• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama pulls plug on part of health overhaul law

CLASS was a voluntary insurance plan to help provide long-term care for the elderly and infirm. The bill required that the trust fund be solvent over a 75-year period. Not enough people signed up (funded) for it to be solvent over that period of time.

Why didn't people sign up? It would have been less expensive than private long-term care policies. Publicity? How many people knew about it? It was not funded to be marketed adequately. People not have enough extra income to spend for something 30 years down the road? People not have any income to spend for something 30 years down the road? All of the above?

Before the bill passed the CBO predicted 5% of the population would sign up, the CMS actuary said 2.5%, and AAA (American Academy of Actuaries) said 6%. About 5% of Americans currently have private long-term-care insurance.

The problem with the program, ironically, was the lack of a mandate. No one in his right mind would sign up for the insurance until he really needed it. Thus, there wouldn't be a big enough pool to cover benefits.
 
The problem with the program, ironically, was the lack of a mandate. No one in his right mind would sign up for the insurance until he really needed it. Thus, there wouldn't be a big enough pool to cover benefits.

Which is, for all intents and purposes, socialism. Now class, what is socialism called when it's forced, or mandated, onto a population?
 
Which is, for all intents and purposes, socialism. Now class, what is socialism called when it's forced, or mandated, onto a population?

I suggest you look up the actual definition of socialism instead of using it as a generic term for everything you don't like.
 
Considering that Obamacare was nothing, but a re-hashed Republican bill from the early 90's, it was doomed to fail.
 
Re: Administration Dismantles Significant Piece of Obamacare

Yeah. Hopefully we'll get a much better single-payer system implemented soon.

it won't be soon, but my guess is that it's heading that way eventually. private, employment-based programs are becoming an unaffordable solution for more and more Americans each year. recently, i became one of them.
 
Re: Administration Dismantles Significant Piece of Obamacare

CBO estimated that CLASS would lower short-term deficits but that it would increase deficits in the long term, so it was of course never claimed to be "a major 'cost savings'". Typical BS.
Care to cough up a source? I read CLASS made up $70 billion of the $124 billion in total BOCare savings over the ten year projection......that came from the WSJ today. Maybe you think that is irrelevant, I don't. Typical BS.
 
The Dems had the votes to not need the GOP. They couldn't even agree with each other, the GOP should have?

They did. But the entire townhall that went with the death panel stuff, too often promoted by republicans and tea party folk, damaged the entire process. We ahve always seen such dishohesty in the health care debate. Obama sought to try and weaken it by seeking compromise, throwing in republican ideas, to which republicans turned on a dime to no longer support.

It was his biggest mistake.

Real reform will never be done with republicans. I wish I could say differently. I also wish democrats were more disciplined and able to aline in order to get something done. But neither is currently true.
 
They did. But the entire townhall that went with the death panel stuff, too often promoted by republicans and tea party folk, damaged the entire process. We ahve always seen such dishohesty in the health care debate. Obama sought to try and weaken it by seeking compromise, throwing in republican ideas, to which republicans turned on a dime to no longer support.

It was his biggest mistake.

Real reform will never be done with republicans. I wish I could say differently. I also wish democrats were more disciplined and able to aline in order to get something done. But neither is currently true.

When it was noted that things like we have here were never going to work the same complaints were made.
 
I suggest you look up the actual definition of socialism instead of using it as a generic term for everything you don't like.

Socialism is a political term applied to an economic system in which property is held in common and not individually. Insurance, of any kind, is socialism. You pay in, "property", which is then held by the company, representing the "common", or collective, and is accessed based on need. In health insurance, healthy people, who don't really need health care, but for in anyway, fund those who DO need health care. IE. Socialism.

Now, again, class, when socialism is mandated, or forced, what does it become?
 
Re: Administration Dismantles Significant Piece of Obamacare

Care to cough up a source? I read CLASS made up $70 billion of the $124 billion in total BOCare savings over the ten year projection......that came from the WSJ today. Maybe you think that is irrelevant, I don't. Typical BS.

CLASS was one of the "we start collecting years before we start paying" things - so they set it up to collect premiums for 5 years before it began to actually provide care. Since the CBO stopped grading at the ten year mark (and since CLASS didnt' start for another three years), they were able to "reduce the budget" by getting credit for five years of collection and two years of payment.
 
When it was noted that things like we have here were never going to work the same complaints were made.

Not sure exactly what you're saying, but dishonesty should always be complained about. This issue needs to be discussed honestly with the lies and exaggerations on both sides. What we got was a result of the lies, which hindered discussion. Obama should not have seeked compromise, as much as I like compromise, with people who clearly will not ever truely try to reform health care. From Harry and Louise to Death panels, they will always try to distort the issue. And no, I don't think such distortions are limited to one side, or one issue, but on this issue, the greater, more egregious lies came from republicans and tea party types.
 
Not sure exactly what you're saying, but dishonesty should always be complained about. This issue needs to be discussed honestly with the lies and exaggerations on both sides. What we got was a result of the lies, which hindered discussion. Obama should not have seeked compromise, as much as I like compromise, with people who clearly will not ever truely try to reform health care. From Harry and Louise to Death panels, they will always try to distort the issue. And no, I don't think such distortions are limited to one side, or one issue, but on this issue, the greater, more egregious lies came from republicans and tea party types.

Refusing to discuss "death panels" was the dishonest position. To lower costs we are going to have to go here. "No, we will not pay for your 85 year old grandpa's transplant".

Other countries with government controlled health care are doing this. We will have to sooner or later regardless also. Both sides were dishonest here.
 
Considering that Obamacare was nothing, but a re-hashed Republican bill from the early 90's, it was doomed to fail.

I would love to see a copy of this "Republican bill". Care to post it or a link to it ???

A couple of conservative pundits wrote about healthcare reform that had some elements of Obama Care, which does NOT mean it was a "Republican idea".
 
Refusing to discuss "death panels" was the dishonest position. To lower costs we are going to have to go here. "No, we will not pay for your 85 year old grandpa's transplant".

Other countries with government controlled health care are doing this. We will have to sooner or later regardless also. Both sides were dishonest here.

We don't pay for them now, and it's not a death panel. This is the point. It's a dishonest representation.

No, we can't pay for everything. We can't now. And panels with every insurance comapny, and at our own kitichen tables makes these decicions daily, and none of it can be called a death panle honestly. Language matters, and how we present something matters. When we do so dishonestly, we corrupt the discourse.
 
Refusing to discuss "death panels" was the dishonest position. To lower costs we are going to have to go here. "No, we will not pay for your 85 year old grandpa's transplant".

.

Uhmm the cut off age for a heart transplant is 65. And that was before the ACA.
 
We don't pay for them now, and it's not a death panel. This is the point. It's a dishonest representation.

No, we can't pay for everything. We can't now. And panels with every insurance comapny, and at our own kitichen tables makes these decicions daily, and none of it can be called a death panle honestly. Language matters, and how we present something matters. When we do so dishonestly, we corrupt the discourse.

Someone asking for civil, honest language in political discourse? On the Internet?! The outrage!

Well said, Boo.
 
We don't pay for them now, and it's not a death panel. This is the point. It's a dishonest representation.

No, we can't pay for everything. We can't now. And panels with every insurance comapny, and at our own kitichen tables makes these decicions daily, and none of it can be called a death panle honestly. Language matters, and how we present something matters. When we do so dishonestly, we corrupt the discourse.
Its a Death Panel......period. Neither the patient or the family will be involved in these decisions, some unelected bureaucrats will decide when Granny takes the blue pill and goes home to die ...... those are BO's words.
 
Its a Death Panel......period. Neither the patient or the family will be involved in these decisions, some unelected bureaucrats will decide when Granny takes the blue pill and goes home to die ...... those are BO's words.

No, it isn't. And it is dishonest to call it such. And you're misrepresenting Obama's words. We really shouldn't have to go through this again. There is no place for such dishonesty in reasonable discourrse.
 
Ok, stop playing word games and be honest.

No word games. There is no death panel. It is dishonest to call anything being discussed in reform as a death panel. You misrepresented Obama's words. That's a fact. I'm sorry, but the dishonesty here is not on my part.
 
We don't pay for them now, and it's not a death panel. This is the point. It's a dishonest representation.

"We"? I'm guessing it is their insurance that pays. While transplants aren't real common, heart surgery on the elderly is. When we say "no" what should we call it other than a statement to go home and die?

No, we can't pay for everything. We can't now. And panels with every insurance comapny, and at our own kitichen tables makes these decicions daily, and none of it can be called a death panle honestly. Language matters, and how we present something matters. When we do so dishonestly, we corrupt the discourse.

Honestly it can. It may make you uncomfortable but in plain language this is what they are. Deciding who will live and who will die.
 
No, it isn't. And it is dishonest to call it such. And you're misrepresenting Obama's words. We really shouldn't have to go through this again. There is no place for such dishonesty in reasonable discourrse.

This has nothing to do with Obama.
 
as if "death panels" don't already exist in the private insurance industry.
 
as if "death panels" don't already exist in the private insurance industry.

They do. That's my point. Why the gnashing of teeth over what simply is?
 
Back
Top Bottom