Obamacare Meets CVS

[red states rule]

As all of Obamacare kicks in (notice it is happening AFTER the election) more and more people will feel its wrath.

Now attention is one the hundreds of thousands employees of CVS. I know it some of those employees and most of the media will blame CVS and NOT Obama but the fact is this is what Obamacare is really all about

Your own personal business is now society's business. I only hope that the employees of CVS who voted for Obama enjoy this and feel even more convinced they voted for the right guy in the election





One of the country's largest pharmacy chains is asking its workers to find out how fat they are and then disclose it to their insurance provider.


Not only is that company, CVS Caremark, telling workers who use its health insurance plan to have a doctor determine their height, weight, body fat, blood pressure and other health indicators. It is also asking workers to give permission to the insurer to turn over that information (http://bostonherald.com/business/healthcare/2013/03/cvs_presses_workers_for_medical_information) to a firm that provides benefits support to CVS, the Boston Herald reports.


Workers who don’t take part in the voluntary “wellness review,” paid for by CVS, will have to pay an annual $600 penalty.


Obamacare could make such practices more common. The health care reform law allows employers to levy a higher penalty (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/29/health-plans-obese-smokers-supreme-court_n_1636139.html) against workers who don’t participate in company wellness programs. In some cases, workers could also have to pay more if they don’t meet certain health targets like appropriate body mass index.


Michael DeAngelis, a CVS spokesman, wrote in an e-mail statement to The Huffington Post that, compliant with privacy laws, the company won’t have access to the health information. Instead, it will only be reviewed by the firm administering CVS’ benefits.


“Our benefits program is evolving to help our colleagues engage more actively to improve their health and manage health-associated costs,” DeAngelis wrote. “An initial step to accomplish this goal is a health screening and wellness review so that colleagues know their key health metrics in order to take action to improve their overall health, if necessary.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/20/cvs-workers-insurance_n_2915006.html

[logroller]

Health insurance companies would be prohibited from denying coverage because of a pre-existing condition, or from charging higher premiums because of current or past health problems, gender or occupation. The rules also would ensure access to catastrophic coverage plans for young adults and others who could not afford coverage otherwise.
The administration also proposed rules for expanding employment-based wellness programs to help control healthcare spending and to protect individuals from unfair underwriting practices that could otherwise reduce benefits based on their health status. Gary Cohen, an administration official helping to oversee implementation, said the wellness rules seek to protect consumers from practices that could be used to reduce benefits based on a participant’s health status. http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2012/11/21/271322.htm

oh geez rsr; complaining about a wellness plan, really? its designed to keep people well, needing less healthcare, and thus reducing the group premium or reduce heir future benefits. That's a bad thing?

[red states rule]

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2012/11/21/271322.htm

oh geez rsr; complaining about a wellness plan, really? its designed to keep people well, needing less healthcare, and thus reducing the group premium or reduce heir future benefits. That's a bad thing?

Yea I know LR liberals know what is best for everyone and they never miss a chance to prove it. So the only way to implement this is to FORCE the workers into doing what is best for them. After all it is what is best for the collective right?

Hey I love the fact taht so many idiots who voited for Obama are now having to comply or pay up. I wonder how those libs will react when they get that tax bill (or fee bill as some what to call it)

[logroller]

Yea I know LR liberals know what is best for everyone and they never miss a chance to prove it. So the only way to implement this is to FORCE the workers into doing what is best for them. After all it is what is best for the collective right?

Hey I love the fact taht so many idiots who voited for Obama are now having to comply or pay up. I wonder how those libs will react when they get that tax bill (or fee bill as some what to call it)
They can opt out. Cost em $600.
Simple question rsr. Do wellness programs reduce healthcare costs?

Look I've said all along that I don't think employers should have to provide insurance; in fact, I think they should be forbidden from compensating their employees with anything other than cash and cash equivalents. Then the individual will pick a healthcare plan that suits their needs; and if it gives a break to those who have wellness visits, great; if the individual thinks wellness checks are lame, ok too, but they'll pay more in premium....I'm guessing around $600.but hey, don't let reason and reality get in the way of your incessant complaining.

[taft2012]

oh geez rsr; complaining about a wellness plan, really? its designed to keep people well, needing less healthcare, and thus reducing the group premium or reduce heir future benefits. That's a bad thing? Exactly. And the same could be said about Bloomberg's soda ban. In fact, you just regurgitated Bloomberg's entire rationale here. Liberals always want to be judged on the goodness of their intentions, never on the results they generate. Which is another trait they share with the pothead conservatives, another piece of evidence they are indeed one and the same.

[KarlMarx]

They can opt out. Cost em $600.
Simple question rsr. Do wellness programs reduce healthcare costs?

Look I've said all along that I don't think employers should have to provide insurance; in fact, I think they should be forbidden from compensating their employees with anything other than cash and cash equivalents. Then the individual will pick a healthcare plan that suits their needs; and if it gives a break to those who have wellness visits, great; if the individual thinks wellness checks are lame, ok too, but they'll pay more in premium....I'm guessing around $600.but hey, don't let reason and reality get in the way of your incessant complaining.
Companies supplied health insurance benefits in order to compete in the job market.

The only thing that should be forbidden are political hacks like Obama, Pelosi, and Reid who try to recast the world into what they want and make the rest of us suffer as a result.

[CSM]

So has anyone even considered the secondary effects of this? It's all well and good that companies save costs by "taxing" those who do not meet their requirements for a healthy lifestyle but what happens when those employees are eventually terminated (and they will be) and no longer have a job and can't get one because this particular business nodel is now the norm? They go on unemployment and eventually welfare. What happens to the money each company receives in fees from those same employees? Does it go into the company's coffers? Does the money go to the government? Do potential employees eventually not even bother to look for a job because they know they will either be rejected as an applicant or have to lose a significant amount of money from their prospective paycheck? A compnany that wants to pay employees the least amount possible is going to abscond with some of their paycheck on top of that because their cholesterol level doesn't meet standard?

Yeah, it sounds like a great idea and very humanistic .... right up until it is implemented.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Exactly. And the same could be said about Bloomberg's soda ban. In fact, you just regurgitated Bloomberg's entire rationale here. Liberals always want to be judged on the goodness of their intentions, never on the results they generate. Which is another trait they share with the pothead conservatives, another piece of evidence they are indeed one and the same.

Bloomberg a douchebag , power hungry piece of liberal scum if ever there were one.
Another sorry bastard that richly needs justice delivered. And I mean ever so damn richly deserves it.
No wonder the sorry bastard has so many bodyguards.....--Tyr

[logroller]

Exactly. And the same could be said about Bloomberg's soda ban. In fact, you just regurgitated Bloomberg's entire rationale here. Liberals always want to be judged on the goodness of their intentions, never on the results they generate. Which is another trait they share with the pothead conservatives, another piece of evidence they are indeed one and the same.
right because a draconian ban on soda sizes is just like incentivizing health checks. Oh wait.. No its not, they're nothing alike. Can THC be absorbed by skin to skin to contact; cuz you're stoned!

Companies supplied health insurance benefits in order to compete in the job market.

I notice you used the pastense form of "supply", because yeah, in the 1940's there was a federal ban on wage increases and, to compete for job seekers, companies offered health insurance in lieu of money. Seeing as how we dont have a cap on monetary compensation, it serves only to inflate healthcare insurance premiums through subsidy. Else, why wouldn't cash compensation be more competitive? The answer is clear; its a tax loophole that encourages companies to screw the lower and middle classes. By whatever perverse logic it took to equate getting a job with getting health insurance we could debate; but I don't see how getting paid cash money and spending it on their own health coverage is somehow lesser a benefit than companies throwing a bone to the meager employee who, in all likelihood, needs a job irrespective of their health coverage.

[jimnyc]

I get all my meds from CVS. Fuckers better not increase any rates on me as a result of any of this. I get 2 prescriptions there as my co-pays are low. But a 3rd is an issue. WIth my co-pay, they want $35 and cash would be $120 something. I take that prescription to Costco, because to get it filled as cash there is $11 and change.

[Voted4Reagan]

They can opt out. Cost em $600.




Workers who don’t take part in the voluntary “wellness review,” paid for by CVS, will have to pay an annual $600 penalty.

After 5 years thats 3000 out of Pocket.. after 30yrs...$180000

They had to pass it before they knew what was in it!

[red states rule]

They can opt out. Cost em $600.
Simple question rsr. Do wellness programs reduce healthcare costs?

.

Yep, just comply; obey; do as your told; do not question the policies of the Messiah - and you will be fine. You will be taxed out the ass and pay dearly for your coverage = but it is for the common good. Anything government comes in contact with cost more and delivers less LR

[red states rule]

Well Dems are now thinking - WTF?
On March 20, the Washington Examiner’s Philip Klein reported that it seems Obamacare’s true costs are starting to sink in with its most ardent supporters: Democrats. Despite years of the liberal media reporting that this new trillion dollar health care entitlement will save money (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/05/obamacare-saved-consumers-1-5-billion-and-thats-bad-news-for-insurers/) over the next decade (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/04/23/1084763/-Obamacare-will-save-Medicare-200-billion-by-nbsp-2016), that outcome is, to be generous, highly dubious (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/03/22/obamacare_at_three_headed_toward_failure.html), especially with the possibility of eleven million new illegals being able to apply for health care benefits, the cost of health care will have to increase.
Klein wrote (http://washingtonexaminer.com/poll-even-democrats-skeptical-obamacare-will-improve-health-care-quality-reduce-costs/article/2524982):

Kaiser’s health tracking poll found that 37 percent of Democrats said “the cost of health care for the nation as a whole” would be better as a result of the law, just 39 percent said health care quality would be better and 27 percent said consumer protections for private insurance would be better. However, 53 percent of Democrats said the law would improve access to health care for the uninsured. <!-- End of IFRAME Tag -->
Don’t expect this to be all over the media, especially the New York Times, which has long downplayed the bill’s unpopularity.

For example, last June (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matt-vespa/2012/06/11/ny-times-cbs-bury-own-poll-obamacare-times-plays-declining-prestige-scot) before the ruling which upheld ObamaCare, the paper relegated dreadful poll numbers to paragraph 16 of Adam Liptak and Allison Kopicki’s columns last June. At the time, the bill’s approval rating was at 44%, and it looked as if the whole law would be tossed out. Prepared for that eventuality, the Times hyped public disapproval of life appointments to the Supreme Court, steeling themselves to make the unelected jurists the issue rather the unpopular health care law.
But while the media long to ignore the cold, hard truth about ObamaCare's unsustainable nature, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has grown skeptical, and the narrative that big government-run health care could be bad for America’s economic health is becoming more consolidated.
There are intermittent rays of hope in the liberal media when it comes to the truth about Obama. For example, liberal columnist and Morning Joe contributor Mike Barnicle pressed HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius Wednesday about the rising health care costs in California. Forbes reported back in January that ObamaCare guarantees higher premiums. The Hill reported last December that health care costs continue to increase at a rate faster than wages.
Less than 40 percent of Democrats believe that government-run health care will lead to “better quality” and “consumer protection.” This is happening even with the media largely falling down on the job when it comes to reporting on the disastrous side effects of the ill-considered ObamaCare health care overhaul.
Imagine what would happen if the media at-large actually took their job seriously? At least, the Hill reported (http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/285081-poll-finds-15-point-drop-in-dem-support-for-health-law)on the drop in Democratic support, and that should be commended.


Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/matt-vespa/2013/03/22/poll-shows-democrats-skeptical-obamacare-media-mostly-silent#ixzz2OMUYs93w

[Robert A Whit]

Another way companies are dealing with the ACA is to convert those working 40 hrs per week to 30 hrs per week thus avoiding the law.

Some companies with about 50 workers are changing things to stay under 50 workers also evading the law.

This law, according to my doctors, all of them is one hell of a clustermessup.

[red states rule]

Withni one week of Obama being re-elected:

Welch Allyn
Welch Allyn, a company that manufactures medical diagnostic equipment in central New York, announced in September that they would be laying off 275 employees (http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2012/09/welch_allyn_cutting_275_worldw.html), or roughly 10% of their workforce over the next three years. One of the major reasons discussed for the layoffs was a proactive response to the Medical Device Tax mandated by the new healthcare law.
Stryker
One of the biggest medical device manufacturers in the world, Stryker will close their facility in Orchard Park, New York (http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=42.7619444444,-78.7413888889&spn=0.1,0.1&q=42.7619444444,-78.7413888889 (Orchard%20Park%20%28town%29%2C%20New%20York)&t=h), eliminating 96 jobs (http://lightfromtheright.com/tag/jobs/) in December. Worse, they plan on countering the medical device tax in Obamacare by slashing 5% of their global workforce (http://www.mmm-online.com/stryker-layoffs-blamed-on-obamacare-tax/article/247605/) – an estimated 1,170 positions.
Boston Scientific (http://www.bostonscientific.com/)
In October of 2009, Boston Scientific CEO Ray Elliott, warned that (http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/10/20/bostonscientific-reform-idUSN2042679320091020) proposed taxes (http://lightfromtheright.com/tag/taxes/) in the health care (http://lightfromtheright.com/tag/health-care/) reform bill could “lead to significant job losses” for his company. Nearly two years later, Elliott announced that the company would be cutting (http://nation.foxnews.com/obamacare/2011/07/29/obamacare-fallout-boston-scientific-firing-1400-workers-hiring-1000-china) anywhere between 1,200 and 1,400 jobs, while simultaneously shifting investments and workers overseas – to China.
There are others as well that FreedomWorks didn’t mention. The list is only going to grow over time. This is one of those ”unintended consequences” that come from passing a bill first and then reading what’s in it afterwards.
Here are some others that FreedomWorks did mention:

A short list (http://www.vcstar.com/news/2012/oct/27/shirley-medical-device-tax-will-impact-jobs-and/) of other companies facing future layoffs at the hands of Obamacare:


Smith & Nephew – 770 layoffs
Abbott Labs (http://www.abbott.com/) – 700 layoffs
Covidien – 595 layoffs
Kinetic Concepts (http://www.kci-medical.com/) – 427 layoffs
St. Jude Medical (http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=9b4efad421c8b103b2c94b796db973b0&loc=http%3A%2F%2Flightfromtheright.com%2F2012%2F11 %2F13%2Fobamacare-layoffs-mounting%2F&subId=6bca589c2c0c021407cfe95c92635ca2&v=1&libid=1363984890383&out=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sjm.com%2F&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26r ct%3Dj%26q%3Dlayoffs%2520mount%2520over%2520obamac are%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D1%26ved%3D0CDkQFjAA%26ur l%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Flightfromtheright.com%252F2 012%252F11%252F13%252Fobamacare-layoffs-mounting%252F%26ei%3D4cFMUY7ZNba04APli4HgCg%26usg% 3DAFQjCNHr7ge55jA9FJlLFpvIoDg9bKGNsw%26bvm%3Dbv.44 158598%2Cd.dmg&title=Obamacare%20Layoffs%20Mounting%20%7C%20Light %20from%20the%20Right&txt=St.%20Jude%20Medical&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_13640390642352) – 300 layoffs
Hill Rom (http://www.hill-rom.com/) – 200 layoffs http://lightfromtheright.com/2012/11/13/obamacare-layoffs-mounting/

[logroller]

Workers who don’t take part in the voluntary “wellness review,” paid for by CVS, will have to pay an annual $600 penalty.

After 5 years thats 3000 out of Pocket.. after 30yrs...$180000

They had to pass it before they knew what was in it!
or get wellness care, be healthier, feel better, pay no additional penalty, and and not have to pay for your coworkers that think health care is just for sick people.


Yep, just comply; obey; do as your told; do not question the policies of the Messiah - and you will be fine. You will be taxed out the ass and pay dearly for your coverage = but it is for the common good. Anything government comes in contact with cost more and delivers less LR
obey or don't; just don't stick me with your bill.
Unless you think that wellness care has no benefit to health, nor reduce long term medical expenditures, then your position is one of making others pay for your choices.
Why should I have to pay more in premiums for my coworkers lack of proper medical care, like wellness?

[red states rule]

or get wellness care, be healthier, feel better, pay no additional penalty, and and not have to pay for your coworkers that think health care is just for sick people.


obey or don't; just don't stick me with your bill.
Unless you think that wellness care has no benefit to health, nor reduce long term medical expenditures, then your position is one of making others pay for your choices.
Why should I have to pay more in premiums for my coworkers lack of proper medical care, like wellness?

Then let them decide to do the wellness thing. Why the hell do you f'in libs always have to FORCE people to do what you THINK is best for us. You are like Mayor Bloomturd and wanting to ban Big Gulps. Why cant you libs mind your damn business and stop picking my pocket. Funny how you do now want get stuck with a bill yet you are glad to sick me the bill for your liberal programs that are bankrupting the nation

[Voted4Reagan]

Then let them decide to do the wellness thing. Why the hell do you f'in libs always have to FORCE people to do what you THINK is best for us. You are like Mayor Bloomturd and wanting to ban Big Gulps. Why cant you libs mind your damn business and stop picking my pocket. Funny how you do now want get stuck with a bill yet you are glad to sick me the bill for your liberal programs that are bankrupting the nation


Be cause Liberals are NOT PRO CHOICE.... They Dictate and expect everyone to follow like sheep..

[red states rule]

Be cause Liberals are NOT PRO CHOICE.... They Dictate and expect everyone to follow like sheep..

http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/1/7/3/7/3/2/9/liberals-86288934633.jpeg

[Missileman]

Why should I have to pay more in premiums for my coworkers lack of proper medical care, like wellness?

Because somewhere along the line, the beaurocrats have taken what should be a personal responsibility and dumped onto the public at large. They've set up a system where insurance companies can't dump those who take no personal responsibilty, which might allow them to not jack up your rates. Wait and see what happens to your rates when most everyone stops paying premiums and waits to buy insurance after they need it. It is going to get even worse, but you're buying in, remember?

[aboutime]

Be cause Liberals are NOT PRO CHOICE.... They Dictate and expect everyone to follow like sheep..


V4R. Wonder if anyone who represents Obama, and Obamacare can explain to me...a 65 year old, retired, veteran WHY. Next year, according to Obamacare. I and my wife..both retired, Must pay for Contraceptive devices, and meds for anyone?
And that is only THE FIRST of many questions we would like to get answered.

[fj1200]

Then let them decide to do the wellness thing. ... have to FORCE people...

Where is the FORCE? FWIW they are given the option to decide.


Because somewhere along the line, the beaurocrats have taken what should be a personal responsibility and dumped onto the public at large. They've set up a system where insurance companies can't dump those who take no personal responsibilty, which might allow them to not jack up your rates. Wait and see what happens to your rates when most everyone stops paying premiums and waits to buy insurance after they need it. It is going to get even worse, but you're buying in, remember?

I agree with that of course but I think what we have here is government attempting to fix previous government attempts by having to enable penalties against behavior someone feels is contrary to public policy.

/governmentgobbledygook

[fj1200]

V4R. Wonder if anyone who represents Obama, and Obamacare can explain to me...a 65 year old, retired, veteran WHY. Next year, according to Obamacare. I and my wife..both retired, Must pay for Contraceptive devices, and meds for anyone?
And that is only THE FIRST of many questions we would like to get answered.

For the same reason that every worker is paying for the healthcare of a non-worker.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/1/7/3/7/3/2/9/liberals-86288934633.jpeg

I'd settle for the worthless bastages just hating each other as much as they hate us...-Tyr

[logroller]

Then let them decide to do the wellness thing. Why the hell do you f'in libs always have to FORCE people to do what you THINK is best for us. You are like Mayor Bloomturd and wanting to ban Big Gulps. Why cant you libs mind your damn business and stop picking my pocket. Funny how you do now want get stuck with a bill yet you are glad to sick me the bill for your liberal programs that are bankrupting the nation
Regular check ups and wellness programs have been proven to reduce healthcare costs. Im not forcing you to do anything; its your choice to take care of yourself or not. Im just not going to be solely burdened with footing the bill for your poor decisions. You can't pay $600, do the program. You want to live your life on your own terms, go ahead; but if your doing it on the same policy as me and not taking care of yourself, getting sick, and making claims that cause my premium costs to go up for no other reason than your dumb ass won't take precautions, then pay upfront annually the $600 or find another policy. Maybe you'll be happier paying for an individual plan then, and not a group policy. Im sure $600 is far less than what your employer pays, but hey, its different when its your employer paying the bill, right? Stick you with the bill and ZOIKS, Oblababacare is sticking me with the costs. Funny you've no issue with your employer getting stuck paying part of your premium for eons; but PPACA comes in and all of a sudden, the years and years of employer subsidization of private insurance, market manipulation of prices and subsequent inflation is just seen as no problem. Like I said, go buy an individual policy if it bothers that much. Let me know if that's cheaper for ya.

[logroller]

Because somewhere along the line, the beaurocrats have taken what should be a personal responsibility and dumped onto the public at large. They've set up a system where insurance companies can't dump those who take no personal responsibilty, which might allow them to not jack up your rates. Wait and see what happens to your rates when most everyone stops paying premiums and waits to buy insurance after they need it. It is going to get even worse, but you're buying in, remember?

What if I do take care of myself, and just get sick? Its hardly uncommon for someone to get sick, lose their job, thus lose their insurance and not be able to get insurance due to a preexisting condition. That makes perfect economic sense. sooner or later though, we slip down the slope of rationale that must accept uncompensated healthcare services (from charity or government) or people dying in the streets.

As for buying in, I follow the development of my home-state's insurance exchange closely. My employer will only pay me 50% of the premium though; so I'd have to cough up an additional $5000 just for not letting my employer pay for my premium. I assume there's tax breaks or something. My wife's policy is solid though, so I don't need full coverage, just supplemental.

[red states rule]

Regular check ups and wellness programs have been proven to reduce healthcare costs. Im not forcing you to do anything; its your choice to take care of yourself or not. Im just not going to be solely burdened with footing the bill for your poor decisions. You can't pay $600, do the program. You want to live your life on your own terms, go ahead; but if your doing it on the same policy as me and not taking care of yourself, getting sick, and making claims that cause my premium costs to go up for no other reason than your dumb ass won't take precautions, then pay upfront annually the $600 or find another policy. Maybe you'll be happier paying for an individual plan then, and not a group policy. Im sure $600 is far less than what your employer pays, but hey, its different when its your employer paying the bill, right? Stick you with the bill and ZOIKS, Oblababacare is sticking me with the costs. Funny you've no issue with your employer getting stuck paying part of your premium for eons; but PPACA comes in and all of a sudden, the years and years of employer subsidization of private insurance, market manipulation of prices and subsequent inflation is just seen as no problem. Like I said, go buy an individual policy if it bothers that much. Let me know if that's cheaper for ya.

Spoken like a true supporter of the Nanny State LR. It is sad to see anyone talk about "saving money" using a program that will bust the Federal budget even more.

[red states rule]

What if I do take care of myself, and just get sick? Its hardly uncommon for someone to get sick, lose their job, thus lose their insurance and not be able to get insurance due to a preexisting condition. That makes perfect economic sense. sooner or later though, we slip down the slope of rationale that must accept uncompensated healthcare services (from charity or government) or people dying in the streets.

As for buying in, I follow the development of my home-state's insurance exchange closely. My employer will only pay me 50% of the premium though; so I'd have to cough up an additional $5000 just for not letting my employer pay for my premium. I assume there's tax breaks or something. My wife's policy is solid though, so I don't need full coverage, just supplemental.

And funny you mention those "exchanges" LR. Once again we see the efficiency of Obamacare and government and what the future holds for all of us thanks to the folls who bought in to the fantasy of Obamacare
quick reminder about what I’ve been saying about the challenges of Obamacare exchange implementation, here (http://hotair.com/archives/2012/11/21/just-32-months-later-obama-administration-tells-us-what-obamacare-plans-must-have-in-them/) and here (http://hotair.com/archives/2012/11/28/wsj-yep-the-feds-are-totally-unprepared-to-launch-obamacare-exchanges/).Now, Obamacare feds are conceding the same. Gary Cohen, head of the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight, is the one charged with getting this bird off the ground, and has faced grilling from even Democratic lawmakers (http://hotair.com/archives/2013/02/20/dem-senators-look-for-someone-to-blame-for-obamacare/) worried it will crash on take-off.
It seems now, there’s “some possibility” that exchanges might not be functional in October of this year. Expect a lot more backtracking before fall: (http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Newsletters/Washington-Health-Policy-in-Review/2013/Mar/March-18-2013/HHS-Working-on-Contingency-Plans.aspx)
Federal officials are developing contingency plans in case the health insurance exchanges are not fully ready to begin enrolling people on Oct. 1, the head of the agency that’s building the massive 50-state marketplace structure said last week.
Gary Cohen, director of the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight, also said there is “some possibility” that some states now conditionally approved to run their own marketplaces might not be able to launch them on Oct. 1. But he vowed that every state will have an exchange, which could mean the federal government might have to have more of a role than anticipated in states that can’t get to the finish line in time.
His remarks at a national policy meeting of America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) marked the first time that Health and Human Services (HHS) leaders have veered even slightly from their insistence that exchanges will be totally functional by Oct. 1.

Now, here’s the guy in charge of developing the exchange technology, which as I’ve noted, is meant to marry seamlessly with archaic government systems in every state, innumerable private insurance systems, and a federal data hub that doesn’t yet exist by October:
Cohen appeared on an AHIP panel with Henry Chao, a CMS official who’s overseeing the technology for the exchange launch.
Chao was frank about the stress and tension of the compressed time frame involved in setting up the exchanges. “We are under 200 days from open enrollment, and I’m pretty nervous,’’ he said. “I don’t know about you,” he added, to murmurs from the insurance industry audience. Members peppered Chao and Cohen with many questions about the format for the health care policies they will submit to HHS for approval so the plans can be marketed in the exchanges.
Chao said the main objective is to get the exchanges up and running and signing up the uninsured. “The time for debating about the size of text on the screen or the color or is it a world-class user experience, that’s what we used to talk about two years ago,” he said. “Let’s just make sure it’s not a third-world experience.”
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/03/22/obamacare-official-on-exchanges-lets-just-make-sure-its-not-a-third-world-experience/

[Missileman]

What if I do take care of myself, and just get sick? Its hardly uncommon for someone to get sick, lose their job, thus lose their insurance and not be able to get insurance due to a preexisting condition. That makes perfect economic sense. sooner or later though, we slip down the slope of rationale that must accept uncompensated healthcare services (from charity or government) or people dying in the streets.

As for buying in, I follow the development of my home-state's insurance exchange closely. My employer will only pay me 50% of the premium though; so I'd have to cough up an additional $5000 just for not letting my employer pay for my premium. I assume there's tax breaks or something. My wife's policy is solid though, so I don't need full coverage, just supplemental.

Your wife's policy is solid until they close their doors...it's coming, and sooner than you think. You too will soon enjoy the benefits of uncompensated healthcare services. We are all going to. The problem is there's a huge difference between what the term means in your post and mine.

The same government that pisses through 3 or 4 trillion a year, wipes it's mouth on the back of its sleeve and says "more please!" is going to eventually wind up with all of the money you used to use to arrange your healthcare. Masterful financial stewards that they are, I've no doubt every penny will be available and ready should you need it. :rolleyes:

[taft2012]

Considering that CVS sells highly sought-after street opioids like Oxycontin, it would make perfect sense for them to apply drug screening procedures to their employees. But that would have the pothead conservatives howling to the Moon about intrusiveness, freedom, privacy, etc.

But since the pothead conservatives are really liberals at heart, they don't mind big brother stepping in and intruding if someone may be 20 or 30 pounds overweight.

Push the pothead conservatives a wee bit, and the liberal comes raging out in all of its inconsistent and incomprehensible glory.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Your wife's policy is solid until they close their doors...it's coming, and sooner than you think. You too will soon enjoy the benefits of uncompensated healthcare services. We are all going to. The problem is there's a huge difference between what the term means in your post and mine.

The same government that pisses through 3 or 4 trillion a year, wipes it's mouth on the back of its sleeve and says "more please!" is going to eventually wind up with all of the money you used to use to arrange your healthcare. Masterful financial stewards that they are, I've no doubt every penny will be available and ready should you need it. :rolleyes:

We all will feel the shaft soon enough. The government has an agenda that's not on the radar except for a few top dogs to know(you can bet the top dems are privy to it). They have to crash USA for there ever to be a one world government.

Crash process is currently in high gear...-Tyr

[red states rule]

And funny you mention those "exchanges" LR. Once again we see the efficiency of Obamacare and government and what the future holds for all of us thanks to the folls who bought in to the fantasy of Obamacare

NO comment about the Obama Exchanges LR? I thought a loyal Obama supporter like you would enjoy people flocking to the Obamacare version of the DMV :laugh2:

[logroller]

Spoken like a true supporter of the Nanny State LR. It is sad to see anyone talk about "saving money" using a program that will bust the Federal budget even more.
Is CVS using a state funded and administered healthcare program? No! You've built yourself a strawman. Every insurance program I've ever participated in had a wellness program that had various financial benefits to participation. That one would flip it to say participate or you pay more seems all the more effective at reducing healthcare costs. All the health plans I've participated in were privately funded and administered too; can you say the same?

[logroller]

Your wife's policy is solid until they close their doors...it's coming, and sooner than you think. You too will soon enjoy the benefits of uncompensated healthcare services. We are all going to. The problem is there's a huge difference between what the term means in your post and mine.

The same government that pisses through 3 or 4 trillion a year, wipes it's mouth on the back of its sleeve and says "more please!" is going to eventually wind up with all of the money you used to use to arrange your healthcare. Masterful financial stewards that they are, I've no doubt every penny will be available and ready should you need it. :rolleyes:
No offense man, but you don't where she works or what sort of stability her job affords. Her job sucks, and its getting suckier, but she'll be driven to insanity before the doors close. I've been uninsured before, and the premiums were outta sight then too without ACA. For five years I paid cash for care, and if that time comes again, ill pay the fine and go about my merry way. I don't like that where I am employed is in any way connected with what kind of insurance I can afford. I think its crap; as much of a crap deal as expecting government to give it to me. What I expect from employment: cash $ for work; what I expect from government:protection of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Can't very well see how my employer is responsible for healthcare, when healthcare seemingly is under the guise of that which I expect government to protect.

[red states rule]

Is CVS using a state funded and administered healthcare program? No! You've built yourself a strawman. Every insurance program I've ever participated in had a wellness program that had various financial benefits to participation. That one would flip it to say participate or you pay more seems all the more effective at reducing healthcare costs. All the health plans I've participated in were privately funded and administered too; can you say the same?

Up until now, every is program I have been in did not FORCE people to do take part in "wellness" programs and FORCE them to share their personal info with a 3rd party. Of course now with Obamacare, the entire bill is designed to FORCE people to comply. From what I have seen libs do seem to think only they know what is best since most libs consider the rest of us to stupid to make those choices on our own

[Missileman]

No offense man, but you don't where she works or what sort of stability her job affords. Her job sucks, and its getting suckier, but she'll be driven to insanity before the doors close. I've been uninsured before, and the premiums were outta sight then too without ACA. For five years I paid cash for care, and if that time comes again, ill pay the fine and go about my merry way. I don't like that where I am employed is in any way connected with what kind of insurance I can afford. I think its crap; as much of a crap deal as expecting government to give it to me. What I expect from employment: cash $ for work; what I expect from government:protection of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Can't very well see how my employer is responsible for healthcare, when healthcare seemingly is under the guise of that which I expect government to protect.

I wasn't talking about the business closing its doors, I was referring to the insurance company. No offense taken.

[red states rule]

http://cdn.motinetwork.net/demotivationalposters.net/image/demotivational-poster/0909/obamacare-funny-humor-obama-healthcare-demotivational-poster-1253502888.jpg