The Untimely Death of Long-Term Health Insurance
The Administration's decision to pull the plug on long-term health insurance in the new healthcare law (so-called Community Living Assistance Services and Support or, as it was known by healthcare insiders, CLASS) offers an important lesson.
As written, the law had three incompatible parts.
First, it required beneficiaries to receive at least $50 a day if they had a long-term illness or disability (to pay a caregiver or provide other forms of maintenance). That $50 was an absolute minimum. No flexibility on the downside.
The Administration's decision to pull the plug on long-term health insurance in the new healthcare law (so-called Community Living Assistance Services and Support or, as it was known by healthcare insiders, CLASS) offers an important lesson.
As written, the law had three incompatible parts.
First, it required beneficiaries to receive at least $50 a day if they had a long-term illness or disability (to pay a caregiver or provide other forms of maintenance). That $50 was an absolute minimum. No flexibility on the downside.
Second, insurance premiums had to fully cover these costs. In budget-speak, the program was to be self-financing. Given the minimum benefit, that meant fairly hefty premiums.
Third, unlike the rest of the healthcare law, enrollment was to be voluntary. But given the fairly hefty premiums, the only people likely to sign up would know they'd need the benefit because they had or were prone to certain long-term illnesses or disabilities. Healthier people probably wouldn't enroll.
Yet if the healthier didn't enroll, the program would have to be financed entirely by the relatively unhealthy -- which meant premiums would have to be even higher. So high, in fact, that even the relatively unhealthy wouldn't be able to afford it.
End of story. End of program.
Why, oh why, didn't the Obama administration make life easy for itself and for Americans by choosing the simplest and most efficient system for both primary and long-term health insurance -- Medicare for all?
The lesson: If a public insurance system has minimum benefits and must pay for itself, it can't be voluntary. Everyone has to sign up.
Or something else has to give -- benefits have to be more flexible, or the program can't be expected to pay for itself.
For example, Medicare and Social Security are mandatory. Everyone effectively signs up through their payrolls. Even so, questions arise about how flexible their benefits have to be if the programs must be self-financing.
So what does this mean for the remainder of the new healthcare law? Its fate hinges on the so-called individual mandate -- the requirement that everyone, including younger and healthier people, participate (or pay a fine if they don't).
Today's decision to jettison long-term care offers clear evidence why that individual mandate is so necessary.
Unfortunately, the mandate isn't popular -- because it wasn't modeled on Social Security or Medicare but based instead on private insurers who'll want to maximize revenues. It's also vulnerable to constitutional challenge, largely for the same reason. The Supreme Court will likely decide its fate this term.
Why, oh why, didn't the Obama administration make life easy for itself and for Americans by choosing the simplest and most efficient system for both primary and long-term health insurance -- Medicare for all?
It didn't because it wanted to get Republican votes. It got almost none. And now the Republicans are enjoying the prospect of the law being dismembered piece by piece, starting today.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
The Administration's decision to pull the plug on long-term health insurance in the new healthcare law (so-called Community Living Assistance Services and Support or, as it was known by healthcare insiders, CLASS) offers an important lesson.
As written, the law had three incompatible parts.
First, it required beneficiaries to receive at least $50 a day if they had a long-term illness or disability (to pay a caregiver or provide other forms of maintenance). That $50 was an absolute minimum. No flexibility on the downside.
Second, insurance premiums had to fully cover these costs. In budget-speak, the program was to be self-financing. Given the minimum benefit, that meant fairly hefty premiums.
Third, unlike the rest of the healthcare law, enrollment was to be voluntary. But given the fairly hefty premiums, the only people likely to sign up would know they'd need the benefit because they had or were prone to certain long-term illnesses or disabilities. Healthier people probably wouldn't enroll.
Yet if the healthier didn't enroll, the program would have to be financed entirely by the relatively unhealthy -- which meant premiums would have to be even higher. So high, in fact, that even the relatively unhealthy wouldn't be able to afford it.
End of story. End of program.
Why, oh why, didn't the Obama administration make life easy for itself and for Americans by choosing the simplest and most efficient system for both primary and long-term health insurance -- Medicare for all?
The lesson: If a public insurance system has minimum benefits and must pay for itself, it can't be voluntary. Everyone has to sign up.
Or something else has to give -- benefits have to be more flexible, or the program can't be expected to pay for itself.
For example, Medicare and Social Security are mandatory. Everyone effectively signs up through their payrolls. Even so, questions arise about how flexible their benefits have to be if the programs must be self-financing.
So what does this mean for the remainder of the new healthcare law? Its fate hinges on the so-called individual mandate -- the requirement that everyone, including younger and healthier people, participate (or pay a fine if they don't).
Today's decision to jettison long-term care offers clear evidence why that individual mandate is so necessary.
Unfortunately, the mandate isn't popular -- because it wasn't modeled on Social Security or Medicare but based instead on private insurers who'll want to maximize revenues. It's also vulnerable to constitutional challenge, largely for the same reason. The Supreme Court will likely decide its fate this term.
Why, oh why, didn't the Obama administration make life easy for itself and for Americans by choosing the simplest and most efficient system for both primary and long-term health insurance -- Medicare for all?
It didn't because it wanted to get Republican votes. It got almost none. And now the Republicans are enjoying the prospect of the law being dismembered piece by piece, starting today.
The Administration's decision to pull the plug on long-term health insurance in the new healthcare law (so-called Community Living Assistance Services and Support or, as it was known by healthcare insiders, CLASS) offers an important lesson.
As written, the law had three incompatible parts.
First, it required beneficiaries to receive at least $50 a day if they had a long-term illness or disability (to pay a caregiver or provide other forms of maintenance). That $50 was an absolute minimum. No flexibility on the downside.
Second, insurance premiums had to fully cover these costs. In budget-speak, the program was to be self-financing. Given the minimum benefit, that meant fairly hefty premiums.
Third, unlike the rest of the healthcare law, enrollment was to be voluntary. But given the fairly hefty premiums, the only people likely to sign up would know they'd need the benefit because they had or were prone to certain long-term illnesses or disabilities. Healthier people probably wouldn't enroll.
Yet if the healthier didn't enroll, the program would have to be financed entirely by the relatively unhealthy -- which meant premiums would have to be even higher. So high, in fact, that even the relatively unhealthy wouldn't be able to afford it.
End of story. End of program.
Why, oh why, didn't the Obama administration make life easy for itself and for Americans by choosing the simplest and most efficient system for both primary and long-term health insurance -- Medicare for all?
The lesson: If a public insurance system has minimum benefits and must pay for itself, it can't be voluntary. Everyone has to sign up.
Or something else has to give -- benefits have to be more flexible, or the program can't be expected to pay for itself.
For example, Medicare and Social Security are mandatory. Everyone effectively signs up through their payrolls. Even so, questions arise about how flexible their benefits have to be if the programs must be self-financing.
So what does this mean for the remainder of the new healthcare law? Its fate hinges on the so-called individual mandate -- the requirement that everyone, including younger and healthier people, participate (or pay a fine if they don't).
Today's decision to jettison long-term care offers clear evidence why that individual mandate is so necessary.
Unfortunately, the mandate isn't popular -- because it wasn't modeled on Social Security or Medicare but based instead on private insurers who'll want to maximize revenues. It's also vulnerable to constitutional challenge, largely for the same reason. The Supreme Court will likely decide its fate this term.
Why, oh why, didn't the Obama administration make life easy for itself and for Americans by choosing the simplest and most efficient system for both primary and long-term health insurance -- Medicare for all?
It didn't because it wanted to get Republican votes. It got almost none. And now the Republicans are enjoying the prospect of the law being dismembered piece by piece, starting today.