Mitchell’s laws:
●The more budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes.

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

==========================================================================================================================================

Obamacare is now legal. Very few people know what’s in it (See: The facts about “Obamacare,” without all the political BS. What you really need to know), so the vast majority feels quite strongly about it.

Perhaps now that people have made their irrevocable decisions, they probably will start to learn about it, and just possibly will vote on the facts (or am I wishful thinking?)

Anyway, the next real battle has to do with Medicaid, and an unnecessary battle it is:

Mystery After The Health Care Ruling: Which States Will Refuse Medicaid Expansion?
June 28th, 2012
Charles Ornstein

For many people without insurance, a key question raised by the Supreme Court’s decision today to uphold the Affordable Care Act is whether states will decline to participate in the law’s big Medicaid expansion.

Although the court upheld the law’s individual mandate to buy insurance, it found that the act could not force states to extend Medicaid to millions by threatening to withhold federal funding.

Translation: The states, being monetarily non-sovereign, cannot create dollars at will. Most states are struggling financially. Who can blame them for not wanting the additional expense of more Medicaid? So the government tried to force them, but the Supreme Court said, “No, no, boys.”

The act, signed by President Obama in March 2010, required “states to extend Medicaid coverage to non-elderly individuals with incomes up to 133 percent of the poverty line, or about $30,700 for a family of four,” according to a March 2012 report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal think tank. That alone was expected to reach nearly 16 million people by 2019, one of the law’s main ways of reducing the ranks of the uninsured.

Translation: With all the brouhaha about the mandate (which had a comparatively small effect on Americans), we forgot the focus of the new law, to get more people insured. Half of them will come from an expansion of Medicaid.

Under the law, the federal government would cover nearly 93 percent of the costs of the Medicaid expansion from 2014-22, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

“Specifically, the federal government will assume 100 percent of the Medicaid costs of covering newly eligible individuals for the first three years that the expansion is in effect (2014-16). Federal support will then phase down slightly over the following several years, and by 2020 (and for all subsequent years), the federal government will pay 90 percent of the costs of covering these individuals. According to CBO, between 2014 and 2022, the federal government will pay $931 billion of the cost of the Medicaid expansion, while states will pay roughly $73 billion, or 7 percent.”

Translation: Each state will have to pay the government $7 million (on average) to get the government to pump $100 million back into the state’s economy. Forget about the morality of providing health care to our poorest people, the economics alone makes sense. $100 in exchange for $7 million — sounds good to me.

According to the Urban Institute analysis, some heavily Republican states account for a large share of uninsured that could benefit from the Medicaid expansion. Expanding eligibility in Texas alone would provide coverage to 1.8 million additional people. Expanding Medicaid in Florida, as planned, would cover another 951,000 people.

After the court’s ruling, Republican governors said they hoped that Mitt Romney would be elected president in November and the law would be repealed.

Translation: We don’t care that it helps our poor people. (We might feel otherwise if it helped rich people.) We don’t care that it will add millions of dollars to our economy. We hate Obama; we hate Obamacare. That’s all that counts.

Bottom line: Our Monetarily Sovereign, federal government should provide free Medicare for every man, woman and child in America. That would make Medicaid unnecessary.

Apparently, this is too much to expect. But they have offered to give each state $100 in return for every $7 the state spends. Some states don’t want the money, because it comes from Obama.

I’m ashamed to admit I live in Illinois, the worst governed, most dishonest state in the union, and Illinois has not yet agreed to accept the government’s money. It’s a Democratic state, so I can’t blame this stupidity on the Republicans (though Texas probably will change that).

But people, think about it: Pay $7 million to receive $100 million. What’s your problem?

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty


==========================================================================================================================================
No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth. Monetary Sovereignty: Cutting federal deficits to grow the economy is like applying leeches to cure anemia. Two key equations in economics:
Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings
Gross Domestic Product = Federal Spending + Private Investment and Consumption + Net exports

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY