Well, it only took seven-plus months, but the MSM has finally caught up with us:
"[G]overnment experts repeatedly warned that a new long-term care insurance plan could go belly up, saddling taxpayers with another underfunded benefit program, according to emails disclosed by congressional investigators."
Actually, we could have saved these investigators some time (and the taxpayers some cold hard cash), if they'd only simply read this:
"[A] plan that's guaranteed issue, with (ostensibly) no waiting or elimination period and "unlimited" benefits is not exactly a candidate for "most stable rates." In fact, the only real "certainty" is that rates will increase, perhaps quickly and dramatically, as those least able to find real long term care insurance (LTCi) flock to the government plan."
But we weren't even the first to draw this (rather obvious) conclusion:
"Seems like a recipe for disaster to me," William Marton, a senior aging policy official in the administration, wrote in an October 2009 email."
The problem, as both Mr Marton and our own fine selves pointed out, is that this type of plan will attract those least able to qualify for underwritten plans. That is, only the least healthy are going to want to sign up for a plan with a five-year waiting period, coupled with rates based on guaranteed acceptance. It is a recipe for disaster, which has been long known and discussed.
And there's this: recall that one of the most contentious pieces of ObamneyCare© is the (Evil) Mandate. The ostensible justification for the Mandate is that, without it, the guaranteed issue and community rating aspects won't fly. And so it may very well be for the CLASS(less) Act: without a mandate that all eligible workers participate, the program is unsustainable.
Of course, like everything else in ObamneyCare©, we had to pass it to learn just how awful it is.
"[G]overnment experts repeatedly warned that a new long-term care insurance plan could go belly up, saddling taxpayers with another underfunded benefit program, according to emails disclosed by congressional investigators."
Actually, we could have saved these investigators some time (and the taxpayers some cold hard cash), if they'd only simply read this:
"[A] plan that's guaranteed issue, with (ostensibly) no waiting or elimination period and "unlimited" benefits is not exactly a candidate for "most stable rates." In fact, the only real "certainty" is that rates will increase, perhaps quickly and dramatically, as those least able to find real long term care insurance (LTCi) flock to the government plan."
But we weren't even the first to draw this (rather obvious) conclusion:
"Seems like a recipe for disaster to me," William Marton, a senior aging policy official in the administration, wrote in an October 2009 email."
The problem, as both Mr Marton and our own fine selves pointed out, is that this type of plan will attract those least able to qualify for underwritten plans. That is, only the least healthy are going to want to sign up for a plan with a five-year waiting period, coupled with rates based on guaranteed acceptance. It is a recipe for disaster, which has been long known and discussed.
And there's this: recall that one of the most contentious pieces of ObamneyCare© is the (Evil) Mandate. The ostensible justification for the Mandate is that, without it, the guaranteed issue and community rating aspects won't fly. And so it may very well be for the CLASS(less) Act: without a mandate that all eligible workers participate, the program is unsustainable.
Of course, like everything else in ObamneyCare©, we had to pass it to learn just how awful it is.
Posts
