Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary
|
I disagree with your implication that there was intentional deception involved regarding these numbers.
However, after reading the article, I learned a few things and I have a few questions. I consider the fact that the president's own commission (presumably charged with the task of examining the situation and how to make rules that apply the laws) was the source of this negative conclusion.
Quote:
|
the president’s own fiscal commission officially called for a total repeal of the program. At this point, even Obama’s top health care officials won’t stand behind the program’s worthless fiscal design. “While the law outlined a framework for the CLASS Act,” Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told members of Congress in February, “we determined pretty quickly that it would not meet the requirement that the act be self-sustaining and not rely on taxpayer assistance.” Whoops!
|
Not bad, but I don't think the inclusion of modifiers like "worthless" and "whoops!" make any helpful contribution. But look, do you really make a mea culpa like this if you "fudged" the numbers in the first place? Or, does this sound more like "we've been paying attention as we progress on this path, and here's something we weren't expecting. Here's our suggestion to improve the situation."
A second point was made later in the argument I wish to discuss.
Quote:
|
Why is the Obama administration so keen to get everyone to join? Because the most likely problem the program faces is the specter that haunts all insurance pools: the death spiral. According to researchers at Boston College’s Center for Retirement Research, it’s a problem to which CLASS is particularly susceptible. Because premiums won’t be based on health status, the program is likely to prove particularly appealing to the sick. The sicker the population, the higher the premiums required to pay for their benefits. But higher premiums will drive away healthy individuals who need benefits less, resulting in an even sicker insurance pool, on average, which in turn will mean even higher premiums. From there, the insurance merry-go-round spins further out of control: higher premiums, reduced enrollment, a sicker and sicker population, and so on and so forth until the program is composed almost entirely of very sick, very expensive individuals. Indeed, in an absurd twist, the program’s broken financing model could hasten the death spiral’s ugly cycle by scaring away healthy individuals who might otherwise have bought in.
|
This, to me, is a good example of why ONLY having for profit health insurance is not adequate. Imagine public safety as an analogy. What if we only had for profit police protection? What would our crime statistics look like? And, since we don't have that program, how has that impacted the for profit security industry? I don't think there's any negative impact to those folks that want *extra* protection. Our health insurance industry could benefit from the same dual track, but we don't have such an option for health care.
As for the cost, we have a vested public interest in public safety, having secure citizens. We have a similarly compelling interest in public health, having healthy citizens. Both of these interests cost money, but it is money well spent.