HHS abandons part of ObamaCare as fiscally unworkable

[red states rule]

Obama and his re-election staff in the liberal media will tell us it was those damn R's who pulled the plug on a vital part of Obamacare





snip

Known as CLASS, the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports program was a long-standing priority of the late Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy.

Although sponsored by the government, it was supposed to function as a self-sustaining voluntary insurance plan, open to working adults regardless of age or health. Workers would pay an affordable monthly premium during their careers and could collect a modest daily cash benefit of at least $50 if they became disabled later in life. The money could go for services at home or to help with nursing home bills.

But a central design flaw dogged CLASS. Unless large numbers of healthy people willingly sign up during their working years, soaring premiums driven by the needs of disabled beneficiaries would destabilize it, eventually requiring a taxpayer bailout.

After months insisting that could be fixed, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius finally acknowledged Friday she doesn't see how.

"Despite our best analytical efforts, I do not see a viable path forward for CLASS implementation at this time," Sebelius said in a letter to congressional leaders.

The law required the administration to certify that CLASS would remain financially solvent for 75 years before it could be put into place.

But officials said they discovered they could not make CLASS both affordable and financially solvent while keeping it a voluntary program open to virtually all workers, as the law also required.

Monthly premiums would have ranged from $235 to $391, even as high as $3,000 under some scenarios, the administration said. At those prices, healthy people were unlikely to sign up. Suggested changes aimed at discouraging enrollment by people in poor health could have opened the program to court challenges, officials said.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_LONG_TERM_CARE_PROGRAM?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-10-14-15-24-47

[fj1200]

Now if only the rest of the bill were subject to the same standard.

[Thunderknuckles]

You mean healthy, working individuals chose not to pay $235 to $391 a month in premiums for a $50 daily cash benefit later in life IF they became disabled?
How can a rock solid assumption like that not have come to pass?

[Psychoblues]

You mean healthy, working individuals chose not to pay $235 to $391 a month in premiums for a $50 daily cash benefit later in life IF they became disabled?
How can a rock solid assumption like that not have come to pass?

Good R&D is designed to turn up fallacies like that and that was the charge for Kathleen Sebelius and HHS to find. They found it. Wuz the prob with that? I think somebody needs a diaper change, don't you, tk?

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Psychoblues

[fj1200]

Good R&D is designed to turn up fallacies like that and that was the charge for Kathleen Sebelius and HHS to find. They found it. Wuz the prob with that?

Government not entering markets to compete with the private sector.

[Psychoblues]

Government not entering markets to compete with the private sector.

I don't believe the government is trying to compete with the private sector but even if so what is the private sector so afraid of? The government is simply trying to fill a desperate void that the private sector refuses to address and that, my friend, is the default position of any government that attempts to protect the overall well being of it's citizenry. Where are the jobs, repubs? The unemployed and the rest of us are not blind.

Psychoblues

[red states rule]

I don't believe the government is trying to compete with the private sector but even if so what is the private sector so afraid of? The government is simply trying to fill a desperate void that the private sector refuses to address and that, my friend, is the default position of any government that attempts to protect the overall well being of it's citizenry. Where are the jobs, repubs? The unemployed and the rest of us are not blind.

Psychoblues

You are right. Dems do not want the the Federal government to compete with private ins companies PB. Dems want the private ins to go out of business


<IFRAME height=315 src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/dT4mV3R7vu4" frameBorder=0 width=420 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>


Is it any wonder a majority of voters still want Obamacre REPEALED?

[fj1200]

I don't believe the government is trying to compete with the private sector but even if so what is the private sector so afraid of? The government is simply trying to fill a desperate void that the private sector refuses to address and that, my friend, is the default position of any government that attempts to protect the overall well being of it's citizenry. Where are the jobs, repubs? The unemployed and the rest of us are not blind.

Are you saying that there are no long term care insurance providers out in the market today?


2011 Leading Long-Term Care Insurance Companies

Genworth Life Ins Co

Genworth Financial helps millions of people around the world achieve their dreams.

<tbody>
A (Excellent)


A1 (Good)


AA- (Very Strong)

</tbody>


John Hancock

LTC insurance coverage you can count on, from a name that people know and trust.

<tbody>
A+ (Superior)


A1 (Good)


AA+ (Very Strong)

</tbody>


LifeSecure Insurance Co.

LifeSecure offers straightforward long-term care insurance for individuals and employer groups.

<tbody>
(Parent rated A-)


N/A


N/A (Not Rated)

</tbody>



Mutual of Omaha

A strong, stable secure company meeting the financial needs of its customers for the past 100 years.

<tbody>
A+ (Superior)


Aa3 (Excellent)


Aa- (Very Strong)

</tbody>


MedAmerica Insurance Co

MedAmerica's Simplicity cash long-term care insurance is the highest independently rated policy available.

<tbody>
B++ (Very Good)


NA (Not Applicable)


A- (Stable)

</tbody>


Prudential Insurance Co

LTC Insurance issued by The Prudential Insurance Company of America IFS-A160837 Ed. 1/2009.

<tbody>
A+ (Superior)


Aa3 ($Excellent)


AA (Very Strong)

</tbody>



Transamerica Life Insurance

More than a century of experience and consistently high ratings, Transamerica provides quality products and service.

<tbody>
A+ (Superior)


A1 (Good)


AA- (Very Strong)

</tbody>


http://www.aaltci.org/long-term-care-insurance/learning-center/company-ratings.php


I don't recall anyone saying that the private sector is afraid of honest competitition; When government enters a market they never do so on a level playing field.

Why are you asking the Republicans where the jobs are? Do they have the control to pass their agenda items right now that we're not aware of? Please inform.

[Psychoblues]

You are right. Dems do not want the the Federal government to compete with private ins companies PB. Dems want the private ins to go out of business


<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/dT4mV3R7vu4" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="420"></iframe>


Is it any wonder a majority of voters still want Obamacre REPEALED?


I didn't say that, rsr. You did and you are wrong. It's the ins. cos. that are afraid of competition. The government doesn't have to compete with them but the government does have a responsibility to fill a public need the private sector refuses to even address. Are you saying that 47 million Americans being uninsured is acceptable in the 21st century? Are you saying that 70% of all personal bankruptcies being related to healthcare expenses is OK? Are you saying that even though Americans pay more than twice what our closest competitive nations pay for healthcare with only half the results is just fine with you? And you are wrong about any majority of Americans desiring an end to the Patients Protection and Affordable Care Act being repealed. Like it or not, it's on the books, it's a HUGE improvement over anything we've ever had before and it WILL drive down health care costs when fully implemented. The only thing I could see better would be the plan advocated by President Richard Millhouse Nixon in 1972 and that would be Medicare for EVERYONE. Public healthcare is after all a national concern.

Psychoblues

[Psychoblues]

Are you saying that there are no long term care insurance providers out in the market today?



I don't recall anyone saying that the private sector is afraid of honest competitition; When government enters a market they never do so on a level playing field.

Why are you asking the Republicans where the jobs are? Do they have the control to pass their agenda items right now that we're not aware of? Please inform.

1. No

2. I am saying the private sector is afraid of competition whether from the government, which it's not, or from another private entity.

3. Right now neither the Repubs or the Dems can do much about jobs due to the interference and filibustering by the repubs. Everybody can see that for crying out loud. Do you need a tissue?

Psychoblues

[Psychoblues]

"We're disappointed that (Sebelius) has prematurely stated she does not see a path forward," AARP, the seniors lobby, said in a statement. "The need for long-term care will only continue to grow."

Much more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/14/obama-health-care-law-class-program-cut_n_1011451.html

AARP accusing the administration of prematurely cutting out could be serious. We'll see.

Psychoblues

[Kathianne]

"We're disappointed that (Sebelius) has prematurely stated she does not see a path forward," AARP, the seniors lobby, said in a statement. "The need for long-term care will only continue to grow."

Much more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/14/obama-health-care-law-class-program-cut_n_1011451.html

AARP accusing the administration of prematurely cutting out could be serious. We'll see.

Psychoblues

Here's the problem with this program, too many folks in knowingly bad health would have signed up, driving up the premiums for those in good health. No brainer.

Private insurers do a health check before signing up folks. Thus someone with possible cancerous condition will be denied. D'oh. Yeah, it sucks to have cancer, big time, but that's not the folks one wants for insurance conditions.

[Psychoblues]

Here's the problem with this program, too many folks in knowingly bad health would have signed up, driving up the premiums for those in good health. No brainer.

Private insurers do a health check before signing up folks. Thus someone with possible cancerous condition will be denied. D'oh. Yeah, it sucks to have cancer, big time, but that's not the folks one wants for insurance conditions.

Uh,,,,,,,,D'oh? Is that your opinion? That's the real 99.9% of the understanding of this problem.

Psychoblues

[red states rule]

I didn't say that, rsr. You did and you are wrong. It's the ins. cos. that are afraid of competition. The government doesn't have to compete with them but the government does have a responsibility to fill a public need the private sector refuses to even address. Are you saying that 47 million Americans being uninsured is acceptable in the 21st century? Are you saying that 70% of all personal bankruptcies being related to healthcare expenses is OK? Are you saying that even though Americans pay more than twice what our closest competitive nations pay for healthcare with only half the results is just fine with you? And you are wrong about any majority of Americans desiring an end to the Patients Protection and Affordable Care Act being repealed. Like it or not, it's on the books, it's a HUGE improvement over anything we've ever had before and it WILL drive down health care costs when fully implemented. The only thing I could see better would be the plan advocated by President Richard Millhouse Nixon in 1972 and that would be Medicare for EVERYONE. Public healthcare is after all a national concern.

Psychoblues

What competition PB? The government is not worried about making a profit or even breaking even on their budget. They have no problems running trillion dollar plus deficits year after year. No business can do that PB and still stay in business.

Dems have admitted what theur goal is - to put private ins comapnies out fo business

And once again you show your lack of knowledge on Obamacare. It is very unpopular and people do want it repealed

It is one the books now (along with the tax increases) but it wil not once the USSC has its say.

Just in time for the 2012 election




Survey of 1,000 Likely Voters
September 30-October 1, 2011

<TBODY>
Date

Favor Repeal

Oppose Repeal



Sep 30-Oct 1

51%

39%



Sep 16-17 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/public_content/archive/health_care_update_archive/september_2011/56_favor_repeal_of_health_care_law_52_say_law_is_b ad_for_the_country)

56%

36%



Sep 2-3 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/public_content/archive/health_care_update_archive/september_2011/57_favor_health_care_repeal_54_say_repeal_likely)

57%

36%



Aug 27-28 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/public_content/archive/health_care_update_archive/august_2011/voters_express_stronger_enthusiasm_for_health_care _repeal)

57%

37%



Aug 19-20 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/public_content/archive/health_care_update_archive/august_2011/55_favor_repeal_of_health_care_law2)

55%

38%



Aug 13-14 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/public_content/archive/health_care_update_archive/august_2011/54_favor_repeal_of_health_care_law_46_say_repeal_l ikely)

54%

40%



Aug 5-6 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/public_content/archive/health_care_update_archive/august_2011/52_say_health_care_law_will_increase_deficit_54_fa vor_its_repeal)

54%

40%



July 30-31 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/platinum/political_tracking_crosstabs/july_2011/crosstabs_health_care_law_july_30_31_2011)

55%

39%



July 22-23 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/public_content/archive/health_care_update_archive/july_2011/57_favor_repeal_of_health_care_law)

57%

36%



July 16-17 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/july_2011/54_favor_repeal_of_health_care_law_52_say_law_will _increase_deficit)

54%

39%



July 8-9 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/public_content/archive/health_care_update_archive/july_2011/53_favor_repeal_of_health_care_law)

53%

40%



July 2 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/public_content/archive/health_care_update_archive/july_2011/53_favor_repeal_of_health_care_law_as_expectation_ of_repeal_hits_new_high)

53%

39%



June 24-25 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/public_content/archive/health_care_update_archive/55_favor_health_care_repeal_just_17_say_new_law_wi ll_improve_quality_of_care)

55%

38%



June 18-19 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/june_2011/53_favor_repeal_of_health_care_law_49_say_measure_ bad_for_country)

53%

42%



June 10-11 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/june_2011/54_favor_repeal_of_health_care_law_46_think_repeal _likely)

54%

35%



June 4-5 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/june_2011/54_favor_repeal_of_health_care_law_56_say_law_will _increase_deficit)

54%

39%



May 28-29 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/may_2011/51_favor_repeal_of_health_care_law_47_say_measure_ bad_for_the_country)

51%

41%



May 21-22 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/may_2011/51_favor_repeal_of_health_care_law_42_think_repeal _is_likely)

51%

43%



May 13-14 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/may_2011/55_favor_repeal_of_health_care_law_53_believe_it_w ill_increase_deficit)

55%

38%



May 7 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/public_content/archive/health_care_update_archive/57_favor_repeal_of_health_care_law)

57%

36%



Apr 29-30 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/may_2011/support_for_repeal_of_health_care_law_falls_to_new _low_at_47)

47%

42%



Apr 23-24 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/april_2011/53_favor_health_care_repeal_think_law_will_increas e_deficit)

53%

40%



Apr 15-16 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/april_2011/52_favor_repeal_of_health_care_law)

52%

41%



Apr 9-10 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/public_content/archive/health_care_update_archive/51_favor_repeal_of_the_health_care_law)

51%

41%



Apr 1-2 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/public_content/archive/health_care_update_archive/54_favor_health_care_repeal_56_say_law_will_increa se_deficit)

54%

39%



Mar 26-27 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/public_content/archive/health_care_update_archive/58_now_favor_health_care_repeal)

58%

36%



Mar 18-19 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/public_content/archive/health_care_update_archive/53_favor_repeal_of_health_care_law_50_say_repeal_a t_least_somewhat_likely)

53%

42%



Mar 12-13 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/public_content/archive/health_care_update_archive/62_favor_repeal_of_health_care_law)

62%

33%



Mar 4-5 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/public_content/archive/health_care_update_archive/54_favor_repeal_of_health_care_bill)

54%

39%



Feb 26-27 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/february_2011/53_favor_repeal_of_health_care_law_but_voters_less _confident_in_benefits_of_repeal)

53%

39%



Feb 18-19 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/february_2011/56_favor_repeal_of_health_care_plan)

56%

40%



Feb 12-13 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/february_2011/57_of_voters_favor_repeal_of_health_care_law_38_op posed)

57%

38%



Feb 4-5 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/february_2011/58_favor_repeal_of_health_care_law_most_still_expe ct_costs_to_rise_and_quality_to_suffer)

58%

37%



Jan 29-30 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/february_2011/58_favor_repeal_of_health_care_law_but_confidence_ in_repeal_is_down)

58%

38%



Jan 21-22 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/january_2011/53_favor_health_care_repeal_but_voters_worry_less_ about_being_forced_to_change_coverage)

53%

43%



Jan 15-16 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/january_2011/most_still_favor_repeal_of_health_care_law_say_it_ will_increase_deficit)

55%

40%



Jan 7-8 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/january_2011/most_still_support_repeal_of_health_care_bill_49_s ay_it_s_likely)

54%

40%



Jan 2, 2011 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/january_2011/insured_voters_still_divided_whether_health_care_l aw_is_likely_to_make_them_change_coverage)

60%

36%


</TBODY>


http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law

[red states rule]

Uh,,,,,,,,D'oh? Is that your opinion? That's the real 99.9% of the understanding of this problem.

Psychoblues

Uh, it was in the link PB




Monthly premiums would have ranged from $235 to $391, even as high as $3,000 under some scenarios, the administration said. At those prices, healthy people were unlikely to sign up. Suggested changes aimed at discouraging enrollment by people in poor health could have opened the program to court challenges, officials said.

[fj1200]

1. No

You said exactly that. Anyone can voluntarily choose a long-term care insurance option. Government "options" rarely stay that way.


2. I am saying the private sector is afraid of competition whether from the government, which it's not, or from another private entity.

The government NEVER competes fairly; they have the force of compulsion. Is it any wonder that they didn't float the same requirement for the whole bill?


3. Right now neither the Repubs or the Dems can do much about jobs due to the interference and filibustering by the repubs. Everybody can see that for crying out loud. Do you need a tissue?

Why would I? It's not my paradigm that has been destroyed. I do mourn though for those who have falsely relied on claims that government action would fix the economy. It never has and it won't.


Much more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/14/obama-health-care-law-class-program-cut_n_1011451.html

Was there anything new in this link? It looked the same as rsr's post. But this is interesting:


That's the same conclusion a top government expert reached in 2009. Nearly a year before the health care law passed, Richard Foster, head of long-range economic forecasts for Medicare warned administration and congressional officials that CLASS would be unworkable. His warnings were disregarded, as Obama declared his support for adding the long-term care plan to his health care bill.

They just had to put in there anyway.

[red states rule]

Of course HHS could have delt with this the same way the WH is dealing with the economy. They could ignored the numbers, continued pushing their agenda, tell us everything is fine, and the situation is getting better

[red states rule]

Now Obama is at odds with his own administration's ruling on this budget busting program - yet he dies not say how he will pay for it

How will Obama blame R's for this?





Obama opposes repeal of healthcare program suspended last week

President Obama is against repealing the health law's long-term-care CLASS Act and might veto Republican efforts to do so, an administration official tells The Hill, despite the government's announcement Friday that the program was dead in the water.

"We do not support repeal," the official said Monday. "Repealing the CLASS Act isn't necessary or productive. What we should be doing is working together to address the long-term care challenges we face in this country."

Over the weekend, The Hill has learned, an administration official called advocates of the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports (CLASS) Act to reassure them that Obama is still committed to making the program work. That official also told advocates that widespread media reports on the program's demise were wrong, leaving advocates scratching their heads.

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/187949-white-house-opposes-formal-class-act-repeal

[red states rule]

Looks like PB has left the building :laugh2:



http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/lb1018cd20111017075424.jpg

[red states rule]

Good R&D is designed to turn up fallacies like that and that was the charge for Kathleen Sebelius and HHS to find. They found it. Wuz the prob with that? I think somebody needs a diaper change, don't you, tk?

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Psychoblues

Have you retreated from this thread PB? :laugh2:



http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/sbr101811dAPR20111018014516.jpg

[Psychoblues]

Have you retreated from this thread PB? :laugh2:





Yep. I thought you were needing a diaper change and it turns out you were and still are. You stink, rsr. Have you spoken with your Doctor about talking to yourself? You do that a lot.

Psychoblues

[red states rule]

Yep. I thought you were needing a diaper change and it turns out you were and still are. You stink, rsr. Have you spoken with your Doctor about talking to yourself? You do that a lot.

Psychoblues

Funny how you stopped posting after post # 14 when I showed how "popular" Obamacare was with the voters, and how HHS said the cost of this program would discourage healthy people from enrolling

When you use the diaper talking ponit PB to explain your departure what you really mean is you can't refute the facts so you ran away from them

Much like Gabby does when the facts get in way of her posts