tight control. Medical care would be closely connected to work. If you don't work or can't work, you won't have access to medical care. The days of hospitals giving away free care would gradually wind down, to where it was virtually non-existent. Costs would be forced up so that people won't be able to afford to go without insurance.

People pay for it, you're entitled to it. It was only subsequently that I began to realise the extent to which you would not be paying for it. Your medical care would be paid for by others. Therefore, you would gratefully accept, on bended knee, what was offered to you as a privilege. Your role being responsible for your own care would be diminished. As an aside here, this is not something that was developed at that time; I didn't understand it at the time that it was an aside.

Here's the way this works: everybody has made dependent on insurance, and if you don't have insurance then you pay directly; the cost of your care is enormous. The insurance company, however, paying for your care, does not pay that same amount. If you are charged, say, $600 for the use of an operating room, the insurance company does not pay $600; they only pay $300 or $400. That differential in billing has the desired effect: It enables the insurance company to pay for that which you could never pay for. They get a discount that's unavailable to you. When you see your bill you're grateful that the insurance company could do that. And in this way you are dependent and virtually required to have insurance. The whole billing is fraudulent.

Access to hospitals would be tightly controlled and identification would be needed to get into the building. The security in and around hospitals would be established and gradually increased so that nobody without identification could get in or move around inside the building. Theft of hospital equipment, things like typewriters and microscopes and so forth, would be 'allowed' and reports of it would be exaggerated so that this would be the excuse needed to establish the need for strict security — until people got used to it.

Anybody moving about the hospital would be required to wear an identification badge with a photograph and telling why he was there — employee or lab technician or visitor or whatever. This is to be brought in gradually, getting everybody used to the idea of identifying themselves — until it was just accepted.

This need for ID to move about would start in small ways: hospitals, some businesses, but gradually expand to include everybody in all places!

It was observed that hospitals can be used to confine people and for the treatment of criminals. This did not mean, necessarily, medical treatment. At that time I did not know the term 'Psycho-Prison' ­ — they are in the Soviet Union. But, without trying to recall all the details, basically he was describing the use of hospitals both for treating the sick and for confinement of criminals for reasons other than the medical well-being of the criminal. The definition of criminal was not given.



Another angle was that the schools would become more important in peoples' overall life. Kids, in addition to their academics, would have to get into school activities unless they wanted to feel completely out of it. But spontaneous activities among kids — the thing that came to my mind when I heard this was sand lot football and sand lot baseball teams that we worked up as kids growing up. I said the kids wanting any activities outside of school would be almost forced to get them through the school. There would be few opportunities outside.

Now the pressures of the accelerated academic program, the accelerated demands where kids would feel they had to be part of something — one or another athletic club or some school activity — these pressures he recognized would cause some students to burn out. He said.
"The smartest ones will learn how to cope with pressures and to survive. There will be some help available to students in handling stress, but the unfit won't be able to make it. They will then move on to other things."
In this connection, and later on with drug abuse and alcohol abuse, he indicated that psychiatric services to help would be increased dramatically. In all the pushing for achievement, it was recognized that many people would need help, and the people worth keeping around would be able to accept and benefit from that help, and still be super achievers. Those who could not would fall by the wayside and, therefore, were sort of dispensable — 'expendable' I guess is the word I want.

Education would be lifelong and adults would be going to school. There'll always be new information that adults must have to keep up. When you can't keep up anymore, you're too old. This was another way of letting older people know that the time had come for them to move on and take the demise pill. If you got too tired to keep up with your education, or you got too old to learn new information, then this was a signal — you begin to prepare to get ready to step aside.

Obamacare facts: Medicaid expansion points to new state taxes

July 13, 2012

One way that Obamacare proposed expanding access to health insurance is by an expansion of Medicaid. According to, Congress mandated that the states expand Medicaid to include people within 133 percent of the poverty line as part of the Affordable Care Act. This means that an individual earning less than about $14,856 or a family of four earning less than $30,656 would qualify for Medicaid. Although this mandate was struck down by the Supreme Court, states can still choose to expand their Medicaid programs.

Some leftists have advocated a similar back-door solution to providing a universal single-payer health plan. Instead of passing a new health takeover law from scratch, some Democrats believe that Congress should simply remove the age restriction from Medicare and force all Americans onto the government health insurance rolls.

There are serious problems with the Obamacare mandated expansion of Medicaid or a similar expansion of Medicare. According to the 2012 Medicare trustee report, Medicare’s hospital insurance (Part A) is inadequately funded and will exhaust its trust fund by 2024. Expanding the rolls of Medicare or Medicaid would help speed the programs toward insolvency unless they receive more funding.

Under the terms of the Affordable Care Act, the federal government would pay for the Medicaid expansion in full for the first three years. Afterward, the states would pay 10 percent of the costs while the federal government would pay the remaining 90 percent. The PolicyMic article estimates that there would be between 16 and 18 million new Medicaid enrollees. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, the average cost per Medicaid enrollee is $7,898. This means that 16 million new enrollees would cost approximately $126 billion per year.

According to Georgia Health News, Georgia’s Medicaid program, which currently covers 1.7 million people, is already facing a shortfall of over $300 million dollars for current recipients. Georgia already spends more than $4.3 billion on health care. This represents 22.5 percent of the state budget and is second only to education in Georgia state spending.

According to the AJC, an estimated 650,000 Georgians would be added to Medicaid. Georgia’s share of the cost for the expansion would be a minimum of $4.5 billion over ten years. As the federal debt rises, Gov. Deal and Georgia lawmakers worry that this number might well increase as Congress shifts more of the financial burden to the states. With the state budget already stretched to the breaking point, the addition of more expenses for the state would require more revenues. This means that the state would probably be required to raise taxes.
"To pay for the expansion without tax increases would require the state to cut nearly a quarter of its annual budget," Brian Robinson, a spokesman for Gov. Deal, told the AJC. "And that's after we've shaved off billions in state spending since the beginning of the Great Recession."
The second major problem is that Medicaid coverage no longer guarantees access to health care. Many doctors are now refusing to accept Medicaid patients because the program’s reimbursement rates are so low. According to the New York Times, reimbursement rates can be as low as $25 for an office visit. This means that doctors often lose money when they see Medicaid patients. The AJC reports that Medicaid reimbursement rates are about 76 percent of those for Medicare, the health program for the elderly. In 2009, even the world famous Mayo Clinic stopped accepting Medicare and Medicaid patients at several of its facilities. The Atlanta Journal’s Kyle Wingfield cites a statistic that 42 percent of Georgia doctors will not accept new Medicaid patients. Nationally, one in three refuses new Medicaid patients and one in four doctors won’t see Medicaid patients at all.

If Medicaid continues to pay below market rates for care, then it will become increasingly hard for Medicaid patients to find doctors. The expansion of Medicaid to vast numbers of new enrollees would make the problem worse by dramatically increasing the numbers of Medicaid patients without increasing the number of doctors who will treat them.

On Georgia Public Radio, Donald Palmisano, Executive Director of the Medical Association of Georgia, agreed.
Palmisano said, ““We do not believe expansion is financially sustainable especially with our state budget looking at a $400 million hole on Medicaid.” He added, ““By expanding another 600,000 additional patients into the system where the system itself does not cover the cost of providing the care, it only makes it that much more difficult for a physician to be able to accept those patients and remain financially viable.”
Several states have already announced their decisions to opt out of the Obamacare Medicaid expansion. Florida led the lawsuit against Obamacare and became the first state to announce its intention to opt out. According to CNBC, South Carolina, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, and, most recently, Texas have also announced their intention to forgo the federal mandate. Twenty-six states were part of the lawsuit so more states are likely to follow. Several governors cited the cost of the expansion in their decision.

In Georgia, which was also a party to the lawsuit, Gov. Nathan Deal told the AJC that Georgia would not make a decision on the expansion until after the elections. Georgia is also delaying the decision on whether to start a health insurance exchange as required by the Obamacare law. If President Obama is re-elected, the General Assembly might be called for a special session to consider those questions.

Georgia’s congressional Democrats recently sent a letter to Nathan Deal urging him to comply with the expansion. Hank Johnson, John Lewis, David Scott, and Sanford Bishop jointly say that “the Medicaid expansion is the right thing to do and it is a good deal for Georgia.” They do offer advice on how to pay for it.

The Medicaid expansion required by Obamacare is certain to be costly to cash-strapped state governments as well as the federal government. Complying with Congress’ mandate will likely require higher taxes or deep cuts to other state programs. The resulting increase in Medicaid patients will also exacerbate current shortages of doctors who accept Medicaid as a form of payment.

Medicare Trustee Cautions States on Obamacare Medicaid Expansion

Medicare Board of Trustees member Charles Blahous released a Mercatus Center report on March 5 recommending states take advantage of the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 2012 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) ruling by mostly rejecting the law’s Medicaid expansion.

Blahous concluded that states “all appear to face one common, powerful incentive arising from the court’s ruling: to decline to cover childless adults at or above the FPL [federal poverty line] under Medicaid.”
Blahous summarized states’ PPACA Medicaid expansion options in the following flow chart. Click for a full-size version of the image.

Blahous warned that it is not reasonable to count on promised PPACA Medicaid expansion funding given the federal government’s fiscal situation. “In determining whether to expand Medicaid, however, states must also consider the likelihood that federal financing support may ultimately be reduced from current schedules, shifting additional costs to states,” he wrote.

Blahous added, “From a practical perspective, it is quite unlikely that the federal government will make the full amount of Medicaid payments now scheduled under law. The federal government has now run four consecutive years of unsustainable deficits exceeding $1 trillion annually; most influential national policy makers and analysts acknowledge the need for substantial changes to current policies to avoid uncontrolled debt growth in future years.”

Although Governor John Kasich, a Republican, has insisted Ohio must expand Medicaid to help the poor and can roll back the expansion if Washington reduces funding, Blahous wrote, “Medicaid, CHIP, and the ACA’s new health exchange subsidies are leading contributors to the mounting federal fiscal problem, such that it is unrealistic to expect that federal deficits can be contained without these programs’ growing costs being scaled back.”

In his report, Blahous explained the Medcaid program as it stands currently, the vast expansion of the entitlement program written into President Obama’s 2010 health law, and considerations states should weigh when deciding whether to pursue promised PPACA Medicaid expansion funding.

“Through the enactment of the ACA, federal lawmakers sought to considerably expand the numbers of those insured by Medicaid. The ACA added a large category of individuals to those that a state Medicaid program must cover: essentially all those with incomes below 133 percent of the FPL who were not previously eligible. Such individuals were to be covered under Medicaid beginning on January 1, 2014,” Blahous wrote. “With the law also providing for an income exclusion equal to 5 percent of the FPL, the ACA effectively expanded Medicaid eligibility to those with an income lower than 138 percent of the FPL.”

Blahous noted that in early 2012, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated full Medicaid expansion in every state – forced by a PPACA provision making all Medicaid funding contingent on expanding eligibility – would add 17 million additional Americans to Medicaid.

“In the same report, the CBO projected that the coverage expansion would result in $931 billion in additional federal expenditures for Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) in the years 2014 to 2022 alone,” Blahous wrote.

When the Supreme Court ruled in June 2012 that existing federal Medicaid funds could not be tied to Medicaid expansion, states were given the freedom to opt out of the PPACA Medicaid expansion entirely or in part.

“Left intact, however, was the ACA’s inducement: the generous federal match rate—100 percent in the first three years and 90 percent over the long term—applied to the Medicaid coverage expansion,” Blahous wrote. “The court’s decision soon brought into focus a critical question: Would all the states aggressively expand Medicaid per the terms of the ACA now that it was no longer compulsory?”

After citing projections that states’ Medicaid expansion costs could amount to between three and four percent of their total Medicaid expenditures through 2020, Blahous wrote, “Either percentage would be small relative to the accompanying increase in federal costs and also relative to states’ total projected Medicaid budgets. But it would be an incremental push in the wrong fiscal direction at a time when many states have been struggling to lower Medicaid expenditures rather than increase them.”

“The interaction of various provisions of the ACA, in combination with the 2012 Supreme Court decision, now renders it unattractive for states to expand Medicaid to cover childless adults with incomes above 100 percent of the FPL. For the population with incomes above this level, there is a straightforward confluence of state interests; states can minimize their budgetary exposure by declining to cover this population under Medicaid, while at the same time providing these individuals access to potentially more generous health insurance coverage.”

Blahous then explained that subsidies provided through PPACA health insurance exchanges will be offered to individuals with incomes between 100 percent and 400 percent of the poverty line. Capping Medicaid eligibility for childless adults at 100 percent of the poverty line could, in theory, result in more flexibility for individuals served by the exchanges while limiting states’ new Medicaid costs.

“States, then, have a substantial incentive to see that their citizens with incomes above 100 percent of the FPL receive services through federally subsidized exchanges rather than through Medicaid,” Blahous continued.

Ultimately, all new federal spending will have to be paid for eventually – and conservative policy experts have pointed out for years that the federal government cannot afford the PPACA exchanges. Nonetheless, capping Medicaid eligibility at 100 percent of the poverty line is the route Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker chose to take.

As Brian Sikma of Media Trackers Wisconsin explained on February 20, 2013, “Placing more people on ObamaCare, as Walker’s program does, further exposes the financial weaknesses of the system. Already, the original Congressional Budget Office estimates for the cost of the federal exchange are being revised upward. Where the money to fund that will come from is not as clear-cut as ObamaCare architects led Congress and the public to believe.”

Why the Obamacare Medicaid Expansion Is Bad for Taxpayers and Patients

The Heritage Foundation
March 5, 2013
Medicaid needs reform, not expansion. This federal–state health care program provides health care to over 60 million Americans and consumes a growing portion of state and federal budgets. Research shows a long history of Medicaid enrollees having worse access and outcomes than privately insured individuals.[1] Due in part to low reimbursement, one in three doctors refuses to accept new Medicaid patients.[2] Despite access issues, Medicaid spending continues to grow. In 2010, total federal and state spending on Medicaid exceeded $400 billion.[3]
Instead of reforming Medicaid, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) expands eligibility to all individuals earning less than 138 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL).[4] The Medicaid program is already struggling to provide care to its core obligations—a diverse group of low-income children, disabled, pregnant women, and seniors. Adding more people further exacerbates Medicaid’s underlying problems.
The expansion of Medicaid fuels a larger trend under Obamacare: government coverage supplanting private coverage. By 2021, 46 percent of all Americans will be dependent on the government for their health care. Of this group, 86.9 million will be on Medicaid/Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), followed by 64.3 million on Medicare and 23.4 million enrolled in government exchanges.[5] This will push U.S. health care closer to a government model.
The Temptation of Medicaid Expansion
Obamacare provides additional federal funding to the states for this new expansion population. Starting in 2014, the federal government would pick up 100 percent of the benefit costs for the newly eligible population for three years. Thereafter, this enhanced federal funding would gradually decline to 90 percent in 2020.
Obamacare also directed states to expand eligibility or risk forgoing all of their federal Medicaid dollars. The Supreme Court, however, ruled on behalf of 26 state plaintiffs that this “all-or-nothing” proposition was coercive. To rectify this, the Court essentially made the expansion optional, meaning that a state could reject the expansion but not lose its existing Medicaid funding.
Today, governors and state legislators are weighing this option as they develop their budgets for the coming year. Proponents use a variety of unrealistic arguments in support of the Medicaid expansion:
  • It provides states with an influx of new, generous federal revenue. This will cause states to spend money that they otherwise would not have spent. Moreover, due to the structure of Obamacare, states will likely have to absorb many currently eligible but not enrolled individuals as well as those who lose their existing employer coverage. These effects would add to the cost.[6]
  • It will result in savings as the cost of uncompensated care declines with expanded coverage. Heritage data analysis shows that in the first few years, when federal funding is at its peak, states may see some savings. Over time, however, in the majority of states, Medicaid spending will accelerate and dwarf any projected uncompensated care savings.[7] These savings are also contingent on states enacting legislation to further reduce uncompensated care funds (Disproportionate Share Hospital [DSH] payments) on top of the $18 billion of federal cuts enacted under Obamacare. Heritage analyst Ed Haislmaier predicts that “governors and state legislators should expect their state’s hospitals and clinics to lobby them for more—not less—state funding to replace cuts in federal DSH payments.”[8]
    Finally, contrary to the theory that expanding Medicaid would cause the number of uninsured to decline and reduce the need for uncompensated care, a similar expansion in Maine found the opposite effect. In Maine, uncompensated care increased, and the number of uninsured in the targeted population (those below 100 percent of FPL) saw limited change.[9]
  • Rejecting the expansion will mean that other states get more. The federal share of Medicaid is based on a formula calculation and actual expenditures. Rejected funds do not go into a general fund for redistribution to other states. The fewer states that expand, the less the federal government spends. States that draw down on these new federal funds fuel the fiscal crisis in our country.
The Trade-Off Dilemma
Committing to an expansion creates a dilemma for the states. To control Medicaid spending, states typically fall back on predictable techniques to manage costs, such as limiting reimbursements to health care providers and limiting services, which ultimately limits access to care. These Medicaid cost controls, however, go only so far. Today, Medicaid consumes over 23 percent of state budgets, surpassing education as the largest state budget item.[10] As Medicaid spending continues to rise, other important state priorities such as education, emergency services, transportation, and criminal justice are squeezed.
Finally, if states resist balancing among spending programs, the alternative is generating more revenues with tax increases. But higher taxes come with a steep price: They reduce economic growth. With most states still experiencing anemic growth, tax increases on top of already higher taxes at the federal level are not an appealing option.[11]
Fueling the Country’s Fiscal Crisis
Any positive assumptions about Medicaid expansion also assume that federal funding remains unchanged. With deficits running over $1 trillion a year, the country’s fiscal future is in need of reform. Federal spending on health care entitlements, including Medicare and Medicaid, is the largest driver.[12]
Even this Administration recognizes that such entitlement spending, including Medicaid, is unsustainable. The President’s fiscal year (FY) 2011 budget outlined several Medicaid reform policies, including setting an across-the-board blend rate for federal reimbursement and limiting the states’ ability to leverage provider taxes for the state share of matching funds. Although the Administration attempts to distance itself from its own proposal, any serious efforts toward entitlement reform must include Medicaid.
In spite of this fact, several Democrat and Republican governors that support Medicaid expansion condition their support on federal funding remaining untouched. In essence, pro-expansion governors are telling Washington, “don’t touch entitlement spending.” This reliance on federal revenues exacerbates the country’s fiscal challenges and could also affect states’ own fiscal health. Recently, Moody’s cited Missouri’s reliance on the federal government, including Medicaid funding, as adversely affecting its credit rating outlook.[13]
Setting Good Policy
There are several recommendations that the states and Congress could adopt to help mitigate the crisis that Obamacare has exacerbated:
  • Reject the Medicaid expansion. Greater dependence on federal dollars tangles the states in bad fiscal policy and bad health care policy. States that reject the expansion avoid relying on unsound federal revenues, stretching an already thin program beyond its means and adding millions to a failing program. 
  • Scale back existing eligibility where possible. Some states have allowed Medicaid to grow beyond its original intent by moving middle-class families into a welfare program. To restore Medicaid as a safety-net program, states should review eligibility levels, scale back eligibility where possible, and restore the program’s focus on its core Medicaid functions.
  • Advance a separate, state alternative. Instead of using a flawed Obamacare model, states should put in place an alternative. States should develop a state solution tailored to the specific needs of this new population rather than placing them in a one-size-fits-all Medicaid option.[14] A non-Medicaid, state-based approach, especially for this targeted population, would give states the control to design policies best suited to addressing the needs of their citizens without onerous Medicaid constraints.
  • Congress should eliminate the federal enhanced Medicaid match. To avoid the argument that states rejecting Medicaid are leaving federal dollars on the table, Congress should level the playing field by removing the new, enhanced federal dollars. This would remove/minimize the temptation of excessive and unsustainable federal funding and restore fiscal constraint at the federal level. States would still be able to expand eligibility but would have to do so with the traditional (non-enhanced) federal matching rate. If Congress ignores this opportunity to restrain federal spending, it could “block grant” the enhanced federal dollars to the states to develop their own state-specific approaches, including alternatives outside of Medicaid.
Alternate Solution Needed
Medicaid is already spread too thin. Adding a new and complex population to this program does not solve its challenges; it only makes them worse. States should resist, and Congress should remove, this temptation. Both should begin to lay out a better and more sustainable alternative than a failing government health program to care for the less fortunate.
—Nina Owcharenko is Director of the Center for Health Policy Studies and Preston A. Wells, Jr., Fellow at The Heritage Foundation.

Fallout for states rejecting Medicaid expansion

The Associated Press
April 22, 2013

Rejecting the Medicaid expansion in the federal health care law could have unexpected consequences for states where Republican lawmakers remain steadfastly opposed to what they scorn as "Obamacare."

It could mean exposing businesses to Internal Revenue Service penalties and leaving low-income citizens unable to afford coverage even as legal immigrants get financial aid for their premiums. For the poorest people, it could virtually guarantee they remain uninsured and dependent on the emergency room at local hospitals that already face federal cutbacks.

Concern about such consequences helped forge a deal in Arkansas last week. The Republican-controlled Legislature endorsed a plan by Democratic Gov. Mike Beebe to accept additional Medicaid money under the federal law, but use the new dollars to buy private insurance for eligible residents.
One of the main arguments for the private option was that it would help businesses avoid tax penalties.

The Obama administration hasn't signed off on the Arkansas deal, and it's unclear how many other states will use it as a model. But it reflects a pragmatic streak in American politics that's still the exception in the polarized health care debate.
"The biggest lesson out of Arkansas is not so much the exact structure of what they are doing," said Alan Weil, executive director of the nonpartisan National Academy for State Health Policy. "Part of it is just a message of creativity, that they can look at it and say, 'How can we do this in a way that works for us?'"
About half the nearly 30 million uninsured people expected to gain coverage under President Barack Obama's health care overhaul would do so through Medicaid. Its expansion would cover low-income people making up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level, about $15,860 for an individual.
Middle-class people who don't have coverage at their jobs will be able to purchase private insurance in new state markets, helped by new federal tax credits. The big push to sign up the uninsured starts this fall, and coverage takes effect Jan. 1.

As originally written, the Affordable Care Act required states to accept the Medicaid expansion as a condition of staying in the program. Last summer's Supreme Court decision gave each state the right to decide. While that pleased many governors, it also created complications by opening the door to unintended consequences.

So far, 20 mostly blue states, plus the District of Columbia, have accepted the expansion.

Thirteen GOP-led states have declined. They say Medicaid already is too costly, and they don't trust Washington to keep its promise of generous funding for the expansion, which would mainly help low-income adults with no children at home.

Concerns about unintended consequences could make the most difference in 17 states still weighing options.
A look at some potential side effects:

—The Employer Glitch

States that don't expand Medicaid leave more businesses exposed to tax penalties, according to a recent study by Brian Haile, Jackson Hewitt's senior vice president for health care policy. He estimates the fines could top $1 billion a year in states refusing.

Under the law, employers with 50 or more workers that don't offer coverage face penalties if just one of their workers gets subsidized private insurance through the new state markets. But employers generally do not face fines under the law for workers who enroll in Medicaid.

In states that don't expand Medicaid, some low-income workers who would otherwise have been eligible have a fallback option. They can instead get subsidized private insurance in the law's new markets. But that would trigger a penalty for their employer.
"It highlights how complicated the Affordable Care Act is," said Haile.
—The Immigrant Quirk

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican, called attention this year to this politically awkward problem when she proposed that her state accept the Medicaid expansion.

Under the health law, U.S. citizens below the poverty line — $11,490 for an individual, $23,550 for a family of four — can only get coverage through the Medicaid expansion. But lawfully present immigrants who are also below the poverty level are eligible for subsidized private insurance.

Congress wrote the legislation that way to avoid controversy associated with trying to change previous laws that require legal immigrants to wait five years before they can qualify for Medicaid. Instead of dragging immigration politics into the health care debate, lawmakers devised a detour.

Before the Supreme Court ruling, it was a legislative patch.

Now it could turn into an issue in states with lots of immigrants, such as Texas and Florida, creating the perception that citizens are being disadvantaged versus immigrants.

—The Fairness Argument

Under the law, U.S. citizens below the poverty line can only get taxpayer-subsidized coverage by going into Medicaid. But other low-income people making just enough to put them over the poverty line can get subsidized private insurance through the new state markets.

An individual making $11,700 a year would be able to get a policy. But someone making $300 less would be out of luck, dependent on charity care.
"Americans have very strong feelings about fairness," said Weil.
Medicare and Medicaid chief Marilyn Tavenner, also overseeing the health overhaul, told the Senate recently that cost is a key question as the administration considers the Arkansas deal. Private insurance is more expensive than Medicaid.
But Tavenner said the Arkansas approach may be cost-effective if it reduces the number of low-income people cycling back and forth between Medicaid and private coverage, saving administrative expenses.
"We are willing to look at it," she said.

ObamaCare's Medicaid Could Insure 21.3 Million Americans in the Next Decade. So Why Do Some States Want to Opt-Out Of ObamaCare's Medicaid Expansion?


ObamaCare Medicaid Expansion is one of the biggest milestones in the health care bill. ObamaCare's Medicaid expansion expands Medicaid to our nations poorest in order cover nearly half of uninsured Americans. The law previously required states to cover their poorest or lose federal funding to Medicaid (federal funding covers 90-100% of the costs) until the supreme court ruling on ObamaCare.

States opting out of the expansion of Medicaid under ObamaCare is projected to drive up insurance costs drastically (check out the facts below), while saving the States relatively small amounts if anything. Join the ObamaCare Facts Mailing List to keep up to date on Medicaid Expansion vote in your state.

ObamaCare MedicaidHistory of ObamaCare's Medicaid Expansion and the NFIB

Unfortunately, when the NFIB took ObamaCare to the supreme court in order to repeal it, the Medicaid expansion requirement was overturned.

Now each state can decide whether or not they want to opt out of expanding coverage to their poorest with no penalty. The new ruling doesn't just hurt Medicaid and ObamaCare, it affects the tax payer by forcing us to pay for states that choose not to help their poorest.

National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) is an "independent" group that represents "small business". However they historically follow the Republican party line and fight against "entitlement" programs like ObamaCare's Medicaid Expansion that help the nations poorest and the majority of smaller businesses.
Remember the only businesses that pay more under ObamaCare are the top 3% of small businesses and big business.

Learn More About Small Business and ObamaCare

Nearly ONE HALF of uninsured Americans were going to get their health Insurance under ObamaCare Medicaid reform by expanding coverage to the nations poorest starting in 2014. Now states can opt out without losing federal funding.

What is Medicaid?

Medicaid is a joint federal and state funded program that provides health care for over 60 million low income Americans, mostly children, people with disabilities and elderly people who need help or live in nursing homes.

Since Medicaid is a program that works partly on a state level with help from the federal government the rules alter from state to state, but the rule of thumb is that most low-income adults under 65 cannot currently receive Medicaid.

What is "Wrong" With Medicaid

Obamacare opponents use the downfalls of Medicaid as terms to reject Medicaid Expansion. Doctor payouts have been historically low (even lower than Medicare payouts, which themselves are arguably too low). Due to low payouts many doctors don't take Medicaid and the quality of care tends to be poor. However ObamaCare's Medicaid Reforms do a lot to change this.

The ObamaCare Medicaid reforms that come with ObamaCare's Medicaid Expansion include raising the amount doctors get paid to the same level of Medicare (73%) and increasing payments to Medicaid programs that offer preventive services for free or at little cost. New free preventive services include tests for high blood pressure, diabetes, and high cholesterol; many cancer screenings including colonoscopies and mammograms; counseling to help people lose weight, quit smoking or reduce alcohol use; routine vaccinations; flu and pneumonia shots; and others.

The ObamaCare Medicaid Reforms

The ObamaCare Medicaid reforms were meant to expand coverage to up to 21.3 million of our nations poorest. The law had said, prior to the supreme court hearing, that very low-income individuals (those under the 133% FLP line) including adults without dependent children. Even though Medicaid is a federal and state joint program the funding for low income individuals was covered 93% over the next decade by the federal government using tax payer money.

Medicaid Expansion Means, in all States, Individuals with annual incomes up to 133% of the federal poverty line -- currently, $14,856 or less -- are able to enroll. Right now eligibility differs from State to State.

If a state refused to expand coverage then it would lose all of it's Medicaid funds, this was meant as a protection to ensure that states supported their poorest equally. However the NFIB repeal ObamaCare effort worked to some extent and now states are no longer required to insure their poorest under ObamaCare, yet they can still receive the full federal funding for their Medicaid program.

States can now opt out of Medicaid for it's poorest without losing any federal funding.

ObamaCare Medicaid Expansion Opt-Out

The supreme court decided that states have the right to opt of Medicaid for it's poorest without losing any federal funding, this may seem fair or harmless but the implications of this are dire. This will leave many of the nations poorest without health insurance come 2014. ObamaCare Medicaid reform was meant to cover 17 million of our poorest through Medicaid and millions of higher income individuals through Medicare and the Online Health Insurance Exchange Marketplace. Now millions of people may go without health insurance.

Don't Let Your State Take Away Medicaid For Your States Poorest. Vote For ObamaCare Supporters on A State Level.

What Are the Consequences of ObamaCare Medicaid Expansion Opt-Out

If the states decide to Opt-Out of Medicaid expansion, ObamaCare itself will have to step up to the plate and insure these individuals via the ObamaCare Health Exchanges. The problem is that this will likely raise everyone's health insurance, including those with private insurance.

This means that anti-ObamaCare states who reject Medicaid will not only hurt their poorest, it will affect every tax paying American and every American who has health insurance.

What if All States Moved Forward With Medicaid Expansion

If all States Move Forward with ObamaCare's Medicaid Expansion they will collectively pay $76 billion (a 3% increase) to insure up to 21.3 Million individuals who don't have access to health insurance (about half of the nations uninsured) over the next decade. Obviously those who have more to cover will have to spend more. Regardless of what a State Spends the Federal Government Covers 93% of the States Costs. State spending Increases are relatively small compared to what States would pay without ObamaCare or to the 26% increase that the federal government will pay towards Medicaid.

Where the States Stand
ObamaCare Medicaid Expansion Facts

• The federal government will pay a very high share of new Medicaid costs in all states. 100% of costs are cover for the first year. 90% of the spending is done by federal government moving forward.
• Increases in state spending are small compared to increases in coverage and federal revenues and relative to what states would have spent if reform had not been enacted
• ObamaCare Medicaid Expansion sets the eligibility level for Medicaid at 133% FLP, although there is a special deduction to income equal to five percentage points of the poverty level raising the effective eligibility level to 138% of poverty.

The legislation maintains existing income counting rules for the elderly and groups eligible through another program like foster care, low-income

Medicare beneficiaries and Supplemental Security Income (SSI))

• The NFIB helped to change the Affordable Care Act to include a "state opt out" for Medicaid Expansion.
• In combination with ObamaCare's other provisions, if all States participate in Medicaid expansion it would reduce the number of uninsured by 48%, relative to the number of uninsured without the ObamaCare. States with higher uninsured rates prior to the ObamaCare would see larger increases in Medicaid and bigger reductions in the uninsured, compared to states with lower pre-ObamaCare uninsured rates.
•If all states implement the expansion, an additional 21.3 million individuals could gain Medicaid coverage by 2022, a 41% increase compared to Medicaid without the ObamaCare. With many States opting out the number is expected to fall below 15 million.
• Medicaid Expansion covers those who are most likely to use emergency services costing hospitals tens of billions in unpaid hospital bills.
• States will spend little to nothing expanding Medicaid. For example it would cost the State of Florida about $5 a year per person to cover all uninsured below the 138% FLP.
• Low-income families and other Americans who would be eligible for Medicaid will fall between the cracks without expansion (as they do now). ObamaCare will most likely have to insure them in the ObamaCare health exchanges. This is projected to drive up the cost of insurance for all Americans by a great deal.
• Big Business backed groups like ALEC and the NFIB frequently suggest legislation that seeks to dismantle public programs at a state level. They tend to achieve this in Red states where they have the most pull. These states need Medicaid the most as they have the most low-income individuals falling through the cracks. They will also put a bigger burden on everyone else as it will cost more to insure their poorest on the exchange.
• If Medicaid Expansion is Opted out of by too many states it will greatly diminish the effectiveness and affordability of ObamaCare. Stop your state from Opting out of Medicaid by helping to share the ObamaCare Facts.
• The federal government will pay for most (90% - 100%) of the Medicaid expansion when it is implemented in 2014, but states would be required to pay for up to 10% percent of it by 2020.
• Some States, are saying that paying 0% - 10% of the Medicaid expansion as laid out under ObamaCare will cost them too much. While some States will pay more, the increase is very small (3% average increase in Medicaid Spending) even for the States who will pay the most.
• A Harvard case study found that states who had expanded their Medicaid programs from 2000 to 2005 improved health care for the state and saved thousands of lives.
• Some States are expected to save Billions from ObamaCare's Medicaid Expansion.

Which States Will Expand Medicaid under Medicaid Expansion?

Want to know which states will insure the 15 million Americans below the poverty line and which States will leave the rest of the 21.3 million uninsured behind? Find out which states support their states poorest. Want more information on ObamaCare and Medicaid Expansion?

Get the Full KKF Medicaid Expansion Report


  • Alabama*: Gov. Robert Bentley (R)
  • Georgia*: Gov. Nathan Deal (R)
  • Idaho*: Gov. C.L. Otter (R)
  • Iowa*: Gov. Terry Branstad (R)
  • Louisiana*: Gov. Bobby Jindal (R)
  • Maine*: Gov. Paul LePage (R)
  • Mississippi*: Gov. Phil Bryant (R)
  • North Carolina: Gov. Pat McCrory (R)
  • Oklahoma: Gov. Mary Fallin (R)
  • Pennsylvania*: Gov. Tom Corbett (R)
  • South Carolina*: Gov. Nikki Haley (R)
  • South Dakota: Gov. Dennis Daugaard (R)
  • Texas*: Gov. Rick Perry (R)
  • Wisconsin*: Gov. Scott Walker (R)


  • Alaska*: Gov. Sean Parnell (R)
  • Nebraska*: Gov. Dave Heineman (R)
  • Wyoming*: Gov. Matt Mead (R)


  • Kentucky: Gov. Steve Beshear (D
  • New York: Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D)

PARTICIPATING (25 states and the District of Columbia)

  • Arizona*: Gov. Jan Brewer (R)
  • Arkansas: Gov. Mike Beebe (D)
  • California: Gov. Jerry Brown (D)
  • Colorado*: Gov. John Hickenlooper (D)
  • Connecticut: Gov. Dannel Malloy (D)
  • Delaware: Gov. Jack Markell (D)
  • District of Columbia: D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray (D)
  • Florida*: Gov. Rick Scott (R)
  • Hawaii: Gov. Neil Abercrombie (D)
  • Illinois: Gov. Pat Quinn (D)
  • Maryland: Gov. Martin O'Malley (D
  • Massachusetts: Gov. Deval Patrick (D)
  • Michigan*: Gov. Rick Snyder (R)
  • Minnesota: Gov. Mark Dayton (D)
  • Missouri: Gov. Jay Nixon (D)
  • Montana: Gov.-elect Steve Bullock (D)
  • Nevada*: Gov. Brian Sandoval (R)
  • New Jersey: Gov. Chris Christie (R)
  • New Hampshire: Gov. Maggie Hassan (D)
  • New Mexico: Gov. Susana Martinez (R)
  • North Dakota*: Gov. Jack Dalrymple (R)
  • Ohio*: Gov. John Kasich (R
  • Oregon: Gov. John Kitzhaber (D)
  • Rhode Island: Gov. Lincoln Chaffee (I)
  • Vermont: Gov. Peter Shumlin (D)
indicates a state's participation in the multistate lawsuit against ACA
Go Here For Governor's Statements on the Medicaid Expansion

ObamaCare | Cost Of Medicaid Expansion

While states like Florida and Colorado say that a 3% increase in spending is too much, states like Michigan are showing that the States can actually save money by adopting the Medicaid expansion.

The nonprofit Center for Healthcare Research & Transformation projected the net costs of Michigan expanding Medicaid under the health system reform law. In all three scenarios of enrollment uptake assumed by the researchers, the state would reduce both overall spending and the numbers of uninsured residents.
Figures represent the state’s 10-year cost savings, in millions, under moderate projections for the enrollment of newly Medicaid-eligible residents in 2014, the expansion’s first year.
  • $1,861 million: Reduction in non-Medicaid mental health spending
  • $504 million: Reduction in prisoner inpatient medical spending
  • $444 million: Increase in tax revenues from health facilities and professionals
  • $395 million: Savings from elimination of Adult Benefit Waiver program
  • $23 million: Reduction in state employee health spending
  • $3,228 million: Total state budget savings
  • $2,245 million: Gross state expansion costs
  • $983 million: Net state budget savings
Note: Savings amounts do not add up to total savings due to rounding.

Source: “The ACA’s Medicaid Expansion: Michigan Impact,” Center for Healthcare Research & Transformation, October

Who's Eligible Under the ObamaCare Medicaid Expansion

Eligibility for Medicaid Expansion is decided on state by state (typically under the 138% FLP mark). If you live in a state that doesn't want to repeal ObamaCare you are probably safe, however some Red states and swing states should be worried! All legal residents who earn less than $15,302 for individuals and $31,155 for a families of four can receive Medicaid under Medicaid Expansion. People covered under the expansion also include:

• Low income adults with or without dependent children
• Low income children who lose their Medicaid benefits when they are reclassified as adults 19 years.
• Low income adults with disabilities who are not eligible for SSID or SSI.

Has Expanding Medicaid Worked Before?

New York, Arizona and Main expanded medicaid between 200 and 2005. A Harvard study reports, "rates of uninsured residents dropped, access to care improved, and more people reported being in very good or excellent health". The coverage was estimated to save a total of 2,840 lives a year for the states.

Why the ObamaCare Medicaid Expansion Matters

About half of our nations uninsured are in danger of losing coverage on a state level. Letting states Opt out of ObamaCare's Medicaid drives the costs up for the rest of Americans who choose to help their poorest and drives up our taxes and the cost of healthcare. On a human level these low-income individuals won't have access to healthcare and under the current law they wont receive help in the online market place under a certain income (this makes health insurance affordable for the rest of us).

Most of all on a "business" level hospitals and healthcare as a whole will suffer since they will still have to care for these individuals via emergency uncompensated care which will shift even more costs back on us.

The Republican backed NFIB and the anti-Obamacare guys had their day. Lets fight back with our votes and tell them we want ObamaCare and Medicaid for all Americans! Don't let them use state level legislation tactics against an unsuspecting public.

States Opting Out of Medicaid for Their Poorest

The supreme court decision not to repeal ObamaCare (brought to the supreme court by NFIB) says that states can reject Medicaid for their poorest (leaving up to 7% of their states poorest uninsured).

Why would a state want to reject Medicaid? It's because they don't have to reject the funding, they just can opt not to funnel it to poor people. This drives the cost of health care up for the rest of the country and makes ObamaCare less effective.

Who Will Reject Medicaid?

The first states to reject ObamaCare would most likely be the Red states making the Blue states and the Federal Government to carry them on their back. This is already the case with many public programs. The irony is that these are the same states that have the majority of people who call people who receive and need Government assistance.

Big Business Vs. Medicaid Expansion

Big business pays big money to move federal programs to a state level so they can reject portions of the bill they don't like that affect the states they operate in. They use this tactic to degrade the program as a whole and weaken it at a federal level making them less effective. This gives legislators grounds to privatize and dismantle these programs while creating tension between the states themselves.

Moving Government programs to a state level is an age old tactic used by Big Business under the guise of being "Libertarian or Federalist". The true intension is to dismantle popular Government programs like Obamacare and Social Security on a state level via legislation drafted by groups like ALEC.

Protect The Expansion of Medicaid at a State Level

ObamaCare's Medicaid expansion, if it passes in all 50 states, will help half of the nations uninsured get access to health care. If we don't support Medicaid Expansion on a state level our nations poorest will go without healthcare. This will drive the cost up for the rest of us and create a great imbalance between states, tension and unrest. There is nothing that is more damaging to our democracy then dividing the states. If you believe in health care reform, support Obamacare's Medicaid Expansion in your state.
Go to The Lamb Slain Home Page