The Obama administration on October 14, 2011 pulled the plug on a major program in the president's signature health overhaul law – a long-term care insurance plan dogged from the beginning by doubts over its financial solvency. The program became the first casualty in the political and policy wars over the health care law. It had been expected to launch in 2013.
"This is a victory for the American taxpayer and future generations," said Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., spearheading opposition in the Senate. "The administration is finally admitting (the long-term care plan) is unsustainable and cannot be implemented."
Proponents, including many groups that fought to pass the health care law, have vowed a vigorous effort to rescue the program, insisting that Congress gave the administration broad authority to make changes. 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, CLASS 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 (a minimum of $1,500) if they became disabled later in life. The money could go for services at home or to help with nursing home bills.
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 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. 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.
"If healthy purchasers are not attracted, ...then premiums will increase, which will make it even more unattractive to purchasers who could also obtain policies in the private market," Kathy Greenlee, the lead official on CLASS, said in a memo to Sebelius. That "would cause the program to quickly collapse."
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.
The demise of CLASS immediately touched off speculation about its impact on the federal budget. Although no premiums are likely to be collected, the program still counts as reducing the federal deficit by about $80 billion over the next 10 years. That's because of a rule that would have required workers to pay in for at least five years before they could collect any benefits. "The CLASS Act was a budget gimmick that might enhance the numbers on a Washington bureaucrat's spreadsheet but was destined to fail in the real world," said Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
Administration officials said Obama's next budget would reflect the decision not to go forward. Even without CLASS premiums, they said the health care law will still reduce the deficit by more than $120 billion over 10 years.
"We're disappointed that (Sebelius) has prematurely stated she does not see a path forward," AARP, [the liberal] seniors lobby, said in a statement.
The federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) proposed on August 1 that all insurance plans, except those offered by churches or seminaries, cover the entire cost of prescription birth control pills, including abortion drugs such as Ella and Plan B, with no co-pays. Unless public protests change the minds of President Obama and his administration, that proposal will become a mandate at the end of September, 2011.
In the mandate, the definition of "religious organization" is quite narrow. It is limited to an organization that "primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets" and "has the inculcation of religious values as its purpose." Using this definition, thousands of Christian missions, hospitals, crisis pregnancy centers, and relief agencies that serve all comers, not primarily parishioners, will no longer be considered religious organizations. Therefore, they would not be excluded from this mandate.
What is your list of the top ten events of 2010. Here is my top ten list. Many "events" in my list are multiple events - but events that are related.
This is not a list of the top ten most covered news stories of 2010. I invite your comments.
The "Feel Good" story of 2010 was the rescue of the mine workers in Chile. This event was over-covered by the news media. It's lasting effect will be the high number of sermon illustrations that grew from it.
The panel of clergy discussed the Health Care Insurance bill that passed the House of Representatives on Sunday, March 21, with a vote of 219-212. With all of the mourning of a lack of bipartisan consensus, it should be noted that the "Nay" vote was bi-partisan.
There are many concerns I have about what is now the law of the land. It improves the health of no person. It does not improve health care, nor does it improve access to health care. It does not lower the cost of health care. What the new law produces is unfunded state and individual mandates. Health insurance companies will now become "utlilities." Both state and federal taxes shall increase. Individual will be required to purchase a product. Employers will find the cost of labor will increase - and thereby, lower employment.
The insolvency of Medicare is not fixed. Medicare "savings" that were counted to help pay for the bill are not put back into Medicare, but used to create a new entitlement.
Of course, everyone knows by now that the cost of what is called the "Doc Fix" - adjustments made to payments to physicians - was not included in the cost analysis of the bill. It it had been, the cost would have increased dramatically.
For the first decade, we shall be taxed ten years, but the "benefits" will only be for six years. What happens in the second decade and beyond? My guess is even higher taxes and fewer benefits.
The political conversation has become poisoned. The President who ran on unity and bipartisanship has created a partisan majority in Congress that is at best oblivious and at worst contemptuous of the voice of the majority.
On thing more troubles me; and that is the moral shift in much of our nation. I sense that we are losing our moral strength. Many are discarding their spines and become sponges. A spine can carry much more than its own weight. A sponge has no spine, but can absorb much more than its own weight.
How can I say this? Some statistics I have recently reviewed show that about 41% (2006 numbers) of the households in the United States pay no federal income tax. That number is growing by the addition of about 1% per year. This year we shall probably be at or above 45%. We are coming close to the time where half of the households in America carry the other half.
Who is it that carries the other half on their backs? 75% of all federal income taxes are paid by households headed by married couples.
We are losing the self-reliant and independent spirit that has made America exceptional. We are descendents of people who survived the journey to this country in any number of ways. We are squandering our strength and our heritage.
Many are satisfied to ask not what they can do for their country, but to ask what their country can do for them. Many are satisfied to get more than they give. Many are satisfied to have others take care of them. Many seek rights and ignore responsibilities.
This Health Care Insurance law is a step in a direction that will destroy American exceptionalism. It will cause us to wither as a nation.
The Association of Mature American Citizens is the new conservative organiztion for Americans 50 years or older. For information go to AMAC.
AMAC makes the following statements on current issues:
Taxes - AMAC strongly feels that American citizens are excessively taxed. There should be a reduction in income tax rates for all wage earners. Likewise, corporations are over taxed. When a corporation is taxed they simply increase the cost of their product or service and the people wind up paying for the tax when the price is increased.
Growth in Government- AMAC favors a reduction in the number of Federal departments and employees. Our government has grown at the Federal, State and local levels. In Washington we now have twice as many Departments as we had 100 years ago. As government grows and each year more laws are passed, the individual citizen slowly has their rights taken away.
Balanced Budget & the National Debt-The annual budget has gone out of control. The President and the congress have lost sight of their responsibilities. If we do not manage our fiscal and financial condition our nation is put in serious jeopardy. By continuing to borrow we are putting a huge burden on our children and grandchildren.
Medical Care - AMAC believes it is a serious mistake to have the Federal government interfere and dictate how medical care is provided in this country. The present system of State regulations and free enterprise has proven satisfactory for over 85% of our citizens. A simple change in state regulations can solve most of the problems with people being covered. Medicare should continue as-is with minor improvements, and more competition should be encouraged.
Abortion - AMAC is pro-life. We are against abortion in principle and feel it is improper to allow government funding of abortions, except to save the life of the mother.
Marriage - AMAC believes in the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman. AMAC is opposed to Gay Marriage because we feel it contributes to the destruction of the traditional family and offends the religious beliefs on which this country was founded. AMAC has not taken a position on civil unions or other legal issues affecting gays and lesbians.
Second Amendment (the right to bear arms) - AMAC believes that the Constitution clearly gives the right to carry arms to the citizen. Attempts to infringe upon that right should be defeated.
President Obama gave his first State of the Union Address on January 27, 2010. For a complete text click on this link: Download State of Union 2010. I gave myself a couple of days to collect my thoughts before commenting.
Overall, I felt that the speech was rambling and weak on substance. The President seemed to lack energy. He has begun to appear to me to be like one of my cousins - a persons who enjoys pursuing and getting a job and having a title, but not a person who actually wants to do the job.
The anticipated graceful pivot away from Health Insurance Reform to jobs and the economy was more like a bat-turn. He has left his party in the House and Senate to clean up the mess and an encouraging pat on the back. He even tried to play the House of Representatives against the Senate.
His gratuitous jab at the Supreme Court was extremely inappropriate in style and incorrect in substance. A constitutional law professor should know better.
The President - like a skier on a slolum course - demonized and stigmatized the usual target - President Bush - and then called for cooperation and bipartisanship. As time goes on people will weary of the President's "blame it backward" strategy. At some point he will have to take responsibility.
President Obama made some attempts to sound centrist and populists. With rare exceptions his proposed policies are a continuation of his far left agenda. He attempted to place himself on the side of the people and against Washington. The problem is that he and his party own Washington. They are Washington and the Lobbyists.
The President is either confused or duplicitous in equating tax credits with tax cuts. Tax cuts are for everyone who pays taxes. Tax credits are ways that the government encourages specific behavior for specific constituencies. For example, the doubling of the Child Care Tax Credit will help only parents who place their children in day care. Families who have made the decision to have one parent stay at home recieve no tax credit.
The President has moved from attempting to stigmatize "Big Oil" to "Big Pharma" to "Big Insurance." Now he is focusing on "Big Banks" and Wall Street. His proposal in the past week to tax banks that have taken (and paid back) the TARP to generate funds for other programs is punitive and misdirected. The financial markets have reacted this last week - take a look at your pension!
The President's proposed spending freeze is a transparent fraud. It does not address the real federal budget crisis, is announced after expenditures have increased, and do not take effect until after the 2010 elections. This was a clumsy political stunt.
The President made only a nod in the direction of national security. He spent as much time on his concern for for terror by infectious diseases as he did on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, trials and imprisonments of enemy combatants, the global conflict against Islamic Fascism, and the nuclear threats of North Korea and Iran. He ignored the striving for freedom in Iran. We heard simply more of the same - withdrawal, sanctions, and growing "pressure." The Presidents foreign and national security policies are weak and dangerous. His heart is not in protecting the United States, its values, and its people.
He gave lip service to the military and veterans, but the only substantive policy promise was to work to change the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that will allow homosexuals to serve openly in the military.
I have nothing against homosexuals as persons, though I do not agree with their lifestyle choice. That is another matter. As a retired military officer, it is very simple. When the bullets are flying and I have a mission I want as few complications as possible. I want nothing that will degrade the unity and effectiveness of my command.
As a nation we must decide what we want from our military - social engineering or victory in battle. If we want social engineering, then we shall have a military of the likes of Belgium. If we want a military that protects the people and values of the United States and the western world, then leave the military alone. The reason that western Europe and Canada could have military forces that were "socially enlightened" (and militarily weak) was that the United States military protected them.
President Obama needs to go where he was during the campaign - toward the center. He will find many of us waiting for him their. If he cannot bring himself to do that, then it is not so bad obstucting a misguided agenda.
I shall be a part of the loyal opposition.
President Obama pushed back against critics, including the former head of the Democratic Party, who have said that the health care bill in the Senate is fatally flawed and should be scrapped altogether. In an interview with ABC News' Charles Gibson, the president said he laid out for Congress specific things he wanted to see in the health care legislation - including providing insurance for millions of uninsured and not driving up the deficit -- and that the current bill still has those benefits. “Now, if you can tell me that those things are not worth it, then you and I have a very different opinion about what the task is here,” he said.
But Dr. Howard Dean, former Democratic National Committee chairman and a medical doctor, charged this week that the Senate bill has been so watered down that it is no longer worth supporting. There are some good elements in the current health care bill, Dean said Wednesday on Good Morning America, but “at this point, the bill does more harm than good.”
Nevertheless, President Obama expressed confidence that the legislation will ultimately pass, but he indicated that it may not provide immediate results and it may be several years before the American people see real progress in health care. “If I can say at the end of my first term that, you know what, we are poised to deliver on the promise of health care after the legislation has passed, I think that'll be important,” he said. The president stressed that failure to act on health care would be dire. If Congress does not pass legislation that will bring down the spiraling costs of health care, the federal government will go bankrupt, President Obama told Gibson.
“If we don't pass it, here's the guarantee: ... Your premiums will go up, your employers are going to load up more costs on you,” he said. “Potentially, they're going to drop your coverage, because they just can't afford an increase of 25 percent, 30 percent in terms of the costs of providing health care to employees each and every year.”
QUESTION: Do you think the health care bill in the Senate is flawed or is it still worth supporting?
COMMENT: The health insurance bill in the Senate is fiscally, politically, and morally flawed and never was worth supporting.
Talk about scare tactics! The President has now warned that seriously dire consequences will occur unless the Senate bill is passed! He did not give the same warning with the House bill. I wonder why? Maybe he is becoming desperate to pass anything so that he may declare a political victory. In the meantime those who have been his strongest constituents - the left of the Democratic Party - are abandoning him
Let us not confuse our terminology. The bill passed by the House and the bill under consideration by the Senate do not address health care. They are health insurance or health payment bills. They do nothing to improve health care.
It has been suggested by the President and others that doing “something” (and often “anything”) rather than nothing, is a moral imperative. Well, that is stepping onto my turf, so let me address that issue.
So often I have been told as a conservative Christian that I should not seek to enact my moral views into laws. It appears that such an effort is fine, however, for liberals!
Where is the foundation for this moral imperative that government provide health insurance for all persons, or that government require all persons to purchase a particular product (in this case health insurance) so that all persons may have that product? Where is the Biblical mandate that government should take care of my every need and remove from me all responsibilities?
If it is a moral imperative that the United States government should provide health insurance, what is so moral about limiting this assistance to only US citizens? By extension, if it is morally imperative for Americans to have health insurance, then it is for all humanity as well. Our morality should not stop at the border!
I am not a literalist. I do not demand from the Bible that there be a specific commandment: “Thou shalt provide health insurance.” I do want to know the Biblical basis for the assertion of a moral imperative.
The Bible certainly give witness to the demand that persons in the community of faith - brothers and sisters in Christ, and the people of God called Israel - care for one another with love that is sacrificial. We are to give special attention to the least among us.
We should demand to be held to this high standard of love within our congregations. We should stop turning over to the government our moral imperatives.
