Filed under: Health Insurance

*Getty Images*

By Lisa Zamosky

If you didn't have health insurance in 2014, you could be on the hook for a penalty when you file your taxes. And if you fail to sign up for insurance during the current open enrollment period, you'll also lock yourself into an even steeper fine for 2015.

But what if you couldn't afford health insurance, or you have religious reasons for opposing it? The law allows for exemptions -- and a lot of people are expected to qualify. In fact, according to a Congressional Budget Office report, by 2016, almost 90 percent of the 30 million people still uninsured won't pay the penalty, primarily because they'll qualify for one of nearly two dozen exemptions. Here, experts discuss the five exemptions likely to be most commonly used, as well as how to go about applying for them.

*1. You Live in a State that Didn't Expand Medicaid.*

Nationwide, about 4 million low-income people will remain uninsured because they live in one of the 23 states that chose not to expand its Medicaid program in 2014, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. "This should be one of the more commonly used exemptions," says Karen Pollitz, senior fellow with Kaiser Family Foundation.

People with incomes at or below 138 percent of poverty -- about $27,000 a year for a family of three -- won't be eligible for Medicaid coverage if they live in a state that didn't expand the program under the Affordable Care Act. In many cases, these folks also didn't get subsidies to help buy private insurance through the Marketplace because their income was too low to qualify for premium tax credits. The law doesn't provide financial assistance to people with incomes below poverty.

Initially, people in this situation were required to apply for Medicaid and be denied, or to get a hardship exemption certificate by applying through the Marketplace. "The idea was you had to apply to the Marketplace by the end of this year to qualify," says Timothy Jost, a law professor at Washington and Lee University. But the IRS recently changed course, thanks in part to a blog post Jost co-wrote in the journal Health Affairs urging it to do so. Now, this hardship exemption can be claimed on your 2014 tax return.

*2. Your Income Is Too Low to File for Taxes*

Millions of Americans don't file a tax return because their income falls below the threshold that requires them to do so. That's the case for a single person who earned less than $10,150 in 2014, or a married couple with an income below $20,300.

"If you don't have to file taxes then you are also exempt from the mandate," says Linda Blumberg, health economist with the Urban Institute. Since you aren't required to file a tax return, no action is required to take advantage of this exemption from the health law. "You don't have to apply for the exemption," she says, because it will be automatically applied.

*3. Health Insurance Is Too Expensive for You*

Despite subsidies to lower costs, health insurance remains unaffordable for millions of Americans. If coverage is too pricey for you, you'll qualify for an exemption. "The rule is you get the affordability exemption if the cheapest cost plan is more than 8 percent [of your income]," Pollitz says.

There are a number of reasons why people might find themselves in this circumstance, she says. For example, individuals with incomes in 2014 of roughly $29,000 and families of four who earned about $59,000 would qualify for a subsidy to help pay for insurance, but would still be required to pay more than 8 percent of their income -- the law's threshold for insurance being deemed too costly.

Some people can stay under that 8 percent threshold by purchasing a less expensive plan, Pollitz points out, "although when they do so they're going to pick up a lot more cost-sharing," she says. But if you're older, the law allows insurers to charge you more than a younger person for the same health plan. For many people in their 50s and early 60s, it's possible even the least expensive bronze-level plan will be too pricey.

That's also likely to be the case for smokers and people living in an area with high medical costs -- two additional factors for which insurers can charge consumers more. If these extra costs tacked onto your health plan premium drive the price of insurance above 8 percent of your household income, you'll be allowed to file for an exemption. You can either claim it when you file your federal taxes, or apply for an exemption certificate through the Marketplace.

*4. You Hit the Family Glitch*

Here's how this plays out: One member of a family has a job that offers "affordable" health insurance for the whole family, which means no member of the family can get financial help to lower the costs of Marketplace coverage.

But under the law, it's only the cost of the employee's insurance that's taken into account when determining whether job-based coverage is affordable. It meets that standard as long as the employee's insurance premium is no more than 9.5 percent of household income and covers, on average, 60 percent of medical costs covered by the plan. That means even if insurance for a family of four eats up 15 percent of household income, it's still considered affordable as long as the employee's coverage alone meets the law's cost standards.

If the cost to cover your family through work-based insurance in this case exceeds 8 percent of your household income, the family members (not the employee with the "affordable" coverage) qualify for an exemption. "The IRS exemption [taken] at [the time of tax] filing should provide an exemption for most families in the family glitch," Jost says.

*5. Hardship and Other Exemptions*

There are a host of other defined hardships that may qualify you for an exemption under the health reform law. These include circumstances such as being evicted or facing foreclosure, receiving a shut-off notice from a utility company, filing for bankruptcy or having medical expenses you couldn't pay in the last 24 months. You can see a full list at Healthcare.gov.

In most hardship cases, you'll have to apply for the exemption through the Marketplace, where you can download the forms you'll need to complete the process. In addition, you'll likely have to dig up some paperwork to support your claims, such as a copy of a foreclosure notice or bankruptcy filing.
If you had a gap in insurance coverage of less than three months -- another exemption likely to be widely used, according to Jost -- you can claim your exemption on IRS Form 8965 and send it in along with you federal tax return.

To get help filing for an exemption you can work with a navigator or other people trained to assist. Check Healthcare.gov for listings or by calling 800‑318‑2596.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments Reported by DailyFinance 20 hours ago.

Vice President Joe Biden urges Americans to look into their health coverage options for 2015 under Obamacare before a February 15 deadline. Reported by CBS News 15 hours ago.

The Supreme Court has been reluctant to jump into the question of same-sex marriage, preferring to let the issue percolate through state-by-state litigation in the lower federal courts.  But the time has come for the justices to come out of hiding.  The denial of marriage equality is a national problem, not a state-level problem, and it requires a national resolution that only our nation’s constitutional court can provide.At the moment, 35 states allow marriage equality, while 15 forbid it.  The anti-equality states not only refuse to allow same-sex marriages to be licensed and celebrated; 14 of them also refuse to recognize marriages from sister states where such unions are perfectly legal.  Petitions from cases in four of those states – Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee – will be considered by the justices at their next private conference this coming Friday.One reason marriage equality is a national issue is that our current patchwork of marriage laws imposes unreasonable, indeed absurd, burdens on same-sex couples’ security in their marriages and their freedom to move from state to state.  A married gay couple from a pro-equality state can relocate for job, education or family reasons to an anti-equality state – as long as they’re willing to give up their marriage, and perhaps even their property and parental rights.  A rational legal regime cannot tolerate this state of affairs.In a 2012 article in the Michigan Law Review, I first proposed that the Constitution provides not only a right to get married, but a right to remain married.  Multiple federal court decisions, including one from the 10^th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals involving Utah’s marriage laws, have since endorsed this principle.  There is also an argument to be made that denial of interstate marriage recognition offends the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause.Aside from the harms they inflict on couples, inconsistent state marriage laws also cost American businesses $1.3 billion per year, according to a study released in October by the consulting group Marsh and McLennan Companies.  “As marriage confers a host of legal and social privileges,” the report explains, “the irregular landscape generates a host of administrative and compliance requirements for employers."A patchwork of marriage laws also means a tax penalty for employers and employees in states without the freedom to marry, because the value of spousal health insurance and other benefits for an employee in a same-sex household is treated as ordinary income, triggering additional payroll and income taxes.  “As many corporate leaders now view national freedom to marry as inevitable,” the Marsh and McLennan report observes, “they would prefer that this tax and compliance burden disappear sooner rather than later."There is another important reason why marriage equality should be settled at the national level: that is where the campaign to ban it has always been fought.Although same-sex marriage was not possible in the United States until a decade ago, affirmative and categorical prohibitions are a relatively recent phenomenon.  The first state constitutional amendments banning marriage equality were not passed until 1998, when voters in Alaska and Hawaii approved measures effectively overturning state court rulings favorable to marriage equality.  By 2008, only 10 years later, more than 30 states had approved such measures. Aside from the harms they impose, I have argued that the process that was used to enact these measures raises serious constitutional concerns.  It is fanciful to believe that these laws were the products of carefully considered, historically validated, independent policy decisions by each state, and thus worthy of deference as a matter of federalism.  For the most part these laws were, in fact, products of a determined, nationwide blitzkrieg by religious conservative activists and Republican operatives.  In the 2004 elections, President George W. Bush’s strategist Karl Rove helped oversee efforts that saw 11 anti-marriage equality measures approved in one swoop.  James Dobson, founder of the once-powerful group Focus on the Family, called the nationwide fight against gay marriage “our D-Day, or Gettysburg or Stalingrad.” The campaign was one of classic backlash:  it sought to exploit short-term public passions and prejudices to slam the door on marriage equality just as a national debate was starting to emerge on the issue.  As CNN’s report the day after the 2004 elections described it, “Six months after gay and lesbian couples won the right to marry in Massachusetts, opponents of same-sex marriage struck back” with amendments in 11 states “codifying marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution.” Experience demonstrates that when Americans learn more about gay people and their relationships, they become more likely to support marriage equality.  Even while marriage equality opponents were still enjoying success at the voting booth, attitudes were evolving: between 1998 and 2009, the average vote against mini-DOMAs in statewide referenda increased from 31 percent to 46 percent.If the remaining marriage bans took the form of ordinary statutes that could be revisited by legislatures in light of the growing majority support for same-sex marriage, there might be less reason for the Supreme Court to act right now.  But all 15 remaining bans are in the form of state constitutional amendments, which are much harder to undo because they typically require legislative supermajorities, votes in multiple legislative sessions, and/or statewide voter referenda.This emphasis on constitutional amendments also was a deliberate strategy pursued at the national level by anti-gay-marriage activists.  The goal was not merely to enact laws that appealed to lawmakers and voters at the time, but to place the question of same-sex marriage beyond democratic debate and the ordinary lawmaking process – that is, persuading a simple majority of your elected representatives, the way most laws are made or repealed – in as many states as possible, for as long as possible.  The spirit of these efforts was captured by a Georgia Republican politician who urged his state to adopt a constitutional amendment because it would “set in stone that marriage in this country is a union between one man and one woman.  The laws of man did not create marriage; the laws of man should not alter marriage.”The campaign against same-sex marriage has seen its fortunes dramatically reversed in the past few years.  Many Americans who once opposed gay marriage have, with better information and greater reflection, changed their minds.  It is an important principle of the Supreme Court's equality jurisprudence that courts should not intervene in such matters too hastily, because “the Constitution presumes that even improvident decisions” by lawmakers or voters can “eventually be rectified by the democratic processes.” But in the 15 states where anti-equality laws remain, they are embedded in state constitutions, and the ordinary democratic lawmaking process cannot address them.And so the time has come for the Supreme Court to step in.  The campaign against marriage equality was mapped and executed at the national level, and it continues to impose harms and indignities on individuals and businesses that reverberate across state boundaries.  The validity of such laws should be weighed and ruled upon by the justices whose responsibility it is to interpret and apply our highest national law, the Constitution. Reported by Huffington Post 7 hours ago.

Like many working Americans, Lisa Gray thought she had good health insurance. Reported by L.A. Times 18 hours ago.

Find out if you're paying a lot more for health insurance -- or maybe a lot less -- than your fellow Americans. Reported by Motley Fool 18 hours ago.

The next year will bring with it a new set of complications related to the employer and individual health insurance mandates. Reported by Deseret News 18 hours ago.

San Diego, Calif., Jan 4, 2015 / 08:15 am (CNA/EWTN News).- Maura Byrne was terrified to go to therapy for the first time.

She knew something was wrong, and she knew she needed help. But she didn’t know if she wanted to revisit the ghosts of her past, particularly with a therapist.

“I was very reluctant to do it, there’s just such a stigma associated with therapy, and I didn’t know if I wanted to open up to someone,” she told CNA.

A young woman from northern New Jersey, Byrne experienced her share of trauma in the past, including abuse, an eating disorder and a diagnosis of depression in college. After visiting the Institute of the Psychological Sciences in Arlington, Virginia, she was further diagnosed with borderline personality disorder and chronic post-traumatic stress disorder.

“Them diagnosing me with those things was both hurtful but very helpful, because I knew something was wrong with me, but I didn’t know what it was, and I didn’t know how to fix it,” Byrne said.

Once she reached out for help, Byrne realized she needed to continue with therapy, which she did for the next two years. And that was when the hard work, healing – and inspiration – began.

She found a Catholic psychologist in Nashville, Tennessee, and within a matter of weeks transplanted her entire life from her home on the East Coast to the southern state in order to continue with counseling.

It wasn’t easy.

“I worked really hard, because therapy was really expensive and I was working as a baker and so I didn’t have health insurance, and so at times I worked up to three jobs to pay for the care that I needed,” she said.

But the healing she experienced from her Catholic doctor was unlike any other doctor she had encountered.  

“He really challenged me to see beauty in my suffering, and therapy was very, very difficult, but at the same time very beautiful,” she said.

“And when I was done with therapy, he said to me: ‘Everyone suffers, but it’s what someone does with that suffering that makes them a saint.’”

That’s when the idea for Made in His Image was born.

“He inspired me to start a ministry for women who have suffered the way I have, and to teach them about their dignity as daughters of God,” Byrne said.

That was in September 2011. Byrne started travelling and speaking to high school and college aged women about their inherent beauty and dignity and daughters of God, and she started reaching out to them through a blog and social media, writing about how much God loves them as Father despite anything they’ve been through.

Currently, the Made in His Image Facebook page has over 26,000 likes. The website includes testimonials from women who have experienced healing through the ministry, as well as blog posts from various contributors on topics such as forgiveness, modesty, chastity, and recovery from various traumas like abortion and abuse.

Byrne has even taken her testimony overseas, to Belize and Uganda, to help women there learn of God as a loving Father.

“That’s three years of really hard work in the making,” she said. Getting started, she had no background in social media, and picked the brains of various friends who had wisdom to share.

“The ultimate goal for Made in His Image is to be the first Catholic medical center in the world for girls suffering from eating disorders and abuse,” Byrne said. “There are Christian centers, but none that are Catholic, that’s the ultimate goal.”

It’s a tall order for just one person. Byrne is hoping to expand her ministry staff to include at least a few more people, in order to field the thousands of e-mails she gets from women who have found Made in His Image.

Those e-mails of women reaching out for help are also why Byrne recently quit her job as a baker to pursue this ministry full-time.

One e-mail in particular made her realize she had a full-time task on her hands.

“I received an e-mail from a young woman who… had planned on taking her life that night, but for some reason – she didn’t say the reason – she was just Googling around online and she found Made in His Image,” Byrne said.

“She read all of our blog posts, and she said the reason she didn’t take her life was because of all the posts that she read, and she was told that she was loved on the blog posts.”

In order to make the ministry sustainable after quitting her job, and to help Made in His Image reach its ultimate goal, Byrne launched a Go Fund Me campaign last month.

“It was definitely a leap of faith,” Byrne said, “and I just live like month-to-month with my finances, which is not ideal at all, and to just to make this sustainable is really important.”

Byrne said one of the biggest lies she wants to bust for women and girls is that they are not enough – not enough to seek the help they truly need, not enough to experience healing, not enough to believe they are beautiful and loved.

“I want them to know about God the Father’s love, and how incredibly worthy they are, how incredibly enough that they are, and how God delights in them,” Byrne said. “Ultimately I want them to develop a personal relationship with God as Father, and to learn about their dignity as daughters of God.”

Nearly every post on the website ends with a simple but loving: P.S. You’re enough.

Byrne also tries to help young women get over the stigma of seeking out therapy and counseling.

“I tell them, you know I think everyone should be in therapy at some point in their life, it’s so helpful,” she said. “If you were sick, you would go to the doctor, and you know, when we have things that we need to deal with, it’s so helpful to go and talk to someone who has that knowledge just like a medical doctor.”

She also tells them that if they don’t like therapy the first time, they don’t have to go back. But almost always, once a woman starts counseling, she recognizes its value.

“They know it’s really, really hard, but they really actually do like it.”

Another thing she tries to help women and girls with is forgiveness and freedom from their past. Often, abuse comes from a family member, which can be very difficult to process.

“Something that was really helpful to me to recognize and learn about was how we all have free will,” Byrne said. “I think it’s really easy when something traumatic or horrible happens, we think ‘If God loved us, he wouldn’t allow this to happen.’”

“But if we know that person had free will, and God gives each of us free will, and we can either sin or do good with our free will, and the person who hurt them chose to do evil with their free will - it’s just really helpful to work through that process.”  

In situations of abuse, Byrne stressed that it is important for women to seek separation from the situation and holistic healing for themselves before considering reaching out to a family member who has been abusive. When the time comes, Byrne says it is essential to pray for the grace to forgive.

“When you fail to forgive, you’re holding yourself hostage, and when you forgive them, you’re really setting yourself free, and it really comes down to that,” she said. “Ultimately, we are called to love like Christ, and when Christ hung on the cross, he loved those who were persecuting him.”

The testimonials on Made in His Image’s website speak volumes for what the ministry has done for girls and women already:

“I hadn't eaten in weeks. Then I read your blog and it gave me the resolve to fight again. Thank you.”

“I listened to one of your live talks and it changed my life. Your passion is inspiring. I never knew going to therapy was okay, before you told me. Thank you for what you’ve done for me. Made in His Image is an amazing ministry, it saved my life.”

“You are so honest and real and there’s so much hope in the way you write. I’m so happy to have found it. I’m amazed at what you’re doing. Your posts bring me a lot of comfort and hope. I’ve been struggling lately with so much … but today is the Triumph of the Cross…and it’s so perfect that I found your blog today. I’ll pray for you today. Thanks for everything you’re doing!”

Byrne said that through the Holy Spirit, she hopes her ministry will continue to change hearts and save lives.

“I just want to expose them to genuine, authentic love, and that is the love of God as Father,” she said, “and I really think the Holy Spirit will take over from there, and I really think their lives will be transformed.”
  Reported by CNA 17 hours ago.

While the Affordable Care Act fines those who don't have health insurance, it also provides subsidies for people making up to four times the federal poverty line ($46,680)... but, as The Washington Examiner reports, the subsidies are based on past tax returns, so many people may be receiving too much. In fact, as H&R Block calculates, *as many as 3.4 million people who received Obamacare subsidies may owe money to the federal government*.

 

As The Washington Examiner reports,



*As many as 3.4 million people who received Obamacare subsidies may owe refunds to the federal government, according to an estimate by a tax preparation firm.*

 

H&R Block is estimating that as many as half of the 6.8 million people who received insurance premium subsidies under the Affordable Care Act benefited from subsidies that were too large, the Wall Street Journal reported Thursday.

 

“The ACA is going to result in more confusion for existing clients, and *many taxpayers may well be very disappointed by getting less money and possibly even owing money*," the president of a tax preparation and education school told the Journal.

 

*While the Affordable Care Act fines those who don't have health insurance, it also provides subsidies for people making up to four times the federal poverty line ($46,680).*

 

But the subsidies are based on past tax returns, so *many people may be receiving too much*, according to Vanderbilt University assistant professor John Graves, who projects the average subsidy is $208 too high, the Journal reports.

 

Tax preparers, who frequently advertise their ability to deliver big refunds, have been working feverishly to *avoid customer anger stemming from lower-than-expected refunds due to insurance premiums. *They also are trying to make sure customers understand the potential fines for not having insurance.

 

"Eighty-five percent of our customers get a refund," said Kathy Pickering, who directs the H&R Block Tax Institute, according to the Washington Post. *"That refund could be offset by the penalty. And if that happens, they're going to be understandably angry."*



*  *  *

Angry indeed... Reported by Zero Hedge 12 hours ago.

Have you been offered a new job? It’s worth negotiating the key terms DO YOU have the back to work blues? For many, the Christmas and New Year break is an opportunity to reassess your position. It may be that you feel you are being undervalued and aren’t getting a fair deal at work. You might be thinking of looking for pastures new. If you are fed up with your current job and do receive a new job offer, the excitement of a fresh position can make it tempting to sign a contract without properly considering the terms. But whether you are about to start a new role or renegotiate existing terms, it is important to know what to look out for. You may believe that, in trying to negotiate a better deal, you will risk jeopardising your relationship with your new employer. If you don’t negotiate, however, you could come to regret it. The detail of the contract is very important – particularly when it comes to an end. Here are some of the main areas (apart from basic pay and holidays) you should be keeping an eye on. BONUS TERMS Bonuses are usually discretionary, and often contracts state that you will only be eligible if you are in employment on the bonus payment date and neither you nor your employer has given notice. Sometimes, if the bonus is more formulaic and calculated by reference to sales, for example, it may be worthwhile trying to negotiate a pro-rated bonus for part of the year worked. Sometimes, bonuses may be deferred in the form of cash, stock or options. Usually, if you resign before the award vests, it is forfeited. In redundancy situations, employers may grant good leaver status, and awards that would otherwise have been forfeited could continue to vest. This is worth checking. Further, be aware that, in certain cases, clawback provisions may apply – so a bonus may have to be repaid even after your employment has ended. BENEFITS Packages may include health cover, permanent health insurance, a pension, as well as other benefits. Make sure that all benefits mentioned in the discussions, and subsequently agreed upon, are reflected in your contract. NOTICE It is important to review the notice provisions. Notice requirements vary but are usually between one and three months. Don’t accept a term that requires you to give longer notice to your employer than they are required to give to you. Longer notices tend to favour employees, but they can operate against you to keep you away from a competitor. RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS Typical clauses may prohibit you from competing with your employer, soliciting or dealing with clients, and poaching your employer’s staff for a certain period. The general rule is that such clauses are only enforceable if they go no further than necessary to protect the legitimate interests of the business. They are often enforced by the courts, however. It is easy to overlook what happens when you leave a position, but it will be too late to negotiate these terms once you have departed. So if the New Year starts with a job offer, read the small print and don’t be too scared to negotiate. Any doubts, speak to your lawyer. Matt Gingell is a partner at law firm Gannons, which specialises in employment and commercial law. www.gannons.co.uk New Year, new you Hi.Q Free Hi.Q (short for health IQ) was developed to help users understand what it means to be healthy (and how close you are to achieving it). It works like a quiz: you start by providing some basic personal information, and then are asked a series of questions designed to test your health knowledge (and discover your health IQ). Don’t know your calcium from your cataracts? Don’t worry. The app explains the correct answers, and even allows you to personalise your learning based on your New Year’s resolutions. Reported by City A.M. 5 hours ago.

*Contents:*

- Introduction

- Review of 2014

- Gold Second Best Currency In 2014 – Higher In All Currencies Except Dollar

- Silver Falls Despite Robust Demand

- Stock and Bond Performance In 2014

- Oil Prices Collapse; Energy, Copper, Sugar Fall; Coffee Surges

- Regulatory Authorities Confirm Gold Rigging

- Another Year Of Paper Selling While Physical Demand Robust – Especially From China and India

- Continuing Central Bank and Russian Central Bank Demand

- Gold Repatriation Movements Gather Momentum

- Ebola – Threat Moves From Africa To West

-  Markets Sleep as U.S. Government Debt Surges Over $18 Trillion 

- Move To Stealth Bail-In Regime Continues

*REVIEW of 2014*

Happy New Year !

At the end of each year, it is important to take stock and review how various assets have performed and what has transpired in the year gone past, as it will give indications as to how assets will perform in the coming year and, more importantly, years.

Gold Second Best Currency In 2014 – Higher In All Currencies Except Dollar
Gold was the second best performing currency in 2014, with only the U.S. dollar stronger.

The Gold fix on December 31st 2014 was USD 1,199.25, EUR 986.55 and GBP 769.84 per ounce.
The Gold fix on December 31st 2013 was USD 1,201.50, EUR 872.55 and GBP 726.99 per ounce.

Gold was marginally lower in dollars in 2014 but rose in all other major currencies. Gold in euro and pound rose 13 percent and 6 percent respectively. Gold in yen rose 15 percent in 2014.Gold for February delivery fell $16.30, or 1.4%, to settle at $1,184.10 an ounce on the New York Mercantile Exchange on Wednesday (Dec 31st), to end the year 1.3% lower for the year. A year ago, gold’s most-active contract settled at $1,202.30 an ounce.Gold in USD – 1 Year (Thomson Reuters)

Gold ended the year 14% off its 2014 high of $1,379 an ounce set in mid March after the price surge at the start of the the year in January, February and March.

China’s yuan closed at 6.2040 against the dollar on Wednesday, ending 2014 with a loss of 2.4 percent against the dollar and 1% against gold. The yuan fell as China has engaged in its own QE and competitive currency devaluation – currency wars continued quietly in 2014.Gold in Euros – 1 Year (Thomson Reuters)

Gold again protected investors in the Eurozone with the 13 percent gain. Gold rose nearly exactly €100 from EUR 876 per ounce to close at EUR 980 per ounce. Gold again acted as a classic safe haven for investors exposed to the euro, and markets and assets denominated in euros.

The gains in euro terms  and move back towards EUR 1,000 per ounce may also signal concerns about some form of ECB QE or money printing and debt monetisation in the coming months.Gold in British Pounds – 1 Year (Thomson Reuters)

Gold in sterling saw similar gains to those in euro but sterling was a stronger currency in 2014 and therefore gains were not as much. There was a similar chart trajectory with gains in the early part of the year followed by a retracement and consolidation and then a sell off towards the end of October, followed by a slight bounce higher.

The price falls in October and into year end in dollar terms took place despite a positive fundamental backdrop and despite the risk of contagion in the Eurozone, concerns about global economic growth, the emergence of Ebola and the twin geopolitical risks emanating from tensions and war in the Middle East and tensions with Russia leading to the economic slowdown in Russia and collapse of the rouble.

The falls on Wednesday, the last day of the year, may have been due to the usual suspects on Wall Street pushing prices lower in order to again “paint the tape” and engender further negative sentiment in the western gold market.

Indeed, trading in December had all the hallmarks of an entity or entities attempting to keep the gold price below $1,200/oz. It is worth noting that the price low last year was on December 31st.

Given that 2014 was the year that manipulation and rigging of the gold market was proven after years of allegations, it would be naive to discount the possibility of further manipulation, especially given the fact that banks found guilty of rigging markets received risible punishment – mere slaps on the wrist. These will be unlikely to prevent further price rigging.

Despite the slight loss for gold in dollar terms and very negative sentiment, globally gold had a very good year.

Many currencies were severely devalued in 2014 as currency wars continue unabated.

Gold acted as a safe haven to many people in countries around the world. Gold rose strongly in many currencies such as the Syrian pound, Ukrainian hryvnia and of course the Russian rouble.

Geopolitical risk intensified with the risk of terrorism and war ever present and gold continued to act as an important hedge against geopolitical risk and indeed currency devaluations.

*- Silver Falls Despite Robust Demand*
Silver was down a further 19 percent in 2014 after the sharp 36% fall in dollar terms in 2013.

Silver remains down a whopping nearly 70% from its record nominal high in 2011.Silver in USD – 1 Year (Thomson Reuters)

Investors are continuing to accumulate silver as it looks great value at the levels – both compared to gold and also when compared to increasingly toppy stock and bond markets.Silver in USD – 5 Years (Thomson Reuters)

Platinum had a 12 percent decline this year. The metal is heading for the first back-to-back yearly losses since 1997.

Palladium bucked the trend and rose 12 percent this year, the third annual gain due to concerns about supplies from Russia and South Africa – the two largest producers.

*- Stock and Bond Performance In 2014*
2014 was again the year of the risk asset, such as equities and bonds, with both doing well in the deep and increasingly murky sea of liquidity and cheap money created by central banks.

Risk assets favoured by banks and central banks did well, while other risk assets such as many commodities did not fare as well.MSCI World Index – 1 Year (Thomson Reuters)

Very favourable monetary conditions did not lead to higher commodity and precious metal prices. Quite the contrary, commodities in general had a torrid year and significantly underperformed the vast majority of equity and bond markets.

The MSCI World Index rose 2.93% in the year compared with 24.1% in 2013 while MSCI’s broadest index of Asia-Pacific shares outside Japan ended the year almost exactly where it started. However, with the help of Bank of Japan money printing, the Nikkei 225 gained 7.1%.

The Dow rose 7.5% in 2014, its sixth-consecutive yearly gain. The S&P 500 added 11.4%, its third-straight annual gain. The Nasdaq Composite climbed 13.4% in 2014, also marking its third-straight annual gain.

The Dow’s 30 industrials closed at a record 38 times in 2014, while the S&P 500 did so 53 times (see chart below).

European share indices were mixed in a volatile and tumultuous year. There was a late rebound as the promise of EU QE contributed to modest gains.

The FTSEurofirst 300 index of pan-European shares, had a 3.9 percent gain for the year.

The French CAC has lost 0.5 percent and the German DAX eked out slim gains of 2.7 percent.FTSE 100 Index – 1 Year (Thomson Reuters)

Britain’s FTSE 100 index, was the only major European index to eye a yearly loss, due to its high exposure to the energy and commodities sectors. It was down 2.7 percent for the year.

The Spanish IBEX 35 climbed 3.7% and the Italian FTSE MIB was little changed. Ireland’s ISEQ Index was volatile but rose by 14.5%.

Stocks in Portugal and Greece crashed. The PSI 20 lost a whopping 26.8 percent and Greek shares had a yearly loss of nearly 30 percent. Greece is heading for an early general election on January 25, which radical leftist party Syriza is tipped to win – potentially leading to a new eurozone debt crisis.

With a 21% surge, Denmark’s OMX Copenhagen 20 Index posted the biggest rise among 24 developed markets tracked by Bloomberg.

The stand out global equity performers were China and Argentina.

In China, the CSI300 index  saw gains of nearly 50 percent after two months of very strong gains in November and December when hopes grew of more policy stimulus and international capital won wider access to Chinese stocks.

Despite battling a debt default and currency crisis, Argentina’s stock market won the unlikely accolade of the best performing global index of 2014.

The Buenos Aires Merval Index has logged an annual gain of an incredible 58.9%. This is the greatest percentage increase compared to other global benchmarks tracked by Reuters.

This is what frequently happens to stock markets in countries on the verge of or experiencing hyperinflation as was seen in Zimbabwe in 2009.S&P 500 Index – 20 Years (Thomson Reuters)

Emerging market stocks and bonds were generally lower and many had a second straight year in the red, especially Russia.

Europe’s government bond markets were buoyed as global flood of cheap money helped take Italian and Spanish borrowing costs to record lows and gave safer German debt its strongest year in six.

U.S. Treasuries had their best year since 2011, and returned 4.95 percent in 2014 while long bonds had a 27.23 percent return.

Benchmark 10-year note yields have dropped to 2.18 percent from 3 percent at the beginning of the year. Thirty-year bond yields have fallen to 2.76 percent, from 3.93 percent.

*- Oil Prices Collapse; Energy, Copper, Sugar Fall; Coffee Surges*
The year 2014 was bad for commodities in general as prices of most commodities fell.

Commodities had the biggest annual loss since the global financial crisis in 2008, retreating for a record fourth year due to concerns about global economic growth.

The CRB Commodity Index fell to its lowest level in over five years. The Bloomberg Commodity Index, which tracks 22 products from crude to copper, dropped to the lowest level since March 2009 on New Years Eve. It was down 16 percent this year, with crude, gasoline and heating oil the biggest decliners.

The fourth year of losses is the longest since at least 1991. Prices of many metals as well as major agri commodities such as soybean, soy oil and crude palm oil fell.

Copper was set to post its worst annual decline in three years on worries about global growth and growth in top consumer China.

The price of Brent crude oil halved in 2014 and had its biggest annual decline since 2008, pressured by weakening demand and a supply glut prompted by the U.S. shale boom and OPEC’s refusal to cut output.

Sugar futures fell for a fourth straight year, the longest losing streak for sugar since at least 1971, as far back as CQG data go. March sugar ended the year at 14.52 cents a pound, down nearly 12% for the year.

Global production of sugar will likely outpace demand for the fifth consecutive year in the season ending Sept. 30, 2015, according to the International Sugar Organization. Oversupply and declining demand due to increased health awareness has hit prices.

Cotton futures also ended lower because of ballooning global supplies. Cotton was down 29% for the year.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture expects the world’s cotton supply to surpass demand by a record 108.08 million bales when the current season ends July 31.

It wasn’t all bad, though, as a few commodities, such as live cattle and palladium, rose. Coffee was the best-performing commodity, after a brutal bear market lasting from 2011 through 2013. Coffee surged 48% in 2014.

Orange-juice concentrate for March ended the year up 2.6%, at $1.3980 a pound. Cocoa saw its third consecutive year of gains, ending the year up 7.4% as strong demand buoyed prices.

*- Regulatory Authorities Confirm Gold and Silver Rigging*
2014 may go down as the year when gold and silver conspiracy “theories” became conspiracy “facts” as banks globally were found to have conspired to rig the prices of gold, silver, currency and many other markets.

UK regulators found that Barclays had manipulated gold prices . The UK’s Financial Conduct Authority fined the British bank £26 million in May.

Further proof of manipulation of gold and silver prices also came in November when  Switzerland’s financial regulator (FINMA) found “serious misconduct” and a “clear attempt to manipulate precious metals benchmarks” by UBS employees in precious metals trading, particularly with silver.

UBS settled allegations of misconduct at its gold and silver trading business in November, alongside a planned agreement between UK and US authorities and seven banks over accusations of foreign exchange market rigging.

Last week came news that Britain will widen the scope of laws which make the manipulation of market benchmarks a criminal offence. The changes will now include seven more rates covering the currency, gold, oil and silver markets, the government said last week.

Peculiar, single trade or handful of trades leading to sudden gold and silver price falls continued in 2014 and contributed to gold and silver’s weakness. Price falls were often seen at times when markets were less liquid. As ever, price falls were driven from the futures market in electronic and increasingly computer driven trading – despite no reports of any major liquidations of physical metal.

Indeed, they often came at times of strong global physical demand.

Banks continue to get mere slaps on the wrists for breaking the law. Very few traders or bankers have faced prosecution or jail time. Instead, regulators levy ineffectual fines that are tiny when compared to their annual bonuses and indeed profits.

As long as this continues, we will continue to see criminal behaviour and banks attempting to manipulate and rig markets at the expense of investors and other financial market participants.

Such behaviour is creating huge distortions in markets and will likely contribute to another financial crash and crisis.

However, it also creates opportunities as certain markets not favoured by banks and central banks are artificially held lower, thus allowing canny investors to pick up assets on the cheap.

Gold is some 37% below the nominal high in 2011 and silver some 70% below its nominal high in 2011.

*- Another Year Of Paper Selling While Physical Demand Robust – Especially From China and India*
Demand from China and India is set to be some 3,000 metric tonnes this year – more than the entire annual global production of gold.

India is set for demand of some 1,000 tonnes and China over 2,000 metric tonnes as measured by the benchmark Shanghai Gold Exchange (SGE) withdrawals – which is likely the single most important benchmark of global gold demand today.

Last year saw another robust year for Chinese demand despite frequent talk of weak demand and low premiums in China.

Manipulation of markets can work effectively in the short term. However, in the long term prices will be dictated by the global supply and the global demand of 7 billion people, many in Asia who believe in gold as a store of value.

Not to mention, sovereign central banks such as the People’s Bank of China and the Russian central bank – who believe in gold as an important monetary asset.

*- Continuing Central Bank and Russian Central Bank Demand*
In 2014, central banks continued to accumulate gold with Russia in particular and ex Soviet States – Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Kyrgyz Republic and other central banks continuing to diversify their foreign exchange reserves – frequently reducing dollar holdings and increasing gold holdings.

U.S. Federal Reserve employees auditing gold?

Central banks continued to be strong buyers of gold in 2014, albeit the full year data may show demand was at a slightly slower rate than the record levels seen in recent years.

Central banks have been accelerating gold purchases ever since quantitative easing began in early 2009. Central banks added 93 tons of gold to reserves in the third quarter of 2014, with more than half of all buying coming from Russia, according to the World Gold Council.

Q4 2014 will likely be the 16th consecutive quarter of net purchases of gold by central banks.

Central bank purchases are expected to hit more than 400 tons for the full year, in line with 2013.

However, the official figures do not include the ongoing clandestine and undeclared purchases of gold by the People’s Bank of China (PBOC). Conservative estimates put PBOC demand at 100 tonnes a quarter or at over 400 tonnes for the year. More radical projections are of demand of over 1,000 tonnes from the PBOC again in 2014.

China is buying huge amounts of gold as it seeks to increase its gold allocation from the current low of just 1 percent of foreign exchange reserves.

As currency wars deepen and as economic war with Russia intensifies, there is now a possibility that Russia may like China, also start accumulating gold in a clandestine manner. Rather than selling gold as some banks have suggested without any facts or reasoning to back it up, Russia may increase its gold buying in an effort to protect the rouble.

*- Gold Repatriation Movements Gather Momentum*
The gold repatriation movement began by Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and given added impetus by the Bundesbank in 2013, continued to gather momentum in 2014.

People in other European countries began to demand that central banks repatriate their gold reserves – frequently from the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve.

The Bundesbank is bringing back many tons of their valuable gold bars from abroad in order to store them in the vaults of the central bank in Frankfurt. By 2020 at the latest, half of Germany’s gold reserves are to be stored in Frankfurt.

At the end of last year the volume was not even one-third as the Germans struggled to have their gold returned to them – for reasons known only by the Federal Reserve and possibly the Bundesbank.

In 2014 came news that Netherlands, Belgium and Austria are seeking to repatriate their gold reserves.

Austria is the latest country to start discussing bringing its gold home. It has 280 tons of gold, 80% of which is stored in London, with another 3% held in Switzerland. In December it was reported that an Austrian audit court had ordered a review of the practicality of bringing Austrian gold reserves back to Vienna, where the central bank would have total control of it.

Last month, the leader of the populist National Front in France, Marine Le Pen, wrote an open letter to the Bank of France demanding that all the French gold be returned to Paris. For good measure, she urged the bank to take advantage of the fall in the gold price to increase French allocations to gold.
France is is one of the largest gold reserve holders in the world, with 2,435 tons.

Germany, France, Netherlands, Austria and Belgium are five of the countries at the core of the European Union and the political and financial power lies in these the“Northern block” of countries.

This could lead to a run on the global fractional reserve gold reserve system. An already tight and very small physical market may be confronted with new and very significant sources of demand for gold that has likely been sold into or leased into the market in recent years.

This along with demand from China and India and central bank demand from China, Russia and ex Soviet States has the potential be a catalyst for gold shortages and much higher prices in the coming years.

*- Ebola – Threat Moves From Africa To West*
Ebola was one of the biggest developments in 2014. Initially, the outbreak was confined almost completely to West African countries

Ebola struck fear into people’s hearts because of its virus potential. This is a highly contagious disease, spread through a number of vectors, with an average mortality rate of 50 percent – in some cases, it’s been as high as 90 percent. Very few antivirals can cure it. New research has shown that the virus can live on in the semen of infected, though cured, men, for months.

Ebola has the potential to turn into a global pandemic. This is especially the case in an era of mass-movement around the planet.

The crisis continues. As of early December, there were roughly 18,000 suspected cases and almost 7,000 deaths. The World Health Organisation (WHO) reckons this is under-estimated.

There were cases in Spain and the U.S, brought there by returning health workers. In Ireland, a man suspected of being infected with Ebola was given the all-clear. Ebola is being held in check – for now – but the WHO and various NGOs have urged the global community to step up their efforts.

At the time of writing came news that a British health care worker who has contracted the disease is quarantined and being treated in a hospital in London.  There are concerns about all she came in contact with – including family, friends, colleagues, people on the return flight back with her and even taxi drivers.

A doctor who sat next to the nurse on the plane returning from Africa has accused health officials of jeopardising public safety by allowing at-risk volunteers to use public transport and enter crowded places once they arrive back in the UK.

Pandemics can severely affect supply chains, including food supplies, business operations and key government services such as the provision of water, electricity, education and of course health care. Travel restrictions and “stay at home” policies bordering on curfew would greatly curtail economic activity.

There is also an element of the “boy who cried wolf” regarding the ebola virus. There have been numerous alarmist campaigns and scaremongering regarding many viruses – bird flu, swine flu, H1N1 etc There have been many false alarms that when an actual pandemic commences, people may ignore the threat for longer than is prudent.

Therefore, the public will remain skeptical of the risk of ebola virus until it has been shown to be a real threat. This in itself poses risks as it means that people do not act in a precautionary manner thereby exposing themselves to potentially contracting the virus.

Is Ebola another virus scare or a real pandemic?

It is too soon to tell. Unless it is contained in the U.S. and Europe, it will likely at the very least impact consumer confidence and already fragile economic growth. Worse scenarios are possible with attendant consequences for risk assets.

-  Markets Sleep as U.S. Government Debt Surges Over $18 Trillion
An important story in 2014 and yet one that was largely ignored by media, the markets and even the blogosphere was the continuing deterioration in the U.S. fiscal situation.

The continuing steady and rapid growth in the U.S. national debt led to the total U.S. national or government debt hitting a new record high on December 1st at over $18 trillion.

The total U.S. debt has increased by 70% under Obama, from $10.62 trillion in January 2009 to over $18.005 trillion today. Actually since early December the debt has increased another whopping $50.19 billion to $18,050,191,719,150.07.

The Obama administration continues to pile debt onto the back of the U.S. taxpayer at a rate that would have made George W. Bush look quite prudent.

With the U.S. national debt or government debt now at over a staggering $18 trillion, it means that each household in the U.S. now carries the burden of $124,000 in national debt alone – or $56,378 per individual.

This does not include the massive private debt or household debt burden – people’s  mortgages, personal loans, credit card debt, student loans, car loans and other household debt.

In short, the federal government has borrowed, and spent, nearly $7.5 trillion more since President Obama took office than it has collected in taxes.

As ever, historical context is all important. The U.S National Debt took 43 Presidents from 1789 until 2008 to reach $10 trillion. The National Debt rose $4.899 trillion during the two terms of the Bush presidency. It has now gone up nearly $8 trillion since President Obama took office.

The U.S. national debt continues to spiral out of control, without any plan to reign it in …

*- Ukraine, Russia, Putin – ‘Poking The Bear’*
A butterfly flaps its wings and your world changes …

The tragic shooting down of a Malaysia Airlines flight over Ukraine in July brought home the scale of the conflict in the region and how intractable and dangerous it would become.

The tragic deaths of 298 innocent civilians on the Malaysian passenger jet is partly due to the dangerous game of poker currently continuing between major powers and the lack of will or complete failure to broker a meaningful ceasefire and peace negotiations.

Real people have had their lives destroyed. Many of those 298 people woke up in the comfortable homes with their families and started preparing for departure. They were excited about the prospect that they would be enjoying the beauty of a far distant land and gain a reprieve from their daily routines.

The conflict in Ukraine was probably known to them due to it being headline news for months now. It may have been a concern, but not a serious one. They probably hoped for the best and hoped that international governments would find a resolution.

In a way, they may have felt it was remote to them, not immediate, a different place with people who spoke different languages, had a different history.

In a flash that illusion was gone and their lives and the lives of the participants in the conflict became forever linked.

This is the nature of risk. Risk is born of change and it is driven by a multitude of possible variables. All of which are in a state of constant flux. We all manage risks in our daily lives. Our political leaders are meant to manage risks in our respective countries and their leaders are meant to manage risk in our respective economic blocks.

In order to manage risk we must be aware of the variables that affect us. We must know how they work, how they can be managed and how they can be diminished or leveraged?

You do this when you lock your house and set the alarm. When you put your seatbelt on. When you ensure that your child wears a helmet while cycling their bike. When you buy health insurance. When you buy gold.

These are risks that you actively manage, there are other risks that you can do nothing about. These are so called acts of god, where no one is to blame, no one could have known.

The destruction of the passenger plane was not an act of god, it was an act of man.

An entire series of events had to happen, and in sequence, for this tragedy to have occurred. It is a failure of modern leadership and shows just how poor our political elites have become. It also shows how fragile our world is.Financial Times, 30th June, 1914 via Financial Times

Warning signs like todays have been seen before. Local conflicts eventually boil over. Regional powers get sucked in.  Powerful countries that would be better off in peaceful coexistence opt instead for conflict. Wrong choices are made.

The greatest wars in history all started with someone somewhere having an idea, taking liberties (nearly always literally taking people’s liberties and their lives), taking advantage of their neighbours, imposing their economic and military might on less powerful countries. It is when such actions go unchecked for too long and peaceful solutions are not genuinely sought that wars start.

Peaceful compromise is not sought leading to war. But “to jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war” as Sir Winston Churchill sagely put it.

Geopolitical risk is very high today and yet it is not appreciated by experts and the majority of the public . The same was true in 1914.

Very few thought that the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand would be a spark that ignited the  brutal war that was World War I and the attendant economic depression. Indeed, as the Financial Times front page from the day after the assassination shows, stock markets were “scarcely affected by the assassination of the heir to the Austrian throne… there’s no evidence that stock holders took fright.”

Complacency reigned about the geopolitical risks. Six months later the Dow Jones Industrial Average was 35% lower and World War I was in its first year.

There is always a catalyst in the form of an event in history which people look back on as the start of tremendous global turmoil. Usually, there are significant pre-existing political, military and economic tensions which are the real factors leading to war.

The butterfly event can be the spark that ignites the conflagration.

The fog of war today could lead to an incident, such as the tragic airline crash yesterday or an act of terrorism, which could be the spark of a much greater conflict.

There have been many potential butterfly events in recent months, any one of which could lead to the hurricane of war.

The problem with war is that no matter how well the plans are made, strange things happen in war and there are many tragic unintended consequences.

Russia is not Syria, Libya or Iraq. Russia is a powerful, advanced military and nuclear state. Russia has good relations with one of the most powerful nations in the world today, China; and most countries in an increasingly multi polar world. History shows that poking the Russian bear can lead to negative consequences.

Political and financial complacency reigns today as it did in 1914 …

*- Move To Stealth Bail-In Regime Continues*
2014 was another year in which the architecture of the enveloping western bail-in regimes saw more building blocks stealthily put in place.

The EU put in place legislation that will allow depositors to have their cash confiscated in the event of banks becoming insolvent.

Just last month, credit rating agencies warned that Europe’s banks are vulnerable in 2015 due to weak macroeconomic conditions, unfinished regulatory hurdles and the risk of bail-ins.

Preparations have been or are being put in place by the international monetary and financial authorities, including the Bank of England for bail-ins.

It is now the case that in the event of bank failure, deposits of individuals and companies can be confiscated.

Let’s be crystal clear: The EU, UK, the U.S., Canada, Australia and New Zealand all have plans in place for bail-ins in the event of banks and other large financial institutions getting into difficulty.

The majority of the public are unaware of these developments, the risks and the ramifications.

Alas, little has been learnt in recent years and the era of bank bail outs is set to continue. However going forward instead of taxpayers bailing out insolvent banks, we will see savers bailing out banks in the ill thought through mechanism that is bail-ins.

*Protecting Savings In The Coming Bail-In Era*

www.GoldCore.com Reported by Zero Hedge 23 hours ago.

Gettry Marcus CPA, P.C., as part of its Always Looking Deeper initiative, discussed the rise in the number of hospitals creating their own health plans.

Suffolk County, New York (PRWEB) January 05, 2015

On December 4, 2014, Gettry Marcus CPA, P.C., as part of its Always Looking Deeper initiative, discusses the implications of the recent reemergence of hospital-owned health plans.

According to Lee Ferber, at Gettry Marcus, in the final decades of the 20th century, venerable healthcare institutions began to create their own health plans; as a result, "managed care" emerged as a buzzword referring to hospital-based health systems. These plans were, for the most part, a hybrid of typical health insurance plans and HMOs. Although many such systems were successful and persist today, many more ultimately collapsed, unable to withstand the financial risks associated with managed care.

Today, hospitals are beginning to re-enter the health insurance arena. An example of this close to home is North Shore-LIJ Health System, which started enrolling individuals, families and businesses in its own health plan, North Shore-LIJ CareConnect Insurance Company, in October 2013. According to a February 24th article published by CNBC, "Cutting out the middleman: Hospital goes into insurance biz," many of the hospital systems that attempted to offer their own insurance plan in the 1990s found it "hard to manage the financial risks involved [...]. But analysts say this time hospitals may have better tools to help them make it work."

As to whether hospitals are in a better position to undertake such financial risks today than they were in the 1980s and '90s, Ferber says the jury is still out. “Certain shifts are occurring that may mean this trend will be more successful in today's healthcare climate. A new and important variable is the impetus provided by the Affordable Care Act. Other factors include the shift from fee-for-service to value-based payment models; consolidation among healthcare providers; and the move to population health management.”

Ferber says that as this trend evolves, businesses and consumers alike will start to see the impact of the shift more clearly. Questions remaining to be answered include:· Will hospital health plans further reduce reimbursements to independent physicians, understanding that a reduction in amounts paid by a hospital-based insurance plan for physicians' services might equate to greater profitability for the hospital?
· Will physicians view this as a further loss of operational and financial control, perhaps accelerating the urgency for independent physicians to sell to a hospital?
· Will bypassing third party commercial carriers simply help align the key initiatives of healthcare reform, improving the quality of care while reducing costs?

About Gettry Marcus:

Gettry Marcus CPA, P.C. is a Top 200 firm nationally with offices in Woodbury, Long Island and New York City. We provide accounting, tax, and consulting services to commercial businesses, high net worth individuals and various industries which include Real Estate and Health Care. We have one of the premier and most credentialed Business Valuation and Litigation Groups in the New York Area.

Our experience in diverse industries and a highly talented and experienced professional staff give us the ability to share valuable insights into our clients’ businesses, to better understand their goals and problems and to help them attain the vision they have for their company.

Gettry Marcus is "Always Looking Deeper" to build value for our clients. Always Looking Deeper is our promise to you that we will find meaningful answers and solutions to critical business and personal issues. It means that Gettry Marcus is invested in contributing to the success of our clients. It defines our corporate culture. Reported by PRWeb 21 hours ago.

America just celebrated the season of giving with Hanukkah and Christmas presents, year-end charity donations and soup kitchen volunteering. It is a time when Americans demonstrate the generosity, caring and kindness that define them as a people.

Now, however, Americans may suffer the season of GOP taking. Republicans already insisted on taking away a key protection in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Now they’re intent on taking health insurance from millions of Americans who got it under the Affordable Care Act.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) is a manifestation of Americans’ concern for each other’s welfare. Americans felt it was intolerable for so many of their friends, neighbors and relatives to be uninsured in the richest country in the world, to be bankrupted by medical bills, to die for lack of medical care. So they found a way to do something about it. That is the ACA. Among other benefits, it extends Medicaid and provides subsidies enabling the working poor to afford insurance. But the GOP is all against it. Republicans tried to repeal the law, appealed to courts to overturn it and refused its expansion of Medicaid. As they become the majority party in both houses of Congress this month, Republicans will intensify their campaign to take health insurance from millions who got it through the ACA.
Just as the employer mandate requiring large businesses to offer health insurance finally goes into effect, Republicans will try to eliminate insurance for those newly-covered workers.

They’ve promised to vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act – again. None of their previous 50 votes to do that succeeded. Failure is likely again, too, since they won’t get 60 ayes in the Senate and President Obama won’t sign a repeal. So they’ve said they’ll next try killing the law piece by piece.

Unlike their congressional votes, Republicans have been tragically successful with lawsuits in denying Americans health insurance. The first of those suits that went to the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t kill the law outright but empowered Republican governors to prevent poor constituents from getting health insurance through the law’s Medicaid expansion. Millions are suffering as a result.New statistics show that if the Supreme Court had not made expansion of Medicaid optional,   more than 3 million people would have gained health insurance in the 24 states where Republicans refused the program. These 3 million are working Americans struggling on the financial edge, people whose income is less than $16,105 a year.

A new Republican-pushed lawsuit could take insurance from 5 million more. These are residents of states that decided to use the federal health insurance exchange instead of creating marketplaces of their own. People who now buy insurance on an exchange, state or federal, may receive subsidies to help them afford it if their income is up to four times the federal poverty level.

In the lawsuit, King v. Burwell, Republicans argue that language in the Affordable Care Act means that only people who buy their insurance on a state-run exchange qualify for the subsidies. The GOP wants to discriminate against people who get their insurance through the federal marketplace. They want to deny the ACA’s financial help to the working poor in 36 states without their own exchanges.

New federal information shows that 87 percent of those who buy their insurance on the exchanges receive subsidies. And a review by the private consulting firm Avalere Health showed that, on average, the subsidies paid for three-quarters of the purchaser’s insurance premium.

If the Supreme Court hands Republicans a win in this case, millions will lose their insurance because they can no longer afford it. These are people who got insured with the help of the ACA, and who will lose it on the demand of the GOP.

In another lawsuit, 36 Republicans in Arizona are trying to take Medicaid away from poor residents who got coverage in the expansion pushed through by Gov. Jan Brewer – yes, a Republican. Like several other Republican governors who accepted the expansion, Brewer was swayed by doctors and hospitals that prefer to treat insured patients rather than deny care or provide it for free.

But the three dozen Arizona Republicans, represented by the conservative Goldwater Institute, contend the expansion is illegal because it will be partially paid for by a levy on hospitals. Last week, the state Supreme Court said the case could proceed. If the GOP wins, it will take insurance from a quarter million Arizonians.

Maine is just the opposite. There, low income people never benefitted from Medicaid expansion because Republican Gov. Paul LePage vetoed it. Five times.

The most recent Congressional session was the second least productive in the modern era—exceeding the previous poor record by one piece of legislation. Now, however, with Republicans in control of both houses of Congress, a new low is promised.

Instead of passing positive or helpful or useful legislation, the GOP has pledged to take from the American people. It vows to take away a basic necessity – health care, to ensure the uninsured suffer.

That’s a promise that Americans must ensure is broken. For their own health. For their neighbors’ well-being. And for preservation of Americans’ self-image as caring and kind people.  Reported by Huffington Post 20 hours ago.

Boston IVF The Arizona Center welcomes fertility expert Jessie Hade, MD and offers a Free Consultation for new patients and a $2500 savings on an IVF cycle for all patients who schedule during January. Now there is new hope for those having trouble getting pregnant with details at http://www.bivfaz.com/special-offer.

Scottsdale, AZ (PRWEB) January 05, 2015

Boston IVF The Arizona Center is pleased to welcome fertility expert and Medical Director Jessie Hade, MD. and to offer significant cost savings on infertility treatments to move patients closer to parenthood in 2015.

For the month of January:· New fertility patients can schedule a Free Consultation with Dr. Hade, and the cost of this consultation will be applied to the first cycle of IUI or IVF infertility treatment.
· All patients qualify for a substantial discount of $2500 off an IVF cycle or $750 off an IUI cycle if it is scheduled in January.
· And, second opinions are always free at The Arizona Center.

Restrictions apply. For more information, please refer to http://www.bivfaz.com/special-offer.

With more than 15 years of experience successfully treating couples and individuals with infertility problems, Dr. Hade offers the most advanced personalized care available in Arizona. “I’m excited to join Boston IVF The Arizona Center, and I look forward to helping patients expand their families and become parents in 2015,” comments Dr. Hade who is Board Certified in both Reproductive Endocrinology and Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Boston IVF The Arizona Center is the most advance fertility center in Arizona. No other infertility clinic in Arizona can offer world-renowned expertise at the local level supported by a network of scientific experts in a state-of-the-art laboratory, as well as an affiliation with Harvard Medical School. Patients benefit from cutting-edge infertility research, protocols and treatments, which have contributed to significant advances in fertility care and technologies throughout the world.

The Arizona Center specializes in difficult cases that others have either turned away or treated unsuccessfully and welcomes women seeking fertility preservation through egg freezing.

The largest population of self-pay patients seeking fertility care will benefit from the January discount programs because health insurance coverage for infertility treatments is limited in Arizona.

To schedule a free consultation, please call 480-559-0252 or visit http://www.bivfaz.com/special-offer now.

********************************************
Boston IVF The Arizona Center is a member of the Boston IVF Fertility Clinic Network. One of the nation’s top fertility centers since 1986, Boston IVF has welcomed more than 50,000 healthy babies and is a leading source of advancements in infertility care. Internationally recognized for extensive clinical experience, advanced infertility technologies, and groundbreaking fertility research. The Arizona fertility experts offer efficient and highly personalized patient care that includes treatments for even the most challenging infertility cases and reproductive disorders, as well as fertility preservation and egg freezing. Reported by PRWeb 19 hours ago.

British couple Lee Johnston and Katie Amos were on a trip to New York when Amos unexpectedly gave birth 11 weeks early. Thanks to the generosity of others, their British health insurance and travel insurance, the couple no longer faces a huge financial burden. Michelle Miller reports. Reported by CBS News 19 hours ago.

In the 2008 primary campaign, there was a moment when Democrats began to debate Bill Clinton's legacy. At one point, Barack Obama seemed to minimize the significance of the Clinton presidency when he said, "Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not." Hillary Clinton and her supporters reacted with horror, accusing Obama of thinking more highly of a conservative icon than a successful Democratic president (though that of course wasn't his point).

In the end, that internal discussion—just how good a president was Bill Clinton?—never proceeded too far. But with Hillary Clinton still the prohibitive favorite to be the 2016 Democratic nominee, we could well have the full debate we never quite got in 2008, and in the context of the Obama presidency now entering its final phase. Hillary Clinton, it is said, has to distance herself from her former boss to convince voters that her presidency would be more than a continuation of the last eight years. And she will inevitably try, explicitly or implicitly, to argue that her presidency would be in part a restoration of her husband's (at least the good parts). Which may lead Democrats and liberals to ask: Who did more for them and their agenda, Bill Clinton or Barack Obama?

On the most superficial level, Clinton's presidency looks more successful than Obama's. He oversaw an economic boom that created 22 million jobs during his time in the White House, turned budget deficits into surpluses, and left office with approval ratings in the 60s, around 20 points higher than Obama's are now. But nearly a decade and a half after it ended, how much of a success should liberals consider the Clinton presidency?

There's no perfect answer; eight years of policymaking and appointments provide ample fodder for almost any argument you want to make. But for all the time liberals have spent criticizing Obama for compromises and missed opportunities, a fair accounting seems to put Clinton far behind Obama when it comes to accomplishing liberal goals.

In many significant areas, Obama has already succeeded where Clinton failed. Clinton's health care reform never even got to a vote in Congress; Obama passed his. Clinton tried to allow gays to serve in the military, and the result of the ensuing firestorm was the abominable "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, not to mention the Defense of Marriage Act, which Clinton signed. Obama undid DADT and stopped defending DOMA, which was eventually struck down by the Supreme Court. Was that because times had changed, and the space was open for Obama to make the moves Clinton wished he could have? Of course. But the fact remains that the Clinton presidency was regressive on gay rights in many ways, while the Obama presidency saw unprecedented progress.

For every significant liberal achievement of the Clinton presidency, you can find a move to the right. He raised taxes on the wealthy and created the Children's Health Insurance Program—but also enacted punitive welfare reform and amped up the War on Drugs. He signed the Family and Medical Leave Act—and pushed hard for NAFTA. If you look at any list of achievements compiled by Clinton advocates (see here, for example), most of the items come down to "the economy was really good." Indeed it was, and the improvement in Americans' welfare because of the 1990s boom was enormous. But Clinton didn't create it. And many of Clinton's liberal accomplishments that seemed momentous at the time, like the Brady Law and Motor Voter, didn't turn out to have the sweeping effects people hoped for. It isn't easy to come up with too many lasting, consequential liberal reforms that Clinton enacted.

I point all this out not to argue that the Clinton presidency was some kind of disaster for liberalism. But from the liberal's perspective, reminding ourselves of that era makes Barack Obama look better than he often gets credit for, even if there's still plenty for which one can criticize him. Health care reform, gay rights, the 2009 stimulus, financial reform, his increasingly aggressive actions on climate change—all are areas where Obama surpassed Clinton when it came to putting liberal priorities and principles into action. And though some on the left lament Obama's supposed unwillingness to make a strong rhetorical case for liberalism, it was Bill Clinton who triumphantly declared, "The era of big government is over."

Hillary Clinton is going to have to make her own case for what her presidency would accomplish. Inevitably, she'll associate herself with what people liked about the two presidencies she was involved in while trying to gloss over whatever doesn't look so great from the vantage point of this moment in history. But it may be that because the full complexity of the Obama presidency is fresher in our minds, we see it (appropriately) as a combination of triumphs and disappointments, while the Clinton presidency these days is talked about usually when someone brings up what went right.

My guess is that Clinton will be reminding voters frequently of the good times that were rolling when her husband was president. The reality, though, is that if she does reach the Oval Office there's only so much she'll be able to do to create a restoration of that presidency. But just by virtue of succeeding Barack Obama, she'll spend much of her time acting on the conditions and policies our current president created. That's something liberals ought to be pretty pleased about. Reported by The American Prospect 17 hours ago.

I know many people just assume that I am a lost liberal and, while my personal theology might be so described, you might be surprised to know I actually voted for Bush. I'm not at all proud to admit that today, which explains why I voted for Obama twice. But that was because I was so disappointed with Bush by the end of his second term, and the war and... well... I'm not even going down that road here.

Now, in case you think I'm just a delusional fan of Obama, I have not been altogether pleased with Obama either. And, when it comes time for him to retire from his service to this country, I suspect I'm going to be ready to see him go.

That is, I think I am.

Frankly, I do not believe he has handled all things correctly. But what president ever has? Heck, I'm pretty sure I seldom handle everything right in my own life.

But my point here is simply this:

I may not be right about many things. But I have this sinking suspicion there are lots of people in this country who do not like Obama for no other reason other than the color of his skin. For reasons of racial prejudice. Bigotry.

I have another suspicion, too. The suspicion that, if Obama had a different skin color and were anything but a Democrat, the state of things in this country would be hailed by many on the so-called "right" as nothing less than proof of the resurrection and incarnation of Ronald Reagan himself.

*I'm asking for a little honesty here. That's all.*

For most white, middle-to-upper class folks in America, life right now could not be much better and, for some, it would be challenging to point to times when things were better than they are now.

When have you seen gas prices this low? It's been a long time. A very long time.

When did you ever see the stock market any higher? It's never been as high as it is now. Imagine if Obama was not black and a Republican. What do you think conservatives would be saying about him, given just the two examples here?

*A little honesty here...that's all I'm asking for...*

Why his presidency would be hailed as one of the greatest in American history.

Furthermore...

When did unemployment get this low? It has not for long time, if my memory has any worth left to it. Oh sure, we need better paying jobs but, come on, I'm just asking for a little integrity here among the very anti-Obama public. And, that seems to include more than just FOX News.

No need to wail here or grasp for straws about how things are not yet what they are supposed to be. Of course, things are not what they should be. Sure things could be much better.

Regarding race, too.

*But it is honesty I'm reaching for... just a little honesty, regarding Obama and regarding race.*

The fact that there are hungry people still today...that there are hungry children and some folks who won't have a nice holiday...others who still have no health insurance and are without good-paying jobs and I could go on.

And, so could you, especially if you are anti-Obama. Sure, things could be better.

But come on. Can the white, middle-to-upper class community, and that would include yours truly, can we not admit that things are pretty darn good for us?

Can we not say, given our fears just a few years ago when the economy collapsed (which, by the way, was the consequence of Bush's policies, in case you're suffering from a bad case of selective memory loss) when the collapse caught most of us with our underwear between our knees, the fact that we are where we are today is staggering by any measure. Even conservative political measures. Not only has my little portfolio recovered, it's been on steroids for that last couple of years.

*Things are pretty good right now. Pretty damn good. Can I get a little honesty out of conservatives especially? And, Democrat politicians? Where are they?*

All I'm asking for here is a little honesty this holiday season. Doesn't the president deserve a little credit here?

If this attempt at encouraging a little honesty is even remotely accurate, someone please call FOX News and encourage a little moronic "news" desk that a little honesty on their part would be appreciated?

And, while you are at it, call those whom FOX News refers to as "the press" as if they are not "the press" -- explain that oxymoron to my, please -- and what they more often label "the liberal press," and let them in on this little secret, too.

And, while you're at it still, call the Democrats in Congress too. Where are they when it comes to giving a little praise where praise is due? It seems the "good times" they are enjoying have escaped them, just as it has "the liberal press" as in CBS, NBC, and ABC News.

BBC, oddly, seems to get it. They might be the only unbiased news on cable networks today.

At the close of this year, I'm sitting pretty well. Most of you reading this are, too. I know, not all of you, but many of you are enjoying a windfall you have not seen in a long time. It is certainly reflected in you gift-buying and giving this year.

So, Happy Holidays and Best Wishes in the New Year...

... and oh, to you, Mr. President, and your family, I hope you know how much I and others appreciate what you have done for this country.

*My hat's off to you, Mr. President. Have a nice holiday. Enjoy a little vacation time. I think you've earned it. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, too.*

Dr. Steve McSwain is an author and speaker, counselor to non-profits and congregations, an advocate in the fields of self-development, interfaith cooperation, and spiritual growth. His blogs at BeliefNet.com, the Huffington Post, as well as his own website (www.SteveMcSwain.com) inspire people of all faith traditions. Dr. McSwain is an Ambassador to the Council on the Parliament for the World's Religions. His interfaith pendants are worn by thousands on virtually every continent, sharing his vision of creating a more conscious, compassionate, and charitable world. Visit his website for more information or to book him for an inspirational talk on happiness, inner peace, interfaith respect or charitable living.

This post first appeared in Dr. McSwain's blog. Reported by Huffington Post 16 hours ago.

Four months into her tenure as the White House's chief technology officer, former Google executive Megan Smith is still struggling with "culture shock" at the federal government's clunky technology, according to a profile on Smith in the New York Times.

Before coming to the White House and serving as the president's top technology official, Smith was the VP of Google's secret research lab, Google X, which helped create Google Glass and the company's driverless car prototype.

Now, she uses a BlackBerry and a 2013 Dell laptop. 

Despite using technology that would be considered outdated and clunky in Silicon Valley, Smith is optimistic: “We’re on it,” she told the Times, of trying to bring the federal government into the year 2015, technology-wise. “This is the administration that’s working to upgrade that and fix it.”

Smith has only two predecessors: The title of US chief technology officer was created five years ago by President Obama.

The problem with the role of CTO is that even though she directly advises the president, Smith lacks a budget and authority over other federal agencies, according to Clay Johnson, the co-founder of the Department of Better Technology, which ran Obama's online campaign in the 2008 election cycle.

Valerie Jarrett, Obama’s senior adviser, first took notice of Smith three years ago at an event about how to get more girls and women into science. 

“She is infectiously energetic,” Jarrett told the Times. “She has been able to translate for those of us who are not as well versed in technology how we can use innovation to do good.”

Smith is working to increase the presence of women working in science and technology in the White House. She's the first female White House CTO, and now, according to the Times: "Four of the five divisions of the Office of Science and Technology Policy are headed by women. Last month, Ms. Smith created a page on the White House website devoted to 'the untold history of women in science and technology,' including the stories of pioneers like Ada Lovelace, the world’s first programmer."

Most importantly, Smith serves as a bridge between forward-thinking Silicon Valley and the federal government, which is often derided as backwards-facing, with outdated technology. Last year, the US government came under fire during its nightmarish rollout of federal health insurance website healthcare.gov. Late in 2014, Smith advised President Obama on net neutrality. She made sure he listened to both Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the World Wide Web, and Vinton G. Cerf, Google’s vice president before Obama declared himself a proponent of a free and open internet.

Read the full profile on Megan Smith here.

*SEE ALSO: Here's What We Know About Megan Smith, The New CTO Of The USA*

Join the conversation about this story » Reported by Business Insider 15 hours ago.

Koch (sounds like coke) is highly addictive. In this case, not the powder or the crystals, but the money. Bloomberg News puts the combined wealth of right-wing financiers and "do-badders" Charles and David Koch at over $100 billion. The Koch brothers like to throw their money at everything to buy influence and goodwill, and just about everybody seems anxious to take some, no matter what the consequence to society, their organization, or their souls.

At least thirty-six colleges and universities including prestigious schools like Harvard and MIT receive Koch dollars, as do major American cultural institutions such as Lincoln Center, the American Museum of Natural History, and the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City and Smithsonian Institute in Washington, D.C. Liberal friends of these schools and institutions somehow are comfortable socializing with the astronomically wealthy brothers who also fund right-wing think tanks and advocacy groups fighting against social policies they claim to believe in.

Koch money is behind the Heritage Foundation, the Manhattan Institute, the Federalist Society, Americans for Prosperity, and of course, ALEC, the anti-union, public education, environmental protection, gun control, government regulation, and health care American Legislative Exchange Council. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, one of the last liberals holding high office in the United States, charged, "The Koch brothers are worth $85 billion. You might think that's enough to get by, leave a couple of bucks to your kids. But apparently they feel an obligation to destroy Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid."

In Tennessee, the Koch brothers, operating through Americans for Prosperity (AFP), have launched a major battle to stop implementation of the national Common Core standards. Last summer, AFP spent a half a million Koch dollars to elect anti-Common Core candidates to local office. Nationally, Koch-backed organizations and foundations are at the forefront of the anti-Common Core campaign, which is not surprising.

What is surprising is that Koch money is going to the other side in the Common Core war as well, as the Koch brothers try to cover all bases buying up American advocacy groups. Bill Bigelow, an editor at Rethinking Schools and co-director of the Zinn Education Project, documented Koch influence at the National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS) annual conference through one of their front groups, the Bill of Rights Institute. According to Bigelow, "In its materials for teachers and students, the Bill of Rights Institute cherry-picks the Constitution, history, and current events to hammer home its libertarian message that the owners of private property should be free to manage their wealth as they see fit." Its goal is to infuse Koch anti-government propaganda into the school curriculum.

The NCSS has generally been supportive of Common Core, fighting to expand it to include citizenship education and social studies, what they call the C3 curriculum (College, Career, and Citizenship), rather than opposing it for marginalizing content and conceptual learning. However, the group's latest bulletin, Teaching the College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) Framework (NCSS Bulletin 114), was a basic sell-out of all principles. Desperate for Koch dollars to subsidize its convention and publications, the NCSS actually had agents for the seemingly anti-Common Core Koch brothers design one of the fifteen Common Core aligned lessons.

The Bill of Rights Institute (BRI) Common Core aligned lesson for grades 9-12 is on the "necessary and proper clause" of the Constitution (39-46) and its goal, rather than to promote inquiry, is to convince students that the current interpretation is too broad because it allows a national health insurance plan and the regulation of companies like Koch Industries that destroy the environment in the name of profit. Its phantom civic action is a debate "Resolved: The Necessary and Proper Clause is not necessary or proper because it makes the principles of federalism and limited government obsolete."

The lesson, developed by the anti-Common Core Koch brothers team at BRI, mirrors all of the Common Core proposed classroom practices. It is adapted from an advanced placement American History lesson on the McCulloch v. Maryland case decided by the United States Supreme Court in 1819. The original lesson is available on the Bill of Rights Institute website.

The NCSS version of the lesson starts with typical Common Core standards performance indicators for students based on close reading of text. The indicators include "determining the kinds of sources that will be helpful in answering compelling and supporting questions," considering "multiple points of view," developing "claims and counterclaims," and constructing "explanations using sound reasoning."

The lesson itself focuses on Bill of Rights/Koch questions and a reading designed to call into question the use of the "elastic clause" provision in Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution that makes it possible for the federal government to respond to a changing world by building highways, supporting public education, providing health insurance, and regulating rapacious companies like Koch Industries.

The lesson provides the primary reading material for students on the McCulloch v. Maryland case. It is a secondary source without attribution so I can only assume it was written expressly for this lesson by the BRI. The final paragraph makes the points the Koch brothers presumably want included, that the unanimous Supreme Court decision placing federal interests above state interests and allowing the federal government to stretch its authority in order to insure its mandated responsibilities, "was not a blank check for assertions of federal power," that only "legitimate" means and ends are "within the scope of the constitution," and that the "proper scope of the federal government's authority continues to be a subject of serious debate."

As a final summation document before the debate whether to end federal overreach, students read an excerpt from a Supreme Court minority opinion written in 2010 by right-wing activist judge Clarence Thomas and supported in part by another right-wing judge, Antonin Scalia, although in the bulletin and on the website, their names are inexplicably left off of the document. In their dissent Thomas and Scalia assert that while the power of the federal government is sharply limited by the Constitution, the power of states is not similarly constrained. In their view, and evidently that of the Koch brothers, "no matter how 'necessary' or 'proper' an Act of Congress may be to its objective, Congress lacks authority to legislate if the objective is anything other than 'carrying into Execution' one or more of the Federal Government's enumerated powers."

In other words, as the Koch brothers read this the decision, since the Founding Fathers did not know about the Keystone pipeline, Canadian tar sands, or Common Core, the federal government cannot regulate Koch operations or impose national educational standards. In Koch world Common Core is used to trump Common Core so the Koch brothers can do anything they want and nobody can stop them. Apparently, even for people who fundamentally oppose what they stand for, Koch (sounds like coke) money is very addictive. Reported by Huffington Post 15 hours ago.

Changing the Script

By

Joe Withrow

 

Author of "The Individual is Rising"

 

 

 

You will always find original articles by Cognitive Dissonance and other authors *first* on www.TwoIceFloes.com before they are posted here on ZH.

To become a Premium or Basic member click here. If you wish to subscribe to ‘Dispatches’, a periodic newsletter from Cognitive Dissonance and TwoIceFloes Creations, please *click here*.

 

 

 

“You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” – R. Buckminster Fuller

 

The unsustainability of the current Pax Americana paradigm has been discussed here at length. We know sovereign U.S. debt is exploding exponentially. We know the true debt figure is actually north of $200 trillion – largely consisting of Social Security and Medicare unfunded liabilities. We know the Federal Reserve has pumped huge amounts of liquidity into the financial system in an effort to pump up asset prices and push down interest rates. We know even a slight up-tick in interest rates would dramatically impede the Treasury’s ability to service the US sovereign debt.

We know the official unemployment and inflation numbers are fudged and the economy has not magically fixed its underlying structural problems, thus there will be no ‘growing our way out’ of this mess. We know roughly fifty percent of the U.S. population is dependent upon government benefits in some capacity and we know 10,000 people will be turning 65 every single day for the next decade. And we know that which is unsustainable will one day cease to exist.

But we also know dying paradigms have an uncanny way of hanging around for a lot longer than we think possible.

Upon waking up to the demise of Pax Americana, the tendency is to react with anger. Throw the bums out! Route the globalists! Rebel against the New World Order! Let's collapse the system!

When the state of constant anger becomes unsustainable a feeling of hopelessness and depression kicks in. Everything is corrupt! The police state is omniscient – they monitor everything! There is nothing but injustice everywhere! Society is going to collapse any day now!

The tendency then is to switch back over to anger after the depression has run for a while and the cycle becomes self-perpetuating. The anger says “We need to change it now!” while the depression says “There’s nothing I can do!”

Our anger and depression are both stuck within the current paradigm; we perceive the wall to be higher than what it is thus we make no effort to peek over the top.

There are only two ways out of the anger-depression cycle: (1) re-assimilate back into the matrix or (2) change the script.

Re-assimilation becomes extremely difficult once one has peeked down into the rabbit-hole. Conversely, changing the script becomes surprisingly simple once one takes the time to rise up and peek over the wall.

 

*
** *

 

There are plenty of articles out there discussing all the ills of the current System, and there are equally as many articles explaining why we should be afraid of collapse.

There are also all manner of articles and ideas floating around out there promoting one utopian macro solution after another. Can any of these solutions work? Maybe, but I rather doubt it.

The human race is rather amusing in that, generally speaking, much of it seems to desire conflict, struggle, and competition for its own sake. Some people seem to have a natural desire to play the ruler and boss others around. Some have a natural desire to play the victim and be bossed around. Some seem to wish constant illness upon themselves and they revel in sympathy. Some seem to be chronic gamblers who get a thrill out of risking it all and subsequently hitting rock bottom. Some seem to lack empathy altogether and they enjoy harming others. Some seem to feel the need to play the hero and seek to improve every nook and cranny of the world. Some just want to be free to live their life as they see fit.

It is that last segment of the population that seems to get the short stick throughout all of history. There's always some collective boondoggle demanding their support. Holy wars, witch hunts, manifest destinies, wars for democracy, wars to end all wars, new deals, great societies, wars against poverty, wars against drugs, wars against terror, you name it. There’s always something deemed more important than laissez faire.

Too often the frustrated response is to fight the entrenched System. We can see extreme examples of this by looking back at the many violent revolutions which have taken place throughout history where subjugated people rose up to overthrow their ruling class. Many of these revolutions were in the name of freedom or equality and, when successful, the revolutionaries went to work setting up their own governments supposedly based on their espoused principles.

In some cases the new government soon became more oppressive than the old government – just with new insiders doing the oppressing. In other cases the new government was more respectful of liberty in its infancy. But even these ‘better’ governments eventually became corrupt, bloated, and hostile to liberty over time. The historical record clearly shows that fighting the System is not a long-term solution because it is always grounded in the current paradigm; the fighting is motivated by an intense desire to force change and make the System better or more efficient or more equitable or what have you.

A big part of the problem is people think of government as a service organization. This is what we are taught in our history textbooks and civics classes in the ‘public’ educational system and it is reinforced by news media and popular opinion once we reach adulthood.

But government is not in the service business, it is in the government business. Sure government provides some services. It delivers the mail, maintains the roads, and provides some semblance of legal and defense services that most people would consider to be necessary societal functions. But government doesn’t exist to do these things - arguably every one of these services could be done better and at a lower cost by local communities and private organizations. Government maintains a monopoly on these services only because it must do so in order to keep the masses docile in order to stay in business.

Government, it turns out, is unbridled self-serving force and coercion. *That* is the government business and that is why all governments, even when originally harmless, are eventually co-opted by sociopaths seeking to use the force of government for their own gains. Mao was correct about one thing: political power does grow out of the barrel of a gun. Even the ‘good’ services provided by government in the current paradigm require coerced taxation with the implied threat of force. Just ask Wesley Snipes if you don’t believe taxation implies force.

 

*
** *

 

Einstein advised “We cannot solve our problems with the same level of thinking that created them”. Yet that’s mostly what I see happening today on many levels.

On the national level, the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street movements personified anger fighting the System. One side raged against government and demanded more liberty. The other side raged against Wall Street and multi-nationals and demanded more equality. Both movements sought to collectively force change upon the System. While both of these movements have since been co-opted by established interests, the underlying sentiments still linger throughout the population.

On the local level, it looks like every community in the U.S. is spearheading an ‘economic development’ campaign. While the idea may be admirable, these campaigns all seem to be grounded within the current paradigm: they seek more. More tax revenue, more federal grants, more state grants, more population growth, more stimulus, more demand, more consumption, more everything. But more is backwards looking. More worked from roughly 1980 to 2008. It’s time has come and gone.

The solution is to change the script; to stop fighting the existing realty and begin creating the future.

Of course, the established order is not interested in change. Change is a threat. Change means more competition. Change means less power and wealth for the insiders. The establishment – governments/central banks/Wall Street/multi-nationals/Big-Agra/Big-Pharma/Big-Insurance/Big-Science/mega non-profits – will fight against change until their dying breath.

Thus the script must be changed at the individual level first. The individual must lead society, not the other way around.

The neat thing about this is there is no singular rigid model; no one cookie cutter solution. There is a basic regulatory framework rooted in common law (do not aggress upon others or their property) and contract law (do all you have agreed to do and nothing you have agreed not to do) but within this framework there is a blank canvas awaiting each individual artist.

My personal view is changing the script is simple. Not easy, but simple and intuitive. What follows are my experiences and thoughts on changing the script. What works for me may not work for others, so I share my perspective matter-of-factly with no implied suggestions, implications, or judgments. I am under no illusion of significance and I am well aware of the fact there are many others who have distanced themselves from the System much more so than I have. I offer my perspective only because I believe the sharing of ideas is what enables civilization to thrive.

My wife and I met in corporate America. We found ourselves working in the same department at the same mega-bank in the same metropolitan city. We were married at a downtown chapel in that same city a little over three years later. Our lifestyle was modeled after the mythical American Dream because that is what we had been conditioned to seek

It wasn’t long before we started to see through the deception and *we made the decision to change the script*. We ended our corporate careers, sold our home, liquidated our government-approved retirement accounts, and moved to a rural property with a little bit of land.

 

 

Knowing we will never be completely self-sufficient, our first order of business was to make our small homestead as resilient as possible. We stocked up on a reasonable amount of food, water, and provisions, bought a small solar-compatible battery and several propane tanks to store energy, stacked a cord of firewood, made a few minor repairs to the property, and most importantly stocked the wine cellar. After the initial outlay, maintaining this basic level of resiliency costs very little. We don’t think civilization is coming to an end, we simply think it is our responsibility to be prepared for what comes with the inevitable collapse of the funny money Ponzi as well as any other disaster or emergency that decides to come our way.

We have reduced our consumerism and our consumption of processed foods and we save 75% of our income like clockwork. We spread our savings across several asset classes according to our personal asset allocation model with most of our cash held within a high-cash value life insurance policy structured according to the “Infinite Banking Concept” to allow it to compound outside of the banking system and government-approved accounts. We are actively working to create diverse income streams for our family so we do not have to be slaves to a wage and we plan to plant our first garden this coming spring.

While we still carry health insurance policies in case of major emergency, we have divorced ourselves from every other aspect of the corrupt health care industry. Regular exercise and a healthy diet based mostly on paleo principles have virtually eliminated illness from our household. Natural supplements have told Big-Pharma to take a hike. We have no primary care physician nor do we fall in line to get our flu shot.

My wife gave birth to our first daughter in October... in our dining room. We completely shut out the Big Government/Big Insurance/Big Pharma health care cartel on that one.

We paid cash for midwifery services and received much more care, support, and education than we paid for when it was all said and done. Our daughter was born completely naturally without ever coming in contact with a hospital. There were no unnecessary prenatal tests or medications, no I.V.’s, no monitors, no labor-inducing drugs, no pain killers, and no invasive interventions. Upon her birth directly into her father’s hands, there were no meddlers waiting to rush our daughter off to be poked, prodded, weighed, measured, tested, vaccinated, or placed under a lamp. The only things awaiting her arrival were her mother’s loving embrace and her midwife’s gentle inspection.

The midwife made a 36-hour and then a five-day house visit to check on mother and baby and she answered numerous text messages and phone calls at weird hours during that stretch as well. As a result, mother and baby did not have to leave the comforts of their home for more than two weeks after birth. Three-week and six-week office visits that required no form-filling or waiting-room sitting completed our private contract with our midwife. Despite this, she offered to answer any questions at any time via phone or email going forward. Needless to say, there will not be any pediatricians in our daughter’s future. You just don’t go back to the cartel after such extraordinary health care service.

The wonderful homebirth experience was just the tip of the iceberg of our vision to provide our daughter with a mindful childhood free from the forceful expectations and coerced indoctrination that characterize so many American childhoods. Instead of viewing her as an ignorant child to be molded into society’s likeness, our daughter will be treated as a beautiful individual with innate untapped wisdom that very well may exceed our own.

When the time comes we will cater a home schooling program to her unique personality, skills, and interests. Her education will be as rigid and demanding or as free and creative as she needs it to be. As she grows in maturity, her home school program will become more self-guided and our role will move more towards encouraging her to pursue her own unique talents and passions.

Rather than ignoring financial education and hoping Social Security is still around in the year 2079, we will incorporate sound finance into the home school curriculum. Our daughter will learn the merits of saving, capital formation, and asset allocation at an early age. She will understand that fiat money is an illusion not to be cherished, but at the same time every individual has to make their own way.

We will also help her test her skills in the marketplace should she have such a desire. If she enjoys writing we can help her self-publish a book. If she is a skilled musician we can help her record an album for sale. If she likes baking we can take her to the farmer’s market to sell her goods. Any income derived from these enterprises would help her get real-world personal finance practice as well.

There will be no pressure to go to college upon completion of her home school program. We are capitalizing a small IBC insurance policy which will be given to her when she reaches adulthood to get her started on whatever path she chooses. If she chooses college she can go with no student loans necessary. If it is travel that calls to her she will have the means to begin her journey guilt-free. If her desire is entrepreneurial in nature she has the start-up capital already secured. Given the freedom to discover and pursue her passions at an early age, I suspect she will know what her next step will be well before ‘graduating’.

There is no doubt in my mind this script will enable our daughter to quickly mature into an intelligent, rational, logical, caring, passionate, and skilled adult. I contrast this with my own script that involved twelve consecutive years of public education followed by five consecutive years of higher education at a public university. It took me nearly a decade afterwards to shed the social conditioning and indoctrination and to mature into a free-thinking individual. By then my balance sheet was a wreck, my skills had atrophied, and my philosophical awareness was non-existent. Digging out of the hole of my own lost decade was exhausting.

I can’t help but imagine a world full of independent-minded individuals following the script of their own choice. What if individuals with infinite potential were not automatically plugged into the inner workings of the machine to perpetuate the System? What if more people were not exposed to all of the social conditioning throughout their childhood? What if more people did not get their news from the corporate media? What if more people recognized their true worth and settled for nothing less than following their own path? I can’t help but think such a world would be a much happier, healthier, and wealthier place.

But then I stop myself. For now I only need to concern myself with envisioning a world in which one family successfully writes their own script.

The rest is probably none of my business.

 

Joe Withrow aka ZH's Joe Galt

 

 

For more of Joe’s thoughts on the “Great Reset” and the Infinite Banking Concept please read “The Individual is Rising” which is available at

*"The Individual is Rising" *

The book is also available on Amazon in both paperback and Kindle editions. Reported by Zero Hedge 13 hours ago.

Megan Smith, the White House chief technology officer, faces a daunting challenge: moving the federal government into 2015, technology-wise.

It's a task that's easier said than done. According to the New York Times, which published a profile of Smith over the weekend, the Obama administration relies on a lot of outdated technology: Smith, a former Google executive whose division oversaw the creation of Google Glass, now uses a BlackBerry and a 2013 Dell laptop.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration is partially run on floppy disks.

Despite using technology that would be considered outdated and clunky in Silicon Valley, Smith is optimistic: “We’re on it,” she told the Times, of trying to bring the federal government into the year 2015, technology-wise. “This is the administration that’s working to upgrade that and fix it.”

If you buy a new laptop today, it probably won't have a port for floppy disks. That's because floppy disk technology is extinct. There are so many more efficient ways of storing files than on a plastic square — USBs, external hard drives, and cloud storage, for example. 

It's difficult to even purchase floppy disks today. If you do a cursory search on Amazon for floppy disks, you'll see some results, but most of those disks for sale have since been discontinued by their manufacturer. Even floppydisk.com has rebranded itself to offer CDs in addition to floppy disks.

None of this is necessarily new news. The US government is known for its outdated technology. Last year, the US government came under fire during its nightmarish rollout of federal health insurance website healthcare.gov. 
And in December 2013, the New York Times pointed out that the Federal Register, which acts as the daily newspaper of the federal government, still relied heavily on the use of floppy disks.

The Times explained that the secure email system used by the US government "is expensive, and some government agencies have not yet upgraded to it. As a result, some agencies still scan documents on to a computer and save them on floppy disks. The disks are then sent by courier to the register."

The problem with the role of CTO is that even though she directly advises the president, Smith lacks a budget and authority over other federal agencies, according to Clay Johnson, the co-founder of the Department of Better Technology, which ran Obama's online campaign in the 2008 election cycle. This makes it hard for Smith to be able to enact change — and consequently to get rid of outdated technology, like floppy disks.

*SEE ALSO: This Former Google Executive Is Trying To Upgrade The US Government's Clunky Technology*

Join the conversation about this story » Reported by Business Insider 12 hours ago.