SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
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.
Oct 15, 2011
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, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. 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. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
Robert Reich
Robert Reich, is the Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California, Berkeley, and a senior fellow at the Blum Center for Developing Economies. He served as secretary of labor in the Clinton administration, for which Time magazine named him one of the 10 most effective cabinet secretaries of the twentieth century. His book include: "Aftershock" (2011), "The Work of Nations" (1992), "Beyond Outrage" (2012) and, "Saving Capitalism" (2016). He is also a founding editor of The American Prospect magazine, former chairman of Common Cause, a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and co-creator of the award-winning documentary, "Inequality For All." Reich's newest book is "The Common Good" (2019). He's co-creator of the Netflix original documentary "Saving Capitalism," which is streaming now.
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.
Robert Reich
Robert Reich, is the Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California, Berkeley, and a senior fellow at the Blum Center for Developing Economies. He served as secretary of labor in the Clinton administration, for which Time magazine named him one of the 10 most effective cabinet secretaries of the twentieth century. His book include: "Aftershock" (2011), "The Work of Nations" (1992), "Beyond Outrage" (2012) and, "Saving Capitalism" (2016). He is also a founding editor of The American Prospect magazine, former chairman of Common Cause, a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and co-creator of the award-winning documentary, "Inequality For All." Reich's newest book is "The Common Good" (2019). He's co-creator of the Netflix original documentary "Saving Capitalism," which is streaming now.
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.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.