YOUNG LIVING TRAINING TAPE #59
OILS, NUTRITION AND HEALTH
Actor Clint Walker, Dr. Ann Blake Tracy, & D. Gary Young, N.D.
We welcome you to Training Tape #59 from the 2003 Young Living Annual Convention, a highly informative lecture by Dr. Ann Blake Tracy, who will discuss the dangers of mind-altering, so-called “antidepressant” drugs as compared to the more effective properties of essential oils, and then Gary Young will introduce the famous Hollywood actor, Clint Walker, who will share with us the lessons he has learned about good nutrition and proper physical fitness. And now, here is Dr. Ann Blake Tracy.
Dr. Ann Blake Tracy – About My Book
Let me first of all start by mentioning that in my book I dedicated it first of all to my great, great grandfather, who was the mayor of Tombstone during the OK Correl days. I think he is the one who gave me the spunk to do what I am doing. He stood between Johnny Ringo and Wyatt Earp one day and stopped a gun battle, and I feel thatâs what I have been doing for the last 14 years when it comes to those who have been damaged by these serotonin antidepressants and the pharmaceutical companies.
The Essential 7 Kit was created by Young Living Essential Oils (YLEO) so that anyone could immediately use and appreciate the benefits of therapeutic-grade essential oils. The Kit contains three single oils: Lavender (Lavandula angustifolia), Lemon (Citrus limon) and Peppermint (Mentha piperita), and four oil blends: Joy, PanAway, Peace & Calming and Purification.
All single oils may be used as dietary supplements.
All of the oils may by diffused. The diffuser from YLEO is a special air pump that is custom designed to disperse the oils in a micro fiber vapor. This allows the oils to stay suspended in the air to reduce bacteria, fungi and mold. It also freshens the air with natural fragrances, eliminating the need for synthetic, harmful air fresheners. The diffuser disperses the oils without heat, which could render the essential oils less effective.
All of the oils can be applied to the Vita Flex points on the feet, added to bath water mixed with YLEO’s Bath Gel Base, applied topically or used with body and foot massage.
Please carefully read and follow the guidelines for the safe use of young living essential oils included at the end of this handout.
How to Protect Yourself
from Bacteria, Germs, and Viruses
We welcome you to Training CD #70 from the 2004 Nashville Semi-Annual Convention, a highly informative lecture by Dr. David Hill on how to protect yourself from viruses, bacteria, and germs by using Young Living Essential Oils and Supplements.
Dr. David Hill - Rule of Thumb!
A long time ago I heard Gary say, “If you are a little bit nervous about something, and if you are trying to clear your head or you have to take an exam, take a little Clarity and put it on your thumb and stick it on the roof of your mouth and suck your thumb for a little bit!”
My wife was looking at me funny as I was sucking my thumb, so I went backstage. I just didnât know I was going to be sucking my thumb for an extra 15 or 20 minutesâso I have to thank you, Gary!
May 4, 2010
Âˇ JenniferBhala Âˇ No Comments
Tags: antibody, antigen, autism, Bacteria, cloning, essential oils, flu epidemic, Germs, glycoprotein, Immune response, Thieves, thimerosal, vaccinations, Viruses Âˇ Posted in: Articles by Medical Professionals, Bacteria, Germs, Viruses
History of Essential Oils Used As Medicine. Research by Jennifer Hansen
From earliest recorded history, essential oils have played an active role in commerce and health care. I have put together, in date order, some research I have found about the use of essential oils and herbs through the ages.
The record is there for anyone to research. From Holy Scripture to secular writings, essential oils are recorded as mankind’s first known medicine. Just because they are no longer main stream does not mean they are worthless, only that we need to spread their value more widely again.
Essential oils are the Missing Link that we need in order to live healthy lives today, as it has been in the past. Please enjoy reading about a history of essential oil use and maybe open your mind to the fact that pharmaceutical drugs are not the only way, and maybe are not always the best choice, for actually preventing and/or healing disease.
December 22, 2008
Âˇ JenniferBhala Âˇ 59 Comments
Tags: 845-649-7487, Abercrombie, AMA, botanical gardens, captain john smith, distillers, essential oils, exodus, frankincense, hippocrates, imhotep, Jennifer Bhala Hansen, King Tutankhamun, M.D., malignant melanoma, Moses, pert, pliny jesus, prozac, pure essential oils, seratonin, Young Living Essential Oils Âˇ Posted in: History of EO as Medicine
WHY OILS HEAL AND DRUGS DONâT
by David Stewart, Ph.D.
If you tell a medical doctor that essential oils can bring about healing with no negative side effects, they wonât believe you.
This is because in medical school students are repeatedly told by their professors that all effective medicines have negative side effects, and if they donât, then they canât be effective.
When I was in medical school one professor emphasized this point in a colorful, graphic manner with specially prepared slides.
In each slide specific drugs were depicted as evil looking demons or goblins. As he presented each picture, he explained, âAlthough ugly and capable of doing harm, these âdemonsâ are also the bearers of some good. So long as the benefits outweigh the risks, we use them,â he summarized. âWe have no choice,â he continued, âbecause if a drug has no dangers, then it can have no benefits.
Thatâs just the way it is. And thatâs why it is essential that only qualified physicians be allowed to prescribe medicines,â he concluded.
Actually, the professor was telling the truth. Within the restricted practice of allopathy (MDs) the only real medicines are physician prescribed pharmaceuticals. Such medicines always do have negative side effects. All of them. No exceptions.
Hence, doctors are trained to accept the bad with the good as the price of effective medicine.
The Danger is in the Drug, Itself
December 16, 2008
Âˇ JenniferBhala Âˇ No Comments
Tags: allopathic, allopathy, Bhala, CDC, David Stewart PhD, essential oils, Hansen, Jennifer, medical, medical school, negative side effects, over-the-counter drugs, prescriptions, Raindrop Âˇ Posted in: Articles by Medical Professionals, Why Oils Heal & Drugs Don't
The Fat Drug
By PAGAN KENNEDY
MARCH 8, 2014Photo
IF you walk into a farm-supply store today, youâre likely to find a bag of antibiotic powder that claims to boost the growth of poultry and livestock. Thatâs because decades of agricultural research has shown that antibiotics seem to flip a switch in young animalsâ bodies, helping them pack on pounds. Manufacturers brag about the miraculous effects of feeding antibiotics to chicks and nursing calves. Dusty agricultural journals attest to the ways in which the drugs can act like a kind of superfood to produce cheap meat.
But what if that meat is us? Recently, a group of medical investigators have begun to wonder whether antibiotics might cause the same growth promotion in humans. New evidence shows that Americaâs obesity epidemic may be connected to our high consumption of these drugs. But before we get to those findings, itâs helpful to start at the beginning, in 1948, when the wonder drugs were new â and big was beautiful.
That year, a biochemist named Thomas H. Jukes marveled at a pinch of golden powder in a vial. It was a new antibiotic named Aureomycin, and Mr. Jukes and his colleagues at Lederle Laboratories suspected that it would become a blockbuster, lifesaving drug. But they hoped to find other ways to profit from the powder as well. At the time, Lederle scientists had been searching for a food additive for farm animals, and Mr. Jukes believed that Aureomycin could be it. After raising chicks on Aureomycin-laced food and on ordinary mash, he found that the antibiotics did boost the chicksâ growth; some of them grew to weigh twice as much as the ones in the control group.
Mr. Jukes wanted more Aureomycin, but his bosses cut him off because the drug was in such high demand to treat human illnesses. So he hit on a novel solution. He picked through the laboratoryâs dump to recover the slurry left over after the manufacture of the drug. He and his colleagues used those leftovers to carry on their experiments, now on pigs, sheep and cows. All of the animals gained weight. Trash, it turned out, could be transformed into meat.
You may be wondering whether it occurred to anyone back then that the powders would have the same effect on the human body. In fact, a number of scientists believed that antibiotics could stimulate growth in children. From our contemporary perspective, hereâs where the story gets really strange: All this growth was regarded as a good thing. It was an era that celebrated monster-size animals, fat babies and big men. In 1955, a crowd gathered in a hotel ballroom to watch as feed salesmen climbed onto a scale; the men were competing to see who could gain the most weight in four months, in imitation of the cattle and hogs that ate their antibiotic-laced food. Pfizer sponsored the competition.
In 1954, Alexander Fleming â the Scottish biologist who discovered penicillin â visited the University of Minnesota. His American hosts proudly informed him that by feeding antibiotics to hogs, farmers had already saved millions of dollars in slop. But Fleming seemed disturbed by the thought of applying that logic to humans. âI canât predict that feeding penicillin to babies will do society much good,â he said. âMaking people larger might do more harm than good.â
Nonetheless, experiments were then being conducted on humans. In the 1950s, a team of scientists fed a steady diet of antibiotics to schoolchildren in Guatemala for more than a year,while Charles H. Carter, a doctor in Florida, tried a similar regimen on mentally disabled kids. Could the children, like the farm animals, grow larger? Yes, they could.
Mr. Jukes summarized Dr. Carterâs research in a monograph on nutrition and antibiotics: âCarter carried out a prolonged investigation of a study of the effects of administering 75 mg of chlortetracyclineâ â the chemical name for Aureomycin â âtwice daily to mentally defective children for periods of up to three years at the Florida Farm Colony. The children were mentally deficient spastic cases and were almost entirely helpless,â he wrote. âThe average yearly gain in weight for the supplemented group was 6.5 lb while the control group averaged 1.9 lb in yearly weight gain.â
Researchers also tried this out in a study of Navy recruits. âNutritional effects of antibiotics have been noted for some timeâ in farm animals, the authors of the 1954 study wrote. But âto date there have been few studies of the nutritional effects in humans, and what little evidence is available is largely concerned with young children. The present report seems of interest, therefore, because of the results obtained in a controlled observation of several hundred young American males.â The Navy men who took a dose of antibiotics every morning for seven weeks gained more weight, on average, than the control group.
MEANWHILE, in agricultural circles, word of the miracle spread fast. Jay C. Hormel described imaginative experiments in livestock production to his companyâs stockholders in 1951; soon the company began its own research. Hormel scientists cut baby piglets out of their mothersâ bellies and raised them in isolation, pumping them with food and antibiotics. And yes, this did make the pigs fatter.
Farms clamored for antibiotic slurry from drug companies, which was trucked directly to them in tanks. By 1954, Eli Lilly & Company had created an antibiotic feed additive for farm animals, as âan aid to digestion.â It was so much more than that. The drug-laced feeds allowed farmers to keep their animals indoors â because in addition to becoming meatier, the animals now could subsist in filthy conditions. The stage was set for the factory farm.
Credit Jing Wei
And yet, scientists still could not explain the mystery of antibiotics and weight gain. Nor did they try, really. According to Luis Caetano M. Antunes, a public health researcher at the Oswaldo Cruz Foundation in Brazil, the attitude was, âWho cares how itâs working?â Over the next few decades, while farms kept buying up antibiotics, the medical world largely lost interest in their fattening effects, and moved on.
In the last decade, however, scrutiny of antibiotics has increased. Overuse of the drugs has led to the rise of antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria â salmonella in factory farms and staph infections in hospitals. Researchers have also begun to suspect that it may shed light on the obesity epidemic.
In 2002 Americans were about an inch taller and 24 pounds heavier than they were in the 1960s, and more than a third are now classified as obese. Of course, diet and lifestyle are prime culprits. But some scientists wonder whether there could be other reasons for this staggering transformation of the American body. Antibiotics might be the X factor â or one of them.
Martin J. Blaser, the director of the Human Microbiome Program and a professor of medicine and microbiology at New York University, is exploring that mystery. In 1980, he was the salmonella surveillance officer for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, going to farms to investigate outbreaks. He remembers marveling at the amount of antibiotic powder that farmers poured into feed. âI began to think, what is the meaning of this?â he told me.
Of course, while farm animals often eat a significant dose of antibiotics in food, the situation is different for human beings. By the time most meat reaches our table, it contains little or no antibiotics. So we receive our greatest exposure in the pills we take, rather than the food we eat. American kids are prescribed on average about one course of antibiotics every year, often for ear and chest infections. Could these intermittent high doses affect our metabolism?
To find out, Dr. Blaser and his colleagues have spent years studying the effects of antibiotics on the growth of baby mice. In one experiment, his lab raised mice on both high-calorie food and antibiotics. âAs we all know, our childrenâs diets have gotten a lot richer in recent decades,â he writes in a book, âMissing Microbes,â due out in April. At the same time, American children often are prescribed antibiotics. What happens when chocolate doughnuts mix with penicillin?
The results of the study were dramatic, particularly in female mice: They gained about twice as much body fat as the control-group mice who ate the same food. âFor the female mice, the antibiotic exposure was the switch that converted more of those extra calories in the diet to fat, while the males grew more in terms of both muscle and fat,â Dr. Blaser writes. âThe observations are consistent with the idea that the modern high-calorie diet alone is insufficient to explain the obesity epidemic and that antibiotics could be contributing.â
The Blaser lab also investigates whether antibiotics may be changing the animalsâ microbiome â the trillions of bacteria that live inside their guts. These bacteria seem to play a role in all sorts of immune responses, and, crucially, in digesting food, making nutrients and maintaining a healthy weight. And antibiotics can kill them off: One recent study found that taking the antibiotic ciprofloxacin decimated entire populations of certain bugs in some patientsâ digestive tracts â bacteria they might have been born with.
Until recently, scientists simply had no way to identify and sort these trillions of bacteria. But thanks to a new technique called high-throughput sequencing, we can now examine bacterial populations inside people. According to Ilseung Cho, a gastroenterologist who works with the Blaser lab, researchers are learning so much about the gut bugs that it is sometimes difficult to make sense of the blizzard of revelations. âInterpreting the volume of data being generated is as much a challenge as the scientific questions we are interested in asking,â he said.
Investigators are beginning to piece together a story about how gut bacteria shapes each life, beginning at birth, when infants are anointed with populations from their mothersâ microbiomes. Babies who are born by cesarean and never make that trip through the birth canal apparently never receive some key bugs from their mothers â possibly including those that help to maintain a healthy body weight. Children born by C-section are more likely to be obese in later life.
By the time we reach adulthood, we have developed our own distinct menagerie of bacteria. In fact, it doesnât always make sense to speak of us and them. You are the condo that your bugs helped to build and design. The bugs redecorate you every day. They turn the thermostat up and down, and bang on your pipes.
In the Blaser lab and elsewhere, scientists are racing to take a census of the bugs in the human gut and â even more difficult â to figure out what effects they have on us. What if we could identify which species minimize the risk of diabetes, or confer protection against obesity? And what if we could figure out how to protect these crucial bacteria from antibiotics, or replace them after theyâre killed off?
The results could represent an entirely new pharmacopoeia, drugs beyond our wildest dreams: Think of them as âanti-antibiotics.â Instead of destroying bugs, these new medicines would implant creatures inside us, like more sophisticated probiotics.
Dr. Cho looks forward to this new era of medicine. âI could say, âAll right, I know that youâre at risk for developing colon cancer, and I can decrease that risk by giving you this bacteria and altering your microbiome.â That would be amazing. We could prevent certain diseases before they happened.â
Until then, itâs hard for him to know what to tell his patients. We know that antibiotics change us, but we still donât know what to do about it. âItâs still too early to draw definitive conclusions,â Dr. Cho said. âAnd antibiotics remain a valuable resource that physicians use to fight infections.â
When I spoke to Mr. Antunes, the public health researcher in Brazil, he told me that his young daughter had just suffered through several bouts of ear infections. âItâs a no-brainer. You have to give her antibiotics.â And yet, he worried about how these drugs might affect her in years to come.
It has become common to chide doctors and patients for overusing antibiotics, but when the baby is wailing or youâre burning with fever, itâs hard to know what to do. While researchers work to unravel the connections between antibiotics and weight gain, they should also put their minds toward reducing the unnecessary use of antibiotics. One way to do that would be to provide patients with affordable tests that give immediate feedback about what kind of infection has taken hold in their body. Such tools, like a new kind of blood test, are now in development and could help to eliminate the âjust in caseâ prescribing of antibiotics.
In the meantime, we are faced with the legacy of these drugs â the possibility that they have affected our size and shape, and made us different people.
From: Gary Young’s Blog January 30, 2014 http://www.dgaryyoung.com/blog/
The Largest True Lavender Grower in the World! First, I want to share with you all… that last January, four people came together in a merger, joining three lavender farms. Jean-Noel Landel and me, Benoit Cassan, and Jean-Marie Blanc. This merger makes Young Living the largest grower of true lavender in the world today! Here is what my partner in France, Jean-Noel Landel, said during the 2013 Convention: Jean-Noel: Hello, everybody. I want to go back years ago when I first met Gary. Everything heâs telling you right now, he was already speaking about 23 years ago. He already had the belief that we needed very high-quality, therapeutic-grade essential oils when nobody even knew what essential oils were. This is a true belief that has never changed for 23 years. And 23 years ago, everybody was laughing at this guy. They just didnât understand what he was saying about essential oils for emotional feelings. Nobody knew about aromatherapy at that time. There were no aromatherapy businesses. And this guy, when he first came to speak with us, we thought he was from another planet. What is he talking about? At the best, people were just kind of smiling at him and thinking, âNice guy, yeah, yeah. Go back home.â Thatâs why I really feel strongly about all this. I brought Benoit Cassan with me; heâs the president of the largest research center on lavender farming in the world. He came to the U.S. for the third time because he knows he learns something from Gary every time. And Benoitâs father, president of the French Lavender Growers Association for a number of years, learned things from Gary 23 years ago. That makes this company unique, based on the belief that essential oils have a very strong quality, not just for physical purposes like the French aromatherapy doctors thought. Not just that, but also on emotional levels and spiritual levels. It has been Garyâs teaching for 23 years now; heâs never changed that. And he knew he had to take big actions as he has been doing, spending millions of dollars farming, distilling, and researching to the point where nobody else can do the same. I feel very proud that Gary accepted me as a partner and not just his employee. As a partner, itâs a very high honor for me. And I am very happy to let you know that you have the strongest, deepest roots in this company than any other company that is marketing essential oils now because itâs a ânew fad.â It wasnât new 23 years ago! Essential oils became known, thanks to Gary. We have to stick together as a company, as a family, to continue to make it grow!
Are you a bit confused about exactly what âObamacareâ requires you and your business to DO, and the penalties you will be hit with if you do not comply?Â
This email cuts right to chase:
Â Â A. What are you required to DO?
Â Â B. What happens if you DONâT?
First, the bottom line:
Individuals WITHOUT Insurance Will PAY a Tax PENALTY. Now hereâs the rest of the storyâŚÂ
Washington delayed to 2015 the requirement that employers that have 50 or more full-time employees provide them with affordable health coverage or pay a stiff fineÂ
HOWEVER, the starting date for INDIVIDUALS was NOT deferred.
Individuals must have qualifying coverage in 2014 for themselves and their dependents or they will pay a penalty tax.Â
YOU CAN AVOID THE TAX IF
you have (a) employer-provided health coverage that meets the minimum Obamacare requirements, or (b) purchase coverage through an âexchangeâ or (c) have federal coverage such as Medicare, Medicaid, Tricare and Veterans.Â
Coverage TOO EXPENSIVE?
You Might be Exempt from Paying the Penalty.
If you are an employee, and your share of premiums exceeds 8% of your householdâs AGI, you wonât be required to pay a penalty.Â
This applies also to people not eligible for employer coverage, if the cost of a âbasic bronze-level planâ in an exchange exceeds 8% of household AGI (computed after subtracting any tax credits for buying insurance).Â
Three other categories exempt
from paying penalties are: (1) tax-payers who are without coverage for less than three months; (2) taxpayers who can show that a hardship forced them to forego coverage, and (3) those whose insurance was canceled due to federal mandate and who canât find an affordable policy.Â
WHAT IS THE PENALTY if YOU
DONâT Get Health Coverage?
The tax penalty for not having health Insurance that meets federal standards is normally the higher of two amounts:Â
A. THE BASIC PENALTY
The basic penalty is $95 for one person (or $47.50 for each family member who is under 18), with a ceiling of $285.Â
B. THE INCOME-BASED PENALTY
For 2014 he income-based penalty is 1% of the difference between $10,150 for singles (or $20,300 for couples),
plus $3,950 per dependent, and your household AGI.Â
MANY OF IRSâ âSTRONG ARM COLLECTION TACTICS” ARE PROHIBITED UNDER THIS LAW.Â
There are strict limits on how the IRS Can attempt to collect this tax.Â
They cannot use liens or levies, and they cannot charge interest on the unpaid balance.Â
All they can do is apply a personâs tax refunds to offset the non-insurance penalty.Â
âTAX CREDITSâ AVAILABLE FOR SOME w/ LOW-INCOME
Low-income earners get a refundable tax credit to help them afford coverage. They can have the credit sent directly
to an exchange to help pay premiums or they can take the credit on their tax returns.Â
The credit is computed on a sliding scale and applies for taxpayers with a household income over $11,490 for singles ($23,550 for family of four).Â
The credit phases out when household income hits a level of $45,960 for singles and $94,200 for a family of four.Â
BUT, HEREâS THE âGOTCHA!âÂ
This is IMPORTANT for part-time or full-time self-employeds – -Â
If you take advantage of the tax credit based on a low âanticipated income,â but during the course of the year your total income jumps above the âlow incomeâ qualifying level, guess what?Â
When you file your 2014 tax return the feds will force you to repay all health insurance Tax Credits you have collected during 2014.Â
NOW, THE GOOD NEWS!
If you operate a home-based business, YOU are in the ONLY category of taxpayers who can legitimately WRITE-OFF 100% of ALL health related expenses for ALL MEMBERS of your immediate FAMILY.Â
Read that again!Â This is HUGE!
That includes Premiums, Annual Deductibles, Co-Pays, a whole range of ânon-coveredâ health costs, and sometimes even natural and holistic remedies.Â Â
An analysis of more than 25,000 part- and full-time home-based business owners who used this tax deduction last year showed average of $22,000 in additional health care tax deductions, which produced a $5,500-plus INCREASE in their tax REFUNDS.Â
Thatâs HUGE!!! Â And YOU can get this mega-tax benefit, too!Â You can qualify simply because you have a small or home-based business.Â
This deduction is not automatic, and the IRS is never going to tell you about it, and your tax preparer may not even know about it.Â
BUT I TELL YOU ALL ABOUT IT at ProtectYourTaxDeductions.comÂ
Sound too good to be true? I will tell you on that web page exactly where, in the Tax Code, this tax deduction is authorized, so you can KNOW itâs legit.Â
Check it out at ProtectYourTaxDeductions.com
Learn how to pay for all of YOUR health costs with tax-free dollars.Â
Creating Tax-Smart Home-Business Owners, Ronald R. âRonâÂ Mueller, MBA, Ph.D.
Â Â Â Â Tax Educator & Author of âHome Business Tax Savings, Made Easy!â
Why are you reading this? Â You should be looking at ProtectYourTaxDeductions.com !
Seriously!Â Trust me, I can show you HOW to add FIVE GRAND to your Tax Refund this year, but I canât force you to DO it.
(BTW, $5,000/yr = more than $100/WEEK.) The ballâs in your courtâŚ
Home Business Tax Savings Inc.
2907 Shelter Island Drive
San Diego, CA
The Affordable Care Act is fantastic for the federal government, terrific for state governments that tax income, and an absolute dream for Wall Street and Corporate America.
Why ObaÂmacare is good for the econÂomy, though probÂaÂbly not forÂ you
By Dan McGrath
Zenith MarÂketÂing Group, Inc.
So is the AffordÂable Care Act, on the surÂface, really good for you? ProbÂaÂbly not, but it is fanÂtasÂtic for the fedÂeral govÂernÂment, terÂrific for state govÂernÂments that tax income, and an absolute dream for Wall Street and CorÂpoÂrate AmerÂica.
A few of the stated goals of the AffordÂable Care Act (ACA) are that it will lead to an increase in job growth, jump-start the econÂomy, bring back manÂuÂfacÂturÂing to the United States, and yes it will, even, pay down the deficit.
As more inforÂmaÂtion is being disÂsemÂiÂnated each day about the ACA, the one tidÂbit that everyÂone may still rememÂber is the simÂple fact that comÂpaÂnies with more than 50 employÂees will be fined $2,000 each year for each employee who is not proÂvided health insurÂance.
Sounds like a big fine, doesnât it? But think about it, comÂpaÂnies that proÂvide health benÂeÂfits for employÂees tend to pick up a large porÂtion of that preÂmium, and that porÂtion is usuÂally much higher than that fine of $2,000.
AccordÂing to the Kaiser FamÂily FounÂdaÂtion, in 2013, the averÂage annual preÂmiÂums for employer-sponsored health insurÂance were $5,884 for sinÂgle covÂerÂage and $16,351 for famÂily covÂerÂage, while the employee conÂtriÂbuÂtion for this covÂerÂage was âon averÂage, 18 perÂcent of the preÂmium for sinÂgle covÂerÂage and 29 perÂcent of the preÂmium for famÂily covÂerÂage.â
The math would deterÂmine that employÂers, on averÂage, paid $4,824.88 per indiÂvidÂual health plan and $11,610 for every employee who opted for a famÂily plan.
Now, with the new rules proÂvided by the ACA, employÂers can âopt outâ of this benÂeÂfit and face a fine of $2,000 per employee. The savÂings have the potenÂtial to be immense since, also, accordÂing to another Kaiser FamÂily FounÂdaÂtion report, âEmployer Health BenÂeÂfits,â there were 149 milÂlion peoÂple covÂered under an employer health plan as of 2011, with roughly 54.7 milÂlion covÂered by an indiÂvidÂual plan and the remainÂing 94 milÂlion covÂered by a famÂily plan.
From these numÂbers it can be conÂcluded that, on averÂage, employÂers spent about $1.2 trilÂlion each year for famÂily health preÂmiÂums and close to $264 bilÂlion in indiÂvidÂual health preÂmiÂums each yearâââfor a total of roughly $1.4 trilÂlion in preÂmiÂums for the year.
Think about it, if employÂers just decided to pay that $2,000 fine for every sinÂgle perÂson, includÂing the spouse and depenÂdents of their employÂees (which they donât have to do), how much would that bill total? Close to $298 bilÂlion. The savÂings would easÂily be $1.1 trilÂlion (149 milÂlion x $2,000).
This would leave employÂers throughÂout the United States with an extra $1.1 bilÂlion that can be added to their botÂtom line, which could be used to prop up the share price of a comÂpany stock. And hasnât Wall Street now become a leadÂing indiÂcaÂtor on how well the U.S. econÂomy is doing? The other great news could quite posÂsiÂbly be that, instead of that $1.4 trilÂlion headÂing to insurÂance comÂpaÂnies in the form of preÂmiÂums, it would now be held at the corÂpoÂrate level where it could easÂily be pumped back into the econÂomy through employer spendÂing, which, in time, would also be taxed accordÂingly by the fedÂeral govÂernÂment.
And that fine of $2,000 per employee? Well, that will also be sent to the fedÂeral govÂernÂment, which could quickly be labeled as ânewâ revÂenue.
As for manÂuÂfacÂturÂing comÂing back to the United States? Well, now with the second-largest expense employÂers face being magÂiÂcally erased, the costs of each employee havÂing nowhere else to go but down, and shipÂping mateÂriÂals to counÂtries like China and India appearÂing to be not that senÂsiÂble (espeÂcially if the cost of employÂees in those counÂtries begin to rise)âââall one needs to do is look at the Wall Street JourÂnal China report on risÂing employee costs to see what is hapÂpenÂing globÂally.
Now, is it also so hard to see how jobs could be increased in the very near future?
In one fell swoop, the ACA could posÂsiÂbly free up $1.4 trilÂlion in revÂenue for comÂpaÂnies throughÂout the United States, and all it will cost these comÂpaÂnies, at a maxÂiÂmum, $298 bilÂlion in fines. But, who in the end will really pay for it anyÂway?
For those who define the counÂtry as peoÂple and who may also find that preÂviÂous quesÂtion irriÂtatÂing, the ACA may not be the best piece of legÂisÂlaÂtion ever creÂated, and the reaÂson should be glarÂingly obviÂous: EmployÂees will be the ones payÂing for this, as they will no longer have access to employer-funded health insurÂance.
Yes, there will be peoÂple sayÂing that at least they can go on the exchange and that health care will be the same for everyÂone, but please conÂsider the other litÂtle nugget as well:
Under the forÂmer rules of health covÂerÂage, before the ACA, the amount of a personâs preÂmiÂums was, for the majorÂity of AmerÂiÂcans, taken out of their payÂcheck pre-tax, which lowÂered the amount of income the govÂernÂment could tax a perÂson. Now, with the ACA, peoÂple will have to pay for their covÂerÂage after their income is taxed by the govÂernÂment.
The good news for you: You get to pay more in taxes to the govÂernÂment, and for those who do have a famÂily, things may even get a litÂtle more difÂfiÂcult as the ACA has creÂated a proÂviÂsion that chilÂdren under the age of 26 are still the responÂsiÂbilÂity of their parÂentsâ health covÂerÂage.
So is the AffordÂable Care Act, on the surÂface, really good for you?
ProbÂaÂbly not, but it is fanÂtasÂtic for the fedÂeral govÂernÂment, terÂrific for state govÂernÂments that tax income, and an absolute dream for Wall Street and CorÂpoÂrate AmerÂica.
The only truly amazÂing thing about the ACA is how we as a nation dealt with it. Those on the right, who tend to be for comÂpaÂnies and the stock marÂket, were and are still dead-set against the ACA, while those on the left, who despise big busiÂness and Wall Street, are the ones who are all for it.
As the nation focuses on this new law, it has to be stated that it was absolutely genius how one man conÂvinced the majorÂity of AmerÂiÂcans that we as a nation must allow comÂpaÂnies to make more money each year, even if comes at a price of our own health. Really? Only in AmerÂica would peoÂple allow this to happen.