So now the administration has announced the proposed long term care package in the health care law is cancelled.
Apparently it’s unworkable.
My fifth grade son accurately identified the problem with the program when it’s provisions were described to him.
I wonder if the White House is hiring?
What an annoyingly written OP. What made the Obama administration decide it was unworkable? How were the provisions in the program explained to your son and what did he identify as the problem?
True, the SDMB is the ‘Home of the Cite’, so why didn’t the OP provide one.
Well, OK - here’s one.
Two key quotes from that article:
and
Sorry. I thought this was famous enough that supporting info was unnecessary.
I read my son the newspaper article sentence that said the program had to be self-sustaining and would pay benefits for care for the aged. He immediately wondered how it could do that without being too expensive for many people to want to use.
And “CLASS” is the acronym for the program’s name.
Is it all clear now?
The entire health insurance industry is falling into that death spiral. Premiums are so high that anyone who doesn’t need insurance goes without it, that causes prices to go up more and as a result more healthy people drop coverage. Since only sick people are left (who hang onto insurance since they need it) the prices go up again.
The ‘solution’ by the administration is to mandate people buy poorly managed, overpriced, morally bankrupt private insurance plans so those healthy people can’t avoid buying health insurance.
So I don’t see why this is supposed to be a strike against Obama. This is a strike against our failed health care system that is designed to deny people health care and to make health care as expensive as possible.
This may be just the break the McCain campaign is waiting for!
There’s no excuse for apathetic OPs.
Clearer than before but now I have a new question. Do you have something you’d like to debate?
Yeah, but what definition of “solvent” are they using?
In before he doesn’t. Bricker thinks the poor should be left in the streets to die, as a Christian who supposedly follows Jesus.
Forum rules prevent me from stating pathetic I find this view, and the parentage that produced it.
You can congratulate your kid for identifying the problem that the administration itself identified, which is the reason the law was written how it was (to require that the actuarial calculations say it would be self-sustaining through 2075 in order to be implemented).
Maybe you could ask your kid to do something the administration couldn’t, like come up with a solution to this real problem?
Do you imagine he’ll say that we should let those who need long-term care rot if they failed to make private arrangements for it? I doubt it. Perhaps he’ll say that Medicare should continue to try to pick up the slack inefficiently? But then he’ll be on the hook for a bigger deficit when he’s your age.
I sure hope he can work this one out.
Also, it should pointed out Bricker’s political party through a campaign of lies sabotaged a chance at true UHC which wouldn’t have had these problems.
Republicans, by opposing UHC have more American blood on their hands than Osama and Al Qaeda could have dreamed of.
CNN: 45,000 American deaths associated with lack of insurance
In short voters like Bricker kill more Americans every year than Al Qaeda ever did just to advance their own selfish agenda for things like torture, and tax cuts for the rich.
Thanks for voting to make America a worse place, Bricker.
We could debate the wisdom of trying to implement a program that relies on young, healthy workers believing that it’s worth paying $2800 to $4700/year now for the promise of $18250/year if something bad happens to them…did I overlook something in one of the articles, or was this not intended to go to all the people who paid in merely because they got old? Both articles mentioned illness and disability as pay-out triggers, not becoming elderly. True, illness and disability are both things that disproportionately plague the elderly, but it seems like healthy elderly people could have paid in for decades without enountering either payout condition.
I don’t think you’ve quite got the forum rules down. This is insulting and more appropriate for the Pit. This is a formal warning not to do this again.
While it’s always nice for the board to jump straight to the hate and completely ignore any debate from the word go, I figure some people might want to know what went on.
What happened?: The administration found it could not actually do the CLASS provision of the healthcare bill. It’;s been entirely cut and will nto go into service. In fact, without passing a new law, or someone doing some extreme fiscal deception, it cannot go ionto effect.
Why this?: the CLASS provision was supposed to be a money-maker, and was written in that way. It was intended to improve the government’s bottom line by 80 bill. Instead, it would do just the opposite: require huge payouts to get anyone to buy in. Since it had to be fiscally sound, it didn’t work.
What now?: God knows, but it’s a major blow to healthcare proponents. This seriously damaged the possibility of the program meeting its fiscal goals, which are definitely not on track. While administration officials contend the healthcare bill will still reduce costs, many say it’s not working and costs are in fact accelerating, while the government program as a whole still has few people actually buying in.
Thank you. Feel free to resume killing each other.
You’re confusing two things: healthcare costs, and government expenditures. The failure of class affects government expenditure, because Medicare/Medicaid will have to continue to cover these costs more inefficiently (which is the status quo, which is what the GOP supports). It doesn’t affect the cost of healthcare, which is something else Obamacare tries to address.
The failure of CLASS means that some of the other spending provisions of Obamacare are not offset by the savings of CLASS. But it doesn’t mean anything more than that. And this was largely predicted by the administration – it was Judd Gregg who demanded the 2075 self-sustaining provision.
This debate would be a lot better off if instead of pretending to be smarter than the actual policymakers, member of the public actually took the time to learn about the issues.
Now now. Only if doing something about it will affect his personal financial situation. Let’s be fair.
If this is part of the CLASS Act, then it has been successfully implemented. It is an ‘if possible’ clause to regulate the plans, and no plan turned out to be possible. Assuming an unambiguous definition of ‘solvent’ this is an indication of something very rare, a well written law. If it’s not in the Act, well then, nevermind.
Given that the poster you are quoting received a Warning for the post you quoted, what made you think it was a good idea to continue posting insults?
Now, you also get a Warning for posting insults In Great Debates (with a second note, but no further Warning) for disregarding Moderator instructions.
[ /Moderating ]
Bricker, did you actually have a point to debate on this issue?
[ /Moderating ]
that politicians should be held to the same standards of “no child left behind”?