If you had three wishes.

 

In the spirit of peace and good will toward all men, my wife asked me last night what would I wish for if I had three wishes, then she immediately applied the rule, “you cannot ask for three more wishes”, which took the words right out of my month.

            I had to think about it for awhile.  What would I wish for, that’s not an easy question to answer.  After contemplating for a little while, I responded

            - I’d wish that I would die before everyone that I loved (My brother died before my         mother.  That must have been terrible for her).

            - I’d wish that I lived a long happy and healthy live (which means that my loved one         would also live a long life because of my first wish) and

            - I’d wish that when the time comes, that I would go fast and not linger around in misery             spending all my heir’s inheritance.

After I divulged these rather morbid wishes, my wife reviled what her three wishes would be

            - That the Islamic State, ISIS, would be quickly and thoroughly destroyed.

            - That the world would find a solution to global warming and

            - That the finally we would reach world peace. 

(Had to smile at this last wish because it remained me of Steve Martin’s comedy routine in which he lists his three wishes that starts out with “world peace” but after reconsideration, finally winds up with him being a billionaire and world peace ending up in tenth place.)

 

There are stark contrasts between the wishes.  Obviously my impending disaster weighs on my mind and my great love for those who are close to me.  My wish list is self centered, my wishes revolve around me and what would make me happy.  And of course, Cindy and my children and grand children would be the benefactors of these wishes.

 

Cindy’s list is much more worldly and more gracious and generous toward all those inhabiting this forlorn planet.  But her wish list is also much more difficult to obtain, perhaps impossible. 

The conclusion I reach is that my wishes are more self-centered, but more realistically accomplished.  My wife’s are more charitable toward everyone, more generous and more worldly but incredibly difficult to accomplish.  Maybe that’s the way it is suppose to be.

 

Maybe you should ask those closes to you what they would wish for.  You might get interesting results.

 

Terry Amrhein

Author of Democracy on the Edge

Available at www.AmrheinsBooks.com

Gun Violence is Killing America. Can we stop it?

By Terry Amrhein, Author of Democracy on the Edge

 

Mass murders are occurring in the United States with such regularity that the public is almost callous to them.  Shooting of marines in Chattenooga, Tennessee then shooting of church goers in Charleston South Carolina, followed by a shooting of a news broadcaster and her camera man near Roanoke, Virginia, followed by Colorado Spring Planned Parent Hood murders, then in San Bernardino, California.  All mass murders and the American public says and does absolutely nothing.  Just another mass murder in America!  It almost as if Americans are smug about gun violence, that it won’t happen to us; but it could by the mere toss of the dice.

              Invariability, conservative’s solution to reduce gun violence is for the law abiding citizens to carry more weapons.  Apparently, conservatives envision an America where everyone carries side arms and AR-15s at all times in order to defend themself against attack.  In San Bernardino, this would mean people would come to a Holiday Party armed to the teeth.  In reality, those favoring an armed America have not thought about it much.  Would they really support a society where the law is enforced by an armed mob, a vigilante society like the days of Wyatt Earp?  I think not.  Most Americans want a country that provides them peace and security, not having to worry about being shot.  If everyone carries arms, who’s training these people?  Can they shot accurately?  What qualifications do they have to identify the shooter from the victim?  Preservation of peace is why we have an armed and trained police force.  Everyone being armed does not promote peace and security, it aggravate them.  

            But there are thing that we can do to reduce gun violence.  Requiring background checks before anyone purchases of weapon is a good idea.  Those who are convicted felons or have a history of mental illness, angry behavior or spousal abuse should be ineligible to purchase firearms.   Would this solution eliminate all murders? No, but it would help.  The Virginia Tech shooter had been diagnoses with anxiety disorder before he killed 32 students and injured another 17. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris, the Columbine High School shooters, had signs of anti-social behavior and were sentenced to a juvenile diversion program after being caught for stealing tools from a parked automobile.  We have a “no fly list” that prevents suspected terrorists from flying on commerce airlines, yet we allow these same people to purchase weapons. (In fact, Republican members of Congress turned back a proposal last week to forbid those on the no fly list from buying weapons.)  That makes no sense!  Why can’t we have a no gun purchase list for terrorists, but we do not such a list?  Performing a background check requires only a few minutes.  Isn’t it worth it to help assure the purchaser is not going to shoot you someday?

            Other ideas like banning high capacity magazines are also sensible.  The Supreme Court has repeatedly decided that a person has a right to bear firearms to defend their property and to protect the lives of themselves and their family.  A high capacity magazine is not required for either of these.  Firing 10, 12, 15 times without reloading is not required for protection but it is required if you want to commit a crime without reloading.   

            Another sensible idea is to close loop holes on gun purchases.  An example is making “straw purchase” of guns (when someone purchases a weapon which is then given to another person) illegal.  This is one of the most common means for criminals to get weapons and it should be stopped.  How can anyone object to stopping the sell of firearms to criminals?  But I know some of us will object.

            My favorite idea is to require a gun education course before you can purchase a gun.  Most states already require a gun safety course before you can obtain a hunting license.  Why shouldn’t we require a gun safety course before purchasing a firearm?  If fact the gun course for firearm purchase could also suffice for the hunting course.  Everyone would be required to get a safety course.   Guns can be dangerous to you and to others, if you don’t know to treat them safety.  We require a driver license before driving.  Why not a gun safety course be buying a gun?    

            None of these methods will stop all guns homicides in America but they will help and they are far superior to arming every American, which is what the firearm manufacturers would love to see.  

Terry AmRhein

Democracy on the Edge

Buy it at Amrheinsbooks.com

 

What are the Issues Behind Raising the Minimum Wage?

How Would a Raise Affect You?

By Terry AmRhein, Democracy on the Edge

 

buy it www.Amrheinsbooks.com

The discussion over raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour continues to be a major issue of contention among the presidential political candidates.  Republicans are united in their opposition to raising wages.  Hillary agrees with raising the minimum wage, but to a more moderate level of $12 per hours while Bernie Sanders stands behind a $15 wage rate.  What are the issues behind raising the minimum rate and what would happen if the wage rate was raised?

            The present federal minimum wage is 7.25/hr ($14,500 per year) which was last increased in 2009.  Some states do have higher minimum wage rates, some are $9.00/hr or over, but most states have a minimum wage close to the federal rate.  Had the minimum wage kept up with production, it would be $18.28 per hour by now according to the Economic Policy Institute.  Republicans claim that raising the minimum wage will result in putting people out of work; by raising workers wages the costs of products will increase and companies will be forced to layoffs workers to help maintain low prices.  The problem with this theory is that if a company had excessive employees, given the present economic conditions, employers would have already laid them off.  This is particularly true with the slow economic recovery we have experienced; there are very few excessive workers.  (Yes, some people who are not presently looking for a job may rejoin the labor market and hence increase the unemployment rate.  However, this is not the same as laying off a person who already has a job.)  To maintain profits, companies will be forced to increase prices of their products and to find new ways to increase efficiency.  The burden of dealing with higher cost of labor will be experienced in all industries alike, it will be a level play field, and the most competitive company will perform the best.  So product price increases would not be unlimited, they would be checked by competition.  This is the way it should be in a capitalist economy.     

            Increasing prices, of course, is called inflation.  Nobody likes inflation.  However, some inflation is a good thing, it shows the economy is vibrant.  The United States is presently experiencing a relatively low inflation rate of about 2%.  The reasonable rate is considered to be about 3%.  So while higher wages can be inflationary, it doesn’t appear to represent much of a hazard in the next few years.  Additionally, inflationary affects of a wage raise can be mitigated by raising wages in steps over several years.

            There are potentially many unforeseen benefits from raising workers pay.   Republican’s major objection to government is that there are too many people on the welfare, all of them freeloaders.  Increasing the minimum wage could allow people working a full time job to earn a living wage and welfare should decline.

            The effects of an increase in minimum wage will also ricochet among hire wage earners.  When the pay of lower wage earners increases, higher wage earner demand compensating wage increases.  So in effect, all workers would benefit from higher wages.

            The biggest benefit from higher wage though is on the national economy.  With increased wages, demand for goods and service will increase.  People will have more money and much of these funds is going to buy “things” like cars, boats, houses and taking vacations.  This increase in spending will simulate production of products.  The resulting profits could potentially out weigh the increase in costs caused by the wage increase.  And with increased production, employment rates would increase.  So the benefits of an increase in minimum wage are numerous and the ill effects are small or imaginary.  It is the right thing to do and it is the smart thing to do.  What is congress waiting for?    

 

By Terry AmRhein author of Democracy on the Edge available at www.Amrheinsbooks.com

Spin, Deceit and Ignorance in the Republican Candidates Debate

The Republican candidate’s debate is a hallmark in spin, deceit and just plan old ignorance placed on America’s important issues by politicians.  Here’s a few examples.

            The debaters claimed that if the Iran nuclear agreement was signed, it will result in the US giving Iran $100 billion dollars (Whow, that’s a lot of money).  This is a lie!  The US is not giving Iran anything!  The $100 billion was oil money confiscated by the international bank as part of the sanctions.  It is their money which the United Nations is returning to them as part of the agreement. 

              Some of the debaters stalwartly support a very strong show of power against the Iranian government.  They seem to think that if America was stronger and shows more strength, that Iran would cower in they boots and accept whatever deal the US dictated.  It’s incredible!  Haven’t we learned anything from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars!  We tried to force Iraq into a democratically elected government and it failed.  Do we think we can do better with Iran?  After all these years and all these lives lost, haven’t we learned that we cannot use military strength to force our well upon another nation?  A better approach is negotiations and economy sanctions to which a rogue nation has no recourse, i.e. you can’t shoot economic sanctions.  To this point, Dr Ben Carson voiced a more reasonable approach.

            Now abortions.  Carly Fiorina described the horror of how aborted babies lie on operating tables after an abortion.  This is a total misrepresentation.  The abortions can only be performed legally within the first trimester (3 months) of a pregnancy.  This is the law.  At that point a fetus is more like a baby fish than a human.  There are no arms and legs as Fiorina described.  While many may find abortions appalling, there are good reasons for a mother to abort a fetus, rape or incest being two reasons.  If a mother decides to take the horrendous step of having an abortion, it is always after serious consideration.  No one decides to have an abortion willy-nilly.  Some people though feel that they have the right to force their opinion upon others.  Apparently they have forsaken the “Golden Rule.”  But even if the mother elects to have an abortion, there is good that can come from fetus’ tissues.  The tissues can be used in stem cell research that can potentially find cures for cancer, Alzheimer’s, heart disease and many other illnesses.

            Donald Trump, the “Donald”, the “Great Satan” of all illegal immigrants wants to build a wall between the US and Mexico.  This is an idea worthy of Dr Seuss, “Build a wall and they will fall”.   Trump characterized illegals as rapists, murders and thieves.  This couldn’t be further from the truth. Illegal immigrants are not criminals.  By and large, they are really hard working people who will work for a pittance and do a good job.  They keep their mouth shut, work hard and stay low key largely because they live in fear of being discovered and deported.  And really, if you want to truly stop illegal immigrants, then utilize and enforce E-verify, a national data base of all immigrants that have legal work status.   

            But the “Great Wall of Trump”, has other flaws in its design.  Who the hell going to pay for this great wall?  Are we going to raise taxes?  Are we going to reduce military spending? Or is it coming from the backs of the working people who can hardly make a living now.  Oh! Oh! I have an idea, let the “Donald” pay for it.

            The praise that the “The Donald” receives that he is not beholden to anybody in this campaign, that he is paying for the entire campaign by himself, is ridiculous!  This is another way of saying that he is trying to buy the Presidency of the United States of America.  A truly democracy process might be that the nominee received 100 million donations to support his candidacy, sort of like Bernie Sanders i.e. the people supporting the candidate.

            So here we are, looking into the future.  Are we going to believe these lies, deceits and ignorant philosophy of the conservatives or are we going to wake up?  After about an hour of the debate, I went to bed.

Kim Davis' New Definition of Religious Freedom

Kim Davis’ New Definition of Religious Freedom                                                

Read more in "Democracy on the Edge" at Amrheinsbooks.com

 

Kim Davis, the Rowan County Kentucky Clerk who refused to grant marriage licenses to gay couples, claims the Supreme Court decision to allow gays to marry represents an infringement of her religious freedom.  Her claim is that since she is responsible for issuance of marriage licenses and since gay marriage is against her religious beliefs, the court decision is an infringement of her liberties.  Doesn’t that seem a little backwards to you?

            When the pilgrims came to the New World, they were fleeing religious persecution.  In the time of established churches, only one religion was allowed to be practiced, other religious alternatives were prohibited.  So some of those desiring a difference religious pick up there stuff, hopped on the Mayflower, and sailed to America. This is what violation of religious freedom is all about.  

            Ms Davis’ complaint is different.  What her case is actually saying by not granting licenses is that she will not allow the gay couples to participate in one of the most sacred of religious ceremonies, the act of marriage.  She is the one who is infringing upon others religious freedoms!  Somehow, conservatives like Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee, who have appeared in support of Ms Davis, have twisted the concept on religious freedom on its head.  They have successfully persuaded some people that it is OK for an individual to not perform their sworn duties and responsibilities i.e.  to uphold and dutifully fulfill the law of the country so help me God, because they don’t agree with it.  This is an entire new definition of “religious freedom”.  This attitude leads to anarchy.  Don’t fall for it, folks!  Don’t let the religious right turn religion freedom up side down.

Read more in "Democracy on the Edge" at Amrheinsbooks.com

The Iranian Uranium Enrichment Agreement in a Nutshell

 

By Terry A. AmRhein, Author of Democracy on the Edge

 

The United States and the rest of the world have been given an opportunity to prevent Iran from producing a nuclear weapon.  But there are extreme risks involved in the agreement.  What are these risks?  Should the US take the risk?

            In 2008, intelligence discovered that Iran had built a Uranium enrichment facility.  The US started negotiating with Iran to limit production of enriched uranium¹⁾ but with little progress.  In 2010, when the world became aware that Iran had uranium enrichment facilities, action began to happen.  The five members of the United Nations Security Council, (US, Great Britain, France, China, Russia) plus Germany agreed to impose strong sanctions on Iran and these sanctions held tight.  In addition, the UN imposed sanctions on Iran’s banking and finance system preventing payment for oil revenues from reaching Iranian banks.  By 2013 Iran had significant stock piles of enriched Uranium that could be turned into a bomb with further enrichment.  The sanctions though were having their effect and Iran attitude became more earnest.

            After 20 months of negotiating, the UN Security Council members plus Germany reached an agreement with Iran.  Here’s what the agreement entails:

 

1) Iran will reduce its stockpile of low enriched Uranium to 98% of it present level (i.e to 660 LB or 300 Kilograms), half of what it would take to make a bomb and keep it at this level for 15 years. 

2) For the next 15 years, Iran will keep its number of high speed centrifuges to a low enough number so that it would take one year to enrich enough uranium to produce a bomb.²⁾ 

3) For the next 15 years, Iran must not enrich uranium above 3.67% U235, the concentration required for a commercial nuclear reactor.

4) During this time, Iran will permit detailed inspections of nuclear facilities by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and by the international community.  Up to a 24 day prior notice of the inspection is required.

5) Iran will convert its heavy water nuclear reactor³⁾ designed to make plutonium, into a reactor that cannot make plutonium.⁴⁾

           

            Here’s what Iran gets in return:

1) Iran will have a small portion of the international sanction lifted immediately but most of the sanctions will stay in affect until Iran completes implementation of the agreement.  This is scheduled to take about 6 months.

2) Following complete implementation, the sanctions will be lifted.  Iran will then have access to about $100 billion of the oil money that has been held in escrow by international banks.

3) After 5 years, the embargo on Iran’s receiving conventional weapons will be lifted.  After 8 years, the embargo on receiving missile technology will also be lifted.

 

Any breach of the agreement would cause the UN sanctions to “snap back” into place.

 

            The discussion of the agreement has been strenuous and varied.  Some say this could be a remarkably good deal.  Others, particularly Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, declare this is a sure way for Iran to get a nuclear weapon.  Senator John McCain said that this will lead to an Iranian “shopping spree” because after 5 years, Iran will have access to $100 billion to buy weapons and after 8 years will access to missile technology.

 

            Some believe that if Iran does break the agreement, the sanctions will not “snap back” into place as the Obama administration claims.  They point out that it took significant effort to establish the sanctions in the first place and the chance of re-establishing them is not likely.   Also the UN Security Council and Germany has already agreed with the deal, somewhat upstaging the US.  If the US now fails to pass the deal, the US will look like the rogue nation. Other point out that Iran will have up to 24 days to “sanitize” any inspection site before any inspection occurs and thus could hide their bomb enrichment process.

 

            During the Republican Presidential Nominee debate on August 6, it was apparent that the Republican candidates for president, are unanimously against Iran Nuclear deal.  Rand Paul expressed the opinion that if the US negotiated from a position of power, we could have gotten a better deal.  (Although he doesn’t explain what a “position of power” is.  Usually in a negotiation, if one party starts out by saying “If you don’t do what I want, I’m going to hit you in the head”, the negotiations don’t get too far.)  On Friday August 10, Senators Chuck Schumer of New York declared that he would not support the nuclear deal.  Chuck Schumer is the likely Senate major leader after Harry Reid leaves next year and represents a symbol for other democrats to likewise vote against the deal.  To scuttle the deal, however, opponents have two high hurdles. They will need 60 votes in the Senate to overcome a filibuster by supporters of the accord. If the opponents get that, the president will veto the resolution. The opponents would then have to get of two-thirds of the lawmakers in both chambers to override the veto.      

 

            During this process, President Obama and Secretary Kerry have stressed that

1) If the deal is turned down, that Iran will almost certainly continuing enriching Uranium and obtain a bomb within a relative short time.

2) That the inspections will be complete and though and if Iran is enriching beyond 3.67% or the number of centrifuges is exceeded or other terms of the agreement are broken, that sanctions and any other action (e.g. bombing) that is available now, can be implemented at the time the agreement is broken.        

3) That this agreement is only an interim agreement.  That during the next years, US will attempt to negotiate further with Iran to persuade them to give up their desire to make nuclear bombs.  Obama indicates that this represents a opportunity to establish better relationships with Iran. (Remember during the late 1970s, when the Shah of Iran was in power, relationship with Iran was more congenial)

           

So this is the Iranian Uranium Enrichment agreement in a nut shell, hopefully explained simply enough that you don’t have to be a physicist to understand it.  This agreement affects every American.  You should have an opinion about it because it will affect you, your children and your grandchildren.  Then tell your US Senator what you think.

Democracy on the Edge

 

 

Footnotes:

1)  Most of Uranium is 238 containing 92 protons and 147 neutrons in its nucleus.  Uranium 238, called U238, however will not fission and therefore cannot be used as a bomb.  To have a bomb you need U235, 92 protons and only 143 neutrons.  To refine U235 from normal Uranium you must separate the two “isotopes”.  The Uranium containing higher quantities of U235 is called “enriched Uranium”.

2) High speed centrifuges spend extremely fast.  Since the uranium isotopes have different weights, they tend to concentrate is different regions in the centrifuge.  By judiciously gathering the right isotope from the right region you can slowly concentrate the isotope that you want, i.e. you can concentrate the U235.  Uranium must be over 90% U235 to make a bomb.

3) Normal water, H2O, contain two hydrogen atoms.  Each hydrogen atom contains only one proton with an electron circling around it.  But some hydrogen atoms can have one proton and one neutron in its nucleus with an electron circling around.  This hydrogen atom has a special  name called deuterium and since it has two particles in the nucleus, the water it makes is called “heavy water”.

4)  You make plutonium Pu239 from U238 by having the uraniumU238 absorb a neutron and through a nuclear reaction U238 becomes Pu239.

The Supreme Court has another Chance to Destroy Obamacare

How would it affect you?

          The Supreme Court has yet another chance at destroying the Affordable Care Act.  The situation is this.  A large part of Obamacare is to make health care affordable for Americans.  The plan, therefore, subsidizes premiums paid by families for their health insurance.  For example, in 2014 a family of four making $35,775 per year would not pay more than $1430 per year ($119 per month) for a silver plan.  These subsides apply to annual incomes reaching up to about $100,000 a year.  The subsides are paid for by

       -          a much larger pool of participating and mostly healthy individuals

 

      -          more frequent medical checkups to keep people healthier

      -          additional taxes on those making over $200,000 per year and

      -          taxes on medical devices and health care insurance companies, on expensive “Cadillac”health care plans and on tanning salons. 

            The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (i.e. Obamacare) was originally written to have each state set up it own health insurance exchange.  Citizens go on-line to health care exchanges and select which plan they want, from the most economical bronze plan to the most expensive platinum plan.  Along the way though, 34 states opted not to set up their own plan, some because setting up the system was too onerous and others because they just opposed Obamacare.  The federal government then established a system where people without state plans could select an insurance plan through the federal government site, www.healthcare.gov. 

            The only problem is the exact wording of the Affordable Care Act.  The Act states that subsidies will be provided to eligible people who purchase insurance through “exchanges established by the states”.  In King v Burwell (Sylvia Burwell, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services) King argues that anyone who obtained health insurance through a federal exchange is NOT eligible for subsidies because they’re not “established by the state.”  Even though Obamacare clearly intended that subsidies could be provided through either a state or a federal exchange, the exact wording of the act does NOT say “or the federal government.” 

            All this turmoil and uncertainty results from conservative zealots that loath Obamacare. So if the Supreme Court decides that the federal government cannot provide subsides, here is what could happen.

1)  Five million people signed up for Obamacare from federal exchanges in 2014.  Of those, 87% or about 4.4 million people, received subsidies.  Without those subsidies, many of the lower income and healthy, generally younger people may opt out¹⁾. The numbers get worse though.  In 2015, the second year of enrollment, the estimated number of Obamacare participates is about 11.4 million and, according to E. J. Dionne of the Washington Post, ²⁾ about 8 million lower income and younger people could opt out and be without health insurance.

 2) Most of those who drop health insurance are from the 34 non-participating states.  These are predominately Republican states.

3) With the younger, relatively healthy people not participating, the majority of the participants would be in poor health and require more medical treatment.  However, without insurance, hospital and doctor payments would drop and medical fees would have to increase in order to compensate.  An economic forecast by the RAND Corporation projects that medical fees would increase by 47%, while enrollment in individual health care insurance market would decline by 70%³⁾.  This too would occur predominately in Red states which did not develop exchanges.

4) People without insurance are reluctant to go to the doctor.  The result is many preventable diseases (e.g. asthma, heart problems, high blood pressure, diabetes, and cancer) will not be detected until late in the disease development when the prognosis is not good and the cost of treatment is higher.  Before Obamacare, the American Journal of Public Health reported that about 44,800 people were dying unnecessary each year due to lack of insurance ⁴⁾.  In addition, lack of pre-natal care results in higher infant mortality rates.  The National Vital Statistics Bureau reports that about 25,000 infant deaths result each year from inadequate prenatal care ⁵⁾.  And again, the increase in death and disease will predominately occur in Republican states.

5) The expanded Medicaid program that provides healthcare for those earning less than 138% of the Federal Poverty Level, (about $33,000 for a family of four in 2014) would continue for those 25 states that opted to participate in the program.  The other 25 states refused to participate in expanded Medicaid, even though the federal government will pay almost all of the costs.  The 25 states not participating in the expanded Medicaid is, you guessed it, mostly Republican states. 

So the end result of a Supreme Court decision to uphold King’s complaint is that part of the nation would be receiving huge Federal subsides for health insurance and the remaining states could receive near nothing.  Secretary Burwell told Congress that the administration knows of no legal action it could take to “undo the massive damage to our health care system that will be caused by an adverse decision.”⁶⁾

In closing this article, I quote Ted Cruz’s statement to the International Union of Firefighter on Tuesday March 10 in Dallas, Texas:

“Five years ago reasonable minds could have differed on whether this was a good idea, but today, seeing millions of American who’ve lost their jobs, who’ve been forced into part time work, who’ve lost their health care, who’ve lost their doctor — it is the essence of reasonableness, it is the essence of pragmatism to acknowledge this thing isn’t working. We need to repeal it and start over.”

I think it is the essence of reasonableness for the states to have joined Obamacare.  Thank goodness Cruz doesn’t work for NASA.

1) Fortune.com, “The Supreme Court’s decision on health care subsidies – what you need to know,” by Laura Lorenzetti, March 3, 2015.

2) The Week, “Obamacare’s looming legal showdown’, March 56, 2015

3) Fortune.com, “The Supreme Court’s decision on health care subsidies –

4) Wilper, Andrew P.; Woolhandler, Steffie; Lasser, Karen E.; McCormick, Danny; Bor, David H.; Himmelstein, David U. (December 2009). "Health insurance and mortality in US adults." American Journal of Public Health 99 (12): 2289–2295. DOI:10.2105/AJPH.2008.157685. PMC 2775760. PMID 19762659.

5) National Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 59, No. 6, June 29, 2011

6) www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2015/0304/supreme-court-could-obamacare-ruling-destroy-health-insurance-for-millions