HEADLINE: Amendment One Passes; A Majority of Tennessee Voters Found to be Illiterate

Nothing in this Constitution secures or protects a right to abortion or requires the funding of an abortion. The people retain the right through their elected state representatives and state senators to enact, amend, or repeal statutes regarding abortion, including, but not limited to, circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest or when necessary to save the life of the mother. – Amendment One, Article I, Tennessee Constitution

Rant Begin.

If the headline didn’t catch your attention, then I am unsure as to why you are even reading this article. If you voted “yes” on Amendment One, then I am unsure as to if you can even read. If that doesn’t already piss you off, keep attempting to navigate this narrative. I’m sure it will just be the beginning.

I am Republican. There… I said it. Happy now? However, I am not a Republican in the sense that I believe abortion is wrong and gay rights should be shunned. That’s just ignorant. We live in the 21st century people – get over yourself. However, my issue with Amendment One has nothing to do with abortion rights. In fact, if you read the amendment then you would find that the amendment had nothing to do with abortion rights at all. “What? What do you mean, Nikki? It has everything to do with abortion – it says so directly in the body of the amendment.” I’m telling you – Nothing. To. Do. With. Abortion. Everything. To. Do. With. Government. Control. So, congrats if you find yourself a Republican (or Democrat) voting for this because you believed abortion was the main concern and that abortion is wrong in all circumstances. In the words of the Arrow – “You have failed this city (err… state).” Let’s get to the bottom of what 53% of you voted to be an Amendment to our Tennessee Constitution.

Well, That Was Awkward…

First and foremost, I am not here to give you a background on Amendment One. You should have already read (or attempted to read) the amendment and codified the amendment’s meaning. I’m here to tell you why 53% of voters were wrong. Now, just because I don’t agree with you doesn’t mean that I do not still like you. It just means you might piss me off in a conversation if you ever bring up the fact that you voted “yes” on this amendment. Here we go.

Help! I Can’t Get The Government Out of My Vagina!

Read my heading again – and say thanks to my mother (who is also a Republican) for helping me with it. Now, let’s move forward with the medical changes that will occur with Amendment One’s passing. A scenario might make this narrative a little more intimate.

You are pregnant. You go to your trusted doctor for a check-up, and your doctor tells you that if you continue your pregnancy there is a 100% chance that you or your child will die during childbirth. Without Amendment One, you, your family and your doctor would have complete control over what happens from here on out – whether that be a termination of the pregnancy or not. With Amendment One, however, these personal, private medical decisions are now subject to government control. You have no say as to what occurs. If the government passes a law that is contrary to the health or life of the woman then so be it.

That scenario doesn’t bother you? How about this one:

You pull into your apartment complex after working the late shift at a grocery store. You have to park a few buildings down, as there is not enough parking near your building. As you begin walking toward your building, and unbeknownst to you, a man approaches you from behind.  That person grabs your arm, throws you to the ground, and covers your mouth to avoid screaming. In the process of this violent attack, you are raped. You are scared and do not inform anyone of the rape (note: if anyone comments with “Well, she could have told someone” you are extremely ignorant). You become pregnant and go to your local physician. After informing your physician that you wish to terminate the pregnancy, you and your physician discuss termination procedures. With Amendment One, however, these personal, private medical decisions are now subject to government control. You have no say as to what occurs. If the government passes a law prohibiting a woman who has been raped from terminating a pregnancy then you must carry that pregnancy to term.

After re-reading the above section, I am crying. Reread the language of Amendment One. You (if you are apart of the 53%) just handed over ALL control to the government. Exceptions for health and welfare of the woman, incest, and rape are not covered in this amendment – they are fair game for the legislators to twist and turn. I do not see how the voters in Tennessee could allow this Amendment to pass where a woman’s rights are so freely handed over to the government for control. If you voted “yes” then you believe there should be no exceptions for abortion whatsoever – and for that I am appalled at your judgment. Medical concerns, however, are not the only issue with Amendment One. Let’s move on.

Oh, You Thought You Deserved Privacy? That Doesn’t Exist Anymore.

Notwithstanding medical records, privacy is at issue with Amendment One. The Tennessee Supreme Court previously ruled that certain abortion restrictions violated privacy rights under the Tennessee Constitution. These restrictions hindered the ability of a woman to have a safe and legal abortion. Most Amendment One supporters pushed the notion that Tennessee law does not regulate abortion procedures due to the Tennessee Supreme Court’s above ruling. However, that is not the case. Under Tennessee law, abortions are already highly regulated where it counts. Examples of such regulations include the following: (1) Mandatory reporting guidelines to the Tennessee Dept. of Health; (2) Parental consent for minors; (3) Requirements for physicians performing abortions to obtain admitting privileges at local hospitals; (4) Patients have to sign a consent form prior to the procedure; (5) Abortion clinics must post conspicuous signs with specific language stating it is against the law to coerce someone into having an abortion; (6) No physician or hospital has to perform an abortion; (7) Medicare will not pay for abortions, and the state will not fund them (unless the pregnancy resulted from rape, incest, or the health and welfare of the mother is at stake).

Amendment One allows regulation of the following areas: (1) Mandatory waiting period to give the woman “time to think” about the procedure; (2) Requirement that doctors give women specifically worded information about abortions and fetal development – not crafted by the doctors themselves, but crafted by lawmakers; (3) A ban on abortions past a certain fetal stage of development; (4) Stricter standards of ambulatory surgical centers; (5) End to exceptions as mentioned previously. A few of these changes give me cause for concern – especially number 2. Allowing the legislators to craft their own legalese for use in medical facilities that is not recommended by doctors or medical staff seems to be a bit of an overreach.  Have you read Obamacare? Probably not. Well, go read that (and the proposed regulations), and then let me know if you want legislators to craft legislation without medical review.

In short, Amendment One strips the private, personal medical discussions you have between you and your doctor. It also allows the government (not your doctor) to control your decisions regarding those medical decisions. Say goodbye to physician-patient privilege and hello to the physician-patient-government triangle of despair.

Why You Should Have Voted “No” On Amendment One..Even If You Are Pro-Life

Amendment One hands our private decisions to lawmakers and allows these lawmakers to interpret and define laws on our behalf. This law does not have to stop at abortions – you can apply it to anything considered “private.” I’m not sure that passing laws such as the one related to Amendment One would really make abortions safer. It seems that the legislators just want to make it harder for women to gain access to abortions which is control in and of itself. Control over waiting times – which limit the access of abortions to those that need to take off of work or travel far distances. Control over documents provided for consent in waiting rooms – which limit doctor-patient confidentiality and the doctor’s ability to provide truthful information about the procedure to a patient. Control over women’s rights – it is a woman’s choice as to what happens with her body, not a legislator’s poorly crafted language.

This legislation was pretty well-crafted, in that it was extremely deceptive to both the Republican and Democratic parties. The law was something that allowed for government oversight (which Democrats love and Republicans loathe) for an issue that is a hot-button social topic of regulating abortion (which Republicans love and Democrats loathe). I’m not shocked that the vote turned out the way it did – I am more shocked that my fellow Republicans (and even some Democrats) could not read more deeply into this law. It is an overreach of government and allows the government to hold the power over regulating our private decisions. Not just our private decisions, but a woman’s private decisions. As a woman,this is what shocks me the most.

Who decides what is best for a woman’s health? The woman herself? The woman’s doctor? Not according to Amendment One. According to Amendment One, the Tennessee government is the best at deciding a woman’s reproductive care. Legislators need not consult physicians or medical personnel in coming to a decision on changes to the abortion law. So, next time you have a personal, private medical question don’t bother asking your doctor. All of that medical school business was for nothing.  I recommend that you call your friendly neighborhood legislator the next time you need a personal, private medical question answered. I’m sure that with the vast knowledge Amendment One supporters believe our legislators have on the issue of abortion, that Tennessee legislator will have an answer to your medical question no matter the concern. If you think I am crazy, then you should have voted “no” on Amendment One. If you think that’s a great idea, well then you are this country’s problem.

Rant over. 


Obamacare Pt. 2: If You Like Your Plan, You Can Keep It (Or Not…)


If you have yet to read my post from Sunday, January 19th, I highly recommend you do so before reading today’s post. You will have more of an insight into the Individual Mandate (“IM”) and how you could possibly be taxed by Obamacare for failure to purchase healthcare under the new law. You can find “Obamacare Pt. 1: Steal from the Rich, Give to the Poor” at http://wp.me/p49Dtk-aa. If you have read this and now semi-understand the IM, today I will be talking about key parts of Obamacare that seem to coincide: the Employer Mandate & Expansion of Medicaid. Let’s start with the Employer Mandate.


Similar to the IM, the Employer Mandate (“EM” for simplicity) is a per-month fee for employers with over 50 full-time equivalent employees who do not provide healthcare coverage to such employees.  The EM is also considered a “shared responsibility fee” (like the IM) and is a tax penalty to ensure that applicable large employers are providing healthcare to employees.  If the employer does not have at least 50 full-time equivalent employees, these penalties do not apply (in fact, some small businesses may qualify for a health insurance tax credit). If an employer does have at least 50 full-time equivalent employees that are not provided health insurance, and at least one of the employees receives a tax credit or cost sharing subsidy, then the employer will be taxed $2,000 per employee not covered (with the first 30 full-time employees exempt from this calculation). This penalty increases each year with the growth in insurance premiums.

What happens when one of these employers provides healthcare insurance but it is not affordable to the employee?  There are two different instances in which an employer could be penalized if this occurs:

(1) If the employer provides healthcare coverage but it does not cover 60% (bronze level insurance) of healthcare expenses, then the employee has the opportunity to obtain different coverage in the Healthcare Exchange and receive tax credits or subsidies. If this happens, the employer of that employee is charged $3,000 annually for each full-time employee receiving a tax credit, up to a maximum of $2,000 times the number of full-time employees (minus the exempt 30). This penalty, like the penalty above, is increased each year with the growth in insurance premiums.

(2) Additionally, if the employer provides healthcare coverage but the employees have to pay more than 9.5% of family income for the employer coverage, the employees have the same opportunity to join the Healthcare Exchange and receive tax credits or subsidies. If this happens, the employer of that employee is charged $3,000 annually for each full-time employee receiving a tax credit, up to a maximum of $2,000 times the number of full-time employees (minus the exempt 30). This penalty, like the penalties above, are increased each year with the growth in insurance premiums.

So starting in 2015**, employers that have over 50 full-time equivalent employees will have to pay this per-month fee as 1/12 of the $2,000 or $3,000 amount for either not providing affordable healthcare insurance or any healthcare insurance at all.


Note that I said “full-time equivalent employees” (“FTEs” for simplicity) when describing the type of employees to which the EM applies. FTEs include those at full-time status (30 hours or more per week) plus the combined number of part-time employees divided by 30 hours. A list of those that are not included in the FTE calculation are seasonal employees, independent contractors (1099 filers), and business owners. On top of this, in order to determine the number of FTEs for a particular month (which is necessary under Obamacare), the employer must combine the number of hours of service for all employees not employed at least 30 hours per week for a month and then divide that number by 120. This calculation results in the number of FTEs for that calendar month. I do not want to go too far into this calculation, as it is not the basis of my argument (which I promise I have an argument, you just have to wait until the Medicaid section). I will leave you with an example of how this calculation would work.  The Washington Post’s article entitled “Small Business Advice: How to Count Full-Time and Part-Time Employees Under Obamacare” explained this calculation in more simpler terms than I ever could:

For example, if the aggregate number of hours for all employees who do not work on average 30 hours per week is 1200, the number of FTEs for that month would be would be 10 (1200/120). The employer would then add those 10 FTEs to the number of employees who are employed on average at least 30 hours per week, to determine if the employer is an “applicable large employer.”

The term “applicable large employer” is based on a controlled group. If a corporation owns a subsidiary then that subsidiary’s employment would count toward the controlled group’s employment as a whole. In short, all subsidiaries (i.e., sister companies, daughter companies) owned by a holding company (i.e., parent company) will become one with the parent company for purposes of the EM under Obamacare.


The EM covers FTEs. The actual coverage provided by the companies does not cover FTEs. In order to make a company an “applicable large employer” under Obamacare, the amount of employees must be 50 full-time equivalent employees. In order to make a company provide coverage under Obamacare, 95% of the full-time employees must be provided affordable healthcare coverage. Thus, FTEs do not matter for coverage purposes. FTEs only matter when trying to prove a company’s “applicable large employer” status. Got it? Good.

Even though the EM does not start until 2015, the numbers that matter for the EM start in 2014. The EM is based on a look-back period of 3 to 12 months. Therefore, employers must start calculating their full-time employee and full-time employee equivalent base now. A problem for companies is the tax deduction associated with the EM. The problem? There is no tax deduction. If the employer provided coverage for all full-time employees through an Employer Shared Responsibility Plan, then the employer contributions to employee premiums would be tax deductible. For some companies, the costs might outweigh the benefit. That being said, it might be better to take the hit on taxes rather than take the tax deduction for providing all employees with coverage.

To anticipate the inevitable tax, most large employers have reduced full-time and part-time employees to under 30 hours per week. According to Obamacare statistics, 10,000 companies out of 6,000,000 will actually need to provide insurance to full-time employees or pay the EM. That statistic looks wonderful on paper, but it does not actually provide the number of employees that are currently employed by those 10,000 companies. Large conglomerates will be reaping a large tax which will result in reducing the pay and hours for the average worker making just above minimum wage. I am not sure how this will be beneficial to our economy. Obamacare is digging a grave for job growth and the individual’s potential to make a living. Whether it be through the IM or EM, the government is sucking the life out of the economy one tax dollar at a time.


Medicaid is a joint funded program by the federal and state government to provide healthcare to low-income Americans. Obamacare provides for the expansion of the Medicaid program by increasing the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) to allow for additional people to receive healthcare.  States can opt into the Medicaid expansion or opt out and keep the Medicaid program the same.  So, how does Medicaid apply to large employers within a state? Employers are not penalized for employees signing up for Medicaid. Employers are penalized for employees receiving tax credits or subsidies for healthcare policies (as discussed above). Without the expansion of Medicaid, employees within a certain percentage of the FPL are bound to turn to tax credits and subsidies. Employers will be responsible for a larger percentage of tax associated with these costs.

Great. Why does this matter to you? Tennessee is one of the states that chose not to expand Medicaid. Tennessee is not the only state that did not expand Medicaid. If you are reading this and located in a different state, I have included the states and their current decisions below:

Expanding: AZ, AK, CA, CO, CT, DE, D.C., HI, IL, IA, KY, MD, MA, MI, MN, NV, NJ, NM, NY, ND, OH, OR, RI, UT (just occurred 3 days ago), VT, WA, WV

Not expanding: AL, AK, FL, GA, ID, IN, KS, LA, ME, MS, NE, NC, OK, SC, SD, TN, TX, VA, WI, WY

Still Considering: MO, NH, PA

There are plenty of reasons why Medicaid is good and bad for our country as a whole. Let’s take a look at the expansion of Medicaid under Obamacare and determine possibilities as to why Tennessee avoided expansion.


Medicaid is a joint program funded by both the federal and state governments to provide healthcare to low-income Americans. Every state has it’s own eligibility requirements (on top of those federally mandated) as to who qualifies for coverage under Medicaid. In order to qualify for Medicaid, you must be a member of an eligible group (e.g., children, pregnant women, people with disabilities, elderly) and you must meet the financial eligibility requirements for that eligible group. Depending on your financial situation, it could be the difference between affording insurance and receiving Medicaid.

Prior to Obamacare, all states were federally mandated to cover pregnant women and children earning under 133% of the FPL. Children are also covered under the CHIP (Children’s Health Insurance Plan) program, which works closely with Medicaid. Parents and adults without dependent children were not covered in most states, as they did not fall below the financial eligibility requirement threshold of making under 100% of the FPL. Seniors gain a large advantage through Medicaid.  If a senior qualifies for Medicaid then he or she also qualifies for Medicare Part D (prescription drug) coverage. Medicaid also covers benefits not covered under Medicare, such as nursing home and personal care services.

Under Title II of Obamacare, the law calls for an expansion of the Medicaid program and provides healthcare to all Americans earning under 138% of the FPL ($15,281 single individual with no children; $23,550 for a family of four). The federal government picks up 100% of the Medicaid tab in the first year. After this and through the year 2020, the federal government provides 90% and the state picks up the remaining 10%.  This is one of the temptations to the states in providing for the expansion. If the federal government is going to pick up most of the tab, why not agree to an expansion and allow for more people to be covered under Medicaid? The question I would rather you ask is “Where is the government getting the money to pick up this tab?” Is it the EM, the IM, a combination of both, China? I am not sure that the government knows where this money is going to come from at all. It seems our country’s deficit might continue to rise if many states continue down a path of expansion.

Every state does not have to agree to expand Medicaid. The federal government wanted to make Medicaid expansion mandatory, and it provided that states must adhere to the expansion or lose all existing Medicaid funding. Twenty-six states sued and the Supreme Court agreed that this provision was too coercive. The Court claimed that the “all-or-nothing” provision should not apply at all. The expansion was to be optional and at the discretion of each state – without the worry of losing money for existing Medicaid. So, as you saw from the list above, most states opted in and other states opted out.


There are many different pros and cons provided by both sides (Republican and Democrat) as to why Medicaid expansion is either good or bad for this country. I am going to list out a few for you so you can make your own decision.


(1) It provides revenue to the state choosing to expand Medicaid. Because the state chooses to expand, the state will receive more funding to support the Medicaid program. This will provide for an influx of funding for the state.

(2) It will result in savings to the state choosing to expand Medicaid. Some states claim to be able to either generate a revenue or save a lot of funds by hosting the expansion. One of these states is Michigan, though I am unsure as to how it is saving money while it’s capital of Detroit just filed for bankruptcy. Either way, many other states are claiming that by expanding the coverage it will save a lot of funding that is normally appropriated to uninsured healthcare recipients down the road.

(3) Rejecting the Medicaid expansion means that other states will receive more money. By rejecting the money given to them, states are handing additional funding over to states that do choose to expand Medicaid.


(1) Accepting federal funding for expansion of Medicaid results in further debt for our country. No explanation needed.

(2) There is a potential trade-off between managing costs and limiting access to healthcare. When a state manages costs of healthcare (i.e., limiting reimbursements to healthcare providers) there is a trade-off that limits access to healthcare. Medicaid is already becoming a trade-off in many state budgets, as it has taken over priorities such as education, emergency services, etc.

(3) Higher taxes reduce economic growth. If states do not want to balance spending programs then states must generate revenue through taxes. Taxes reduce economic growth. Most states cannot afford any type of stunt in economic growth at this time.

My POV: This will actually cost more than states are expecting. States might see savings in the beginning, as federal funding will be at 100%. After this, Medicaid spending will catch up with savings. Additionally, any rejection for expansion does not increase the amount of money given to another state that might choose to expand. The federal portion of Medicaid is based on a formulated calculation. Those funds rejected by states unwilling to accept the expansion of Medicaid do not go into a general fund for redistribution. States that do expand Medicaid are actually perpetuating the fiscal crisis in our country thereby leading this country into a further deficit.


In my opinion, Medicaid expansion is not smart.  Medicaid is struggling to provide healthcare to those currently on the program today.  I know that it sounds like a wonderful idea to add those that are under the FPL percentage to Medicaid.  The underlying problem is not where the FPL should be set. The underlying problem is fixing Medicaid. I would push for Medicaid reform and do away with the expansion entirely. Here are a few other reasons I like Medicaid reform over expansion:

(1) Lesser dependence by the states on federal government funding. It is bad policy to mix state and federal funding to the point of no return. This is bad policy and this is bad healthcare policy. There is no need to sustain a failing program that needs to be fixed.  Pumping this program with billions of (soon to be) wasted dollars is not the answer.

(2) Review eligibility levels and scale down where necessary. As mentioned in the beginning of the Medicaid discussion, states are allowed to extend eligibility past the federally mandated eligibility requirements. Most states have done this and the amount of funding has continued to climb over the years. This funding could be used to supplement education, emergency services, criminal justice, etc. In order to have the funding to balance the state budget, state officials should focus on bringing the original purpose back to the Medicaid program.

(3) States should come up with an alternative to Medicaid. Medicaid has always been defined as a “one-size-fits-all” program. You wouldn’t want to wear a “one-size-fits-all” pair of jeans would you? Everyone is different, just like every state is different. Every state has a different population with different needs. Thankfully the states know what their constituents need through the failing program of Medicaid. The states should be able to come up with a program that is tweaked to provide for their citizens’ needs.


I highly recommend that you do your own research on this law. Everyone has different opinions about it but not everyone understands why they have that opinion.  Become educated and stay informed on the issues that are going on around you.

I would love to hear your perspective on anything I have talked about today, last week, or any week before this. I appreciate you for reading this post and hopefully you will continue to read my blog.  I plan to tackle Obamacare’s changes to Medicare next week – you will not want to miss it! Thanks again!

**As of 2/10/2013, this date has changed to 2016 for medium-sized businesses. More information will be provided later.