Major Portion of Affordable Care Act Axed

  • News
  • Thread starter CAC1001
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Act Major
In summary, the administration killed a major portion of the healthcare law, the CLASS program, due to its financial unworkability after months of claiming the opposite. The program was estimated to contribute $80 billion towards deficit reduction, but now that it is no longer viable, it will not contribute to reducing the deficit. This calls into question the entire Affordable Care Act, as it raises concerns about other assumptions and estimates made in the bill. The CBO warned about the potential deficit increase from the CLASS program, but the congressional leadership at the time asked a specific and misleading question to show a reduction in deficit. The program was also criticized as a budget gimmick and not a reliable solution for long-term care. Overall, this raises doubts about the credibility
  • #1
CAC1001
Last Friday, the administration killed a major portion of the healthcare law, called CLASS, or the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports program (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/10/14/ap/health/main20120670.shtml ). Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius acknowledged that the program was simply not financially workable, this after months of saying the opposite, that they'd be able to make it work. Her department tried for nineteen months to figure that out, but couldn't. A big part of the reason why is that it was a voluntary program, and thus in order to be workable, a second mandate to the healthcare law would have been required.

An important thing to note however is that the CLASS program was one of the main deficit-reduction measures the Affordable Care Act employed. The CBO had estimated that the CLASS program would contribute about $80 billion towards deficit reduction, which now isn't going to happen.

To me, this goes back to the argument regarding the impossibility of actually figuring out the cost of big, complex pieces of legislation such as the AFA, no matter how honest and brilliant the people at the CBO are. The CBO scored the program as reducing the deficit. The proponents of the AFA criticize Republicans who want to repeal the AFA by saying that doing so will increase the deficit.

The Republicans pointed out that this cost was arrived at by relying on various assumptions, estimates, and so forth, and thus was untrustworthy. And here we see a prime example. It was assumed that the CLASS program would be workable (even though from the get-go, this had been called into question). By assuming it would be workable, the CBO estimated it would contribute to deficit reduction. But now we see that it is not workable, meaning it will not reduce the deficit, which means the CBO was incorrect.

Another point this makes for me is that the Republicans were criticized for questioning the integrity of the CBO. The Republicans never questioned the CBO's integrity (at least as far as I know). Their major contention was that no matter how honest, the CBO's claims simply were not credible because of the above (the assumptions, the estimates, the overall complexity and size of the bill, etc...).

The thing is, this now calls into question the entire bill I think. If a major mistake was made regarding how a major portion of the bill would contribute to deficit reduction, what other assumptions were made regarding other portions of the bill to make it seem cost-effective?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
If we refer back to Nancy Pelosi's now famous line regarding passing the Bill - then find out the details. My guess is the CBO was only able to score the parts that were actually written - many specifics were not fully described in detail in the final Bill - were they?
 
  • #3
The CBO pointed out the problem at the time. It only reduced the deficit because it collected taxes for ten years and paid benefits for five in the window that the CBO was mandated to evaluate it. This is what the Director said in 2009:

CBO estimates that the proposal’s net effect on the federal budget would be to reduce the budget deficit by about $58 billion during the 2010–2019 period, including some effects on federal revenues and Medicaid spending. In CBO’s analysis, the real (inflation-adjusted) average monthly premium was assumed to be $65, and the real daily benefit was assumed to average about $75. The estimated reduction in the federal budget deficit over the next 10 years is chiefly the result of the five-year vesting requirement; the payout of benefits would not begin until 2016, five years after the initial enrollment in 2011.

and later in that same document,

Overall, CBO estimates, if the Secretary did not modify the program to ensure its actuarial soundness, the program would add to future federal budget deficits in a large and growing fashion beginning a few years beyond the 10-year budget window. If the Secretary did act to ensure the program’s solvency, the program and its effects on Medicaid spending and revenues might—or might not—add to future budget deficits, depending on the specific actions that were taken.

The congressional leadership at the time knew that this would increase the deficit, and they asked the CBO to answer a very specific and misleading question to show otherwise, and the CBO answered it. But you can see that they tried to tell people that while they were legally obligated to answer the specific question asked of them - what would be the affect on the budget with 10 years of taxes and 5 years of benefits - they did try and alert people to the fact that this was a misleading question and that any savings were smoke and mirrors.

As expected, the only people that believed them or cared were those who were predisposed to oppose the bill anyway.
 
  • #4
Hate to say this, but I'm confused. Care to boil things down?
 
  • #5
DoggerDan said:
Hate to say this, but I'm confused. Care to boil things down?

In 2010 even CNN said CLASS was a gimmick. my bold

http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/20/news/economy/cbo_reconciliation/index.htm

"Create a new long-term care insurance program: The bill will create the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports Act to help seniors in need of help with daily tasks such as bathing and dressing. Those who enroll in the program will have to pay premiums into the program for five years before being eligible for benefits.

In the first 10 years, the program it is expected to take in more money than it pays out, which is why the CBO says it would reduce the deficit by $70 billion. But in the second decade and beyond, the program is projected to pay out more than it takes in, and will therefore contribute to the deficit.

That's why some say that the CLASS Act is a budget gimmick that will not contribute to the potential of health reform to reduce the deficit."

***

If we reflect back a moment - this Bill was sold (Obama, Reid, and Pelosi) as both the answer to the deficit and a jobs creator - wasn't it?
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-claims-health-care-reform-will-create-thous/
"The health care bill will "create 4 million jobs, 400,000 jobs almost immediately.""

"To be clear: Pelosi was not arguing that the bill would literally put people to work in the field of health care. Rather, she claims that cheaper health care will allow businesses to hire more workers, thus creating more jobs. "
***

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/03/18/us-usa-healthcare-idUSTRE61O4NV20100318
"Obama said the healthcare bill, which has faced solid Republican opposition, represented "the most significant effort to reduce deficits since the Balanced Budget Act" of 1993."
 

Related to Major Portion of Affordable Care Act Axed

What is the "Major Portion of Affordable Care Act Axed"?

The "Major Portion of Affordable Care Act Axed" refers to the elimination of the individual mandate, which required all Americans to have health insurance or face a penalty, as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act passed in December 2017.

Why was the individual mandate eliminated?

The individual mandate was eliminated as part of the Republican party's efforts to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. They argued that the individual mandate was a burden on taxpayers and limited individual freedom.

What impact does the elimination of the individual mandate have?

The elimination of the individual mandate means that individuals will no longer face a penalty for not having health insurance. This may result in some individuals choosing to forgo health insurance, which could lead to higher premiums for those who do have insurance.

Will other parts of the Affordable Care Act be affected by the elimination of the individual mandate?

Yes, the individual mandate was a key component of the Affordable Care Act and its removal may have implications for other parts of the law. For example, without the individual mandate, the stability of the insurance market may be impacted and subsidies for low-income individuals may also be affected.

What is the future of the Affordable Care Act without the individual mandate?

The future of the Affordable Care Act without the individual mandate is uncertain. Some experts believe that without the mandate, the law may become unsustainable and require significant changes. Others argue that the impact may not be as significant as expected, and the law may continue to function effectively without the individual mandate.

Similar threads

Replies
65
Views
8K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
81
Views
5K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
69
Views
8K
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • Programming and Computer Science
Replies
29
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Back
Top