CVS announced this week that as part of accepting healthcare that they will offer, employees must provide and disclose personal health information. Among these items, it was found out that a third party administrator for the company will be requesting that individuals provide them with a detailed medical history and also their weight. If this information is not disclosed, there will be an annual fee of six-hundred dollars assessed to each employee accepting healthcare. As a woman who has learned to keep her weight more secretive than what really happened in Benghazi, the fine seems more appealing than disclosing the information I have learned to keep secret since the moment of conception (insert outrage of feminists everywhere for my honesty…). The reason the company gave for asking this information? Obamacare. But, is this intrusive questioning correct?
Yes… Okay lift your jaws off the floor ladies and hear me out. A company like CVS is going to have to offer healthcare to all of its employees who meet the requirements of the law. The result is growing pool of healthcare costs and premiums, and of course the care that they will need if something were to happen. This is a private company that, from my research, has not received a bailout and is not relying on my money to function… well, my voluntary money maybe because they really do have some great deals, but I digress. Obamacare is going to cost companies thousands of millions of dollars and they, as profit making enterprises, deserve to know or have an estimate of what these costs will be. They have the right to ask the questions that impact their bottom line.
No one at CVS or who is employed there is required to take their help with healthcare. They can choose to find their own (insert much needed healthcare reform debate here). CVS, though, is being forced to offer healthcare to their employees or face exorbitant penalties, and they need to understand the cost that they will be looking at. They are a private company, doing their best to compete, and this information may help them. So while I am not a fan of disclosing such personal information (and surely not the actual number behind my waist line), I do believe CVS has the right to find out what they are dealing with. My prediction: this is just another in the long line of unexpected consequences of our Campaigner-in-Chief’s brilliant policies like Obamacare… oh and by brilliant I mean horrible.
Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan has faded from his once fame of being a Vice-Presidential nominee, but he continues to make his presence known on Capitol Hill. The young GOP superstar has proposed a budget this week that makes plans for fiscal restraint and promises of a debt free future for the United States. A longshot, the bill also contains the request for a repeal of Obamacare and changes to the structure of healthcare in the United States. Though a longshot, that the perpetual campaigner-in-chief will be sure to balk at, the Ryan Budget leads to a greater discussion of what the limitations are when it comes to discussing entitlements.
A tax by any other name would still be an entitlement, and that is exactly what Obamacare is. It is another set of regulatory restrictions meant to hold the American Public attached to a need for another program. Sure, employers are the ones that will be required to provide the healthcare offerings and they will be the ones to suffer directly through the penalties, but the essence is the same: hook people onto having someone else pay for a product that they themselves should be responsible to pay.
Will cuts in entitlement programs, or programs with the same goal, ever be a true and legitimate topic of conversation in today’s world? Will the American public be willing to talk about the entitlement programs that they have grown to love and need as a potential source of cuts, as they are part of the problem we are broke? In my opinion, for what it is worth, it is doubtful that this discussion will ever be had without concern and all out tantrum throwing. The government has successfully hooked people onto the belief that they need the government’s programs rather than empower them to make their own choices. The Obamacare legislation is sure to continue to this trend and the Ryan Budget may lose credibility out of the gate because it has made an attempt at restructuring. It may have been a bridge too far but at least one GOPer has the guts to bring it up and not back down.
Filed Under Healthcare on Jul 9
A ruling on Obama could come as early as today. What’s your prediction? Will it all go down? Split decision? Will the mandate survive? Don’t come back in a few days and tell everyone how right you were at the water cooler debate, get on record now.
A Supreme Court justice should present an image of intelligence, competence, and wisdom. Such qualities identify sound judgment and inspire public trust. But two of SCOTUS’s “progressive” purists have sullied that image. In fact, we might wonder if a grasp on reality remains requisite for a seat on the high bench.
During ObamaCare arguments Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked, “What’s wrong with leaving this in the hands of those who should be fixing it?” Read more
For someone who claims to be a constitutional legal scholar, The One seems to have slept through – or most likely ignored all together – the class on the concept of co-equal branches of government. It’s also nebulous as to whether or not he was in class the day separation of powers was taught as well.
Today The One took to the rose garden podium and boldly declared that the Supreme Court should avoid the appearance of judicial activism and vote to uphold the government takeover of all things health related. Declared The One:
We are confident that this will be upheld because it should be upheld. The reason is because in accordance with precedent out there, it’s constitutional.
To quote the old country song, “wishin’ don’t make it so.” Perhaps The One was too busy hobnobbing with the Russians whilst the Supremes were debating whether or not there was constitutional precedence to uphold the 2,700+ page monstrosity. Never mind the fact at least one Supreme declared that being forced to read such a bill would violate the Eighth Amendment. The best anyone could do trying to find precedent for forcing a citizen to buy a product or service was a Revolutionary War statute requiring conscripts to show up with a musket and ammunition.
Obamacare must be repealed. Here is a glance at one of the many joys brought by a government-run healthcare system from the UK’s Telegraph.
At least 10 primary care trusts (PCTs) have told hospitals to increase the length of time before they see patients in order to save money, an investigation by The Daily Telegraph has found.
In some areas, patients endured delays of 12 or 15 weeks after GPs decided they needed surgery, even though hospitals could have seen them sooner.
The maximum permitted time between referral and treatment is 18 weeks. In one case a manager said the policy keeps patients in line as “short waiting times also create more demand for treatment due to the expectations this raises”.
It comes after an NHS watchdog suggested that if patients are forced to wait a long time, they will remove themselves from lists “either by dying or by paying for their own treatment”.
This nation has become great because it was a nation founded on laws, not on men, a nation where all were considered equal. However, in today’s society we seem to think “all [people] are equal, but some [people] are more equal than others“.
Today in our country only 53% percent of all workers pay 100% of the federal income tax bill. Therefore 47% of workers pay no taxes. Additionally 40% of workers actually receive additional funds when filing their taxes redistributed from the group that pays all the taxes. I’ll even point you to that evil conservative news source NPR for this data (though it is widely available).
Further, in research released yesterday, “government social benefits . . . were equal to 35% of all private and public wages and salaries in the 12 months ended January, up from 10% in 1960 and 21% in 2000.”
The fight is long from over, and it is only speculation as to whether this is the first victory against Obamacare or only a temporary advancement, but the insurance mandate in President Obama’s healtcare law today stands as unconstitutional. So says U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson in Richmond, Virginia when he states that the individual mandate of the act:
exceeds the constitutional boundaries of congressional power.”
I confess: I am a political junkie. I got my first taste in 1980 when Ronald Reagan won the White House. I was too young to know what he believed, but that didn’t stop me from staying up late to watch the results. I was probably the only third grader the next morning talking about exit polls at the cafeteria lunch table.
I suspect many of my friends did not vote for President Obama in 2008 and would not have voted for Nancy Pelosi if they lived in her district. Frankly, most of them are more likely to vote for Katy Perry in 2012 than to give the president a second term.
But my defense of the nation’s most powerful democrats isn’t about policy or ideology; it’s about passion and principles.
If you didn’t know, yesterday (Tuesday, August 3) there was an election in Missouri. Prop C was one of the major ballot issues and would opt people out of Obamacare. It passed overwhelmingly — by a 3 to 1 margin.
So, is this a sign of things to come? (States saying no thanks — see also Virginia’s law suit). Or more proof that people didn’t want Obamacare to begin with or something else? We also must ask if Atty Gen Eric Holder and his Department of Justice will sue Missiouri?
Let the crazy times roll…
I suppose passage of the health care
infringement reform gives the US govt license to regulate the American diet. ObamaCare is just a means to an end. As if incurring a fine for noncompliance or picking up the tab for everyone else weren’t bad enough; Big Brother needs to further dabble with menu items and eating habits. I guess they think we’re too stupid to do it ourselves.
Take for instance the salt issue. Earlier this week the FDA announced its plans to regulate the amount of salt in processed foods (a.k.a. a lot of the stuff you buy at the local grocery store). The government interfering in our lives again? I know. Hard to believe.
The University of Virginia’s political prognosticator Larry Sabato is out with an interesting nugget this morning: State Attorney General positions are the grooming grounds for governorships. He writes, “There’s an old joke about the National Association of Attorneys General—their registered name is supposedly the National Association of Aspiring Governors.”
In Virginia three of the last seven governors have been AGs. In part, this is because Virginia has a very short ballot, electing only the lieutenant governor and attorney general in addition to governor, and the governor is limited to one consecutive four-year term. (Virginia is the only state remaining with such a prohibition.) The other statewide elected officials are naturally considered in line for the statehouse, and they often run flat out for four years to get the promotion.
Note from David: Please welcome our latest inmate to the asylum, Christopher Nutter.
After conducting a poll amongst their supporters, the Democratic National Committee has decided to use Vice President Biden’s well-publicized gaffe to replenish their coffers. For just $25, you can buy your very own “Health Reform is a BFD” T-shirt!
It’s the perfect thing to wear when your Dick Cheney and Spiro Agnew shirts are in the wash. You can also use it as an improvised bandage, should the feverish predictions of Obama’s health care opponents come true.
Someday I want to have a very detailed conversation with my pancreas. Specifically, I’d like to ask this organ exactly why it decided to stop working in 1996. I’m sure it had a very good reason. Perhaps it felt its contract had run its course and it was going to take an early retirement. Whatever the reason, I get to spend the rest of my life getting my insulin from little glass bottles.
No intro needed. Enjoy.
Matt Drudge and the Republican delusion
By Brent Budowsky – 03/26/10 11:54 AM ET
In my opinion Matt Drudge is the most important and influential single figure in American media. In terms of daily and ongoing influence he is more influential than The New York Times, the television networks, cable news or anyone else.
So, this “historic” healthcare reform is now law.
We all know, we’re bummed, we’re mad, etc, etc, etc. In fact, I had my own verbal in person and online temper-tantrum yesterday. Believe me it was good, but in no way pretty! My very calm and mild-mannered husband even let a few choice words slip too. On facebook all sorts of new groups sprung up:
1 Million against Obamacare!
10 Million against Obamacare!!
I Hate Obamacare!!!
And my personal favorite:
345,267,196 Against Obamacare!!!!, my brother joined that one for the snark factor I’m sure.
Ok, let’s just agree on a few things; there are a lot of us out there that don’t like Obama and his healthcare. We can agree we think he hangs out with skeevy people, and that he’s hung the ‘KICK ME’ sign out on the front door of the USA.
So what? Read more