The Continuing Saga Of CLASS

[scagnt83]

I think the CLASS Act IS a good thing for the country.

1) It will NOT use any taxpayer dollars.
2) It will NOT "go bankrupt" because the secretary of HHS is required to raise premiums AND/OR lower benefits to keep the program solvent.
3) It will help the poor stay out of nursing homes.
4) It will raise awareness for everyone else to plan for the risk of long-term care.
5) It will help to reduce Medicaid expenditures.


All of these points are a good thing.

If you'd read the actual legislation instead of reading what other people say the law says, you'd realize that my points are fact.

nadm

Go back and read the original legislation for SS & Medicare... it had the same safety nets in it once upon a time... so I guess you think that they are financially solvent programs that never use tax payer dollars either since thats how the original legislation reads...


And lets not forget the fact that HHS has already stated that CLASS is not sustainable in its current form!!!

Not only that, but they are also in the process of re-writing it. So who knows what the end result will be.

Personally, I think that if Obama is reelected in 2012 they will try to turn it into a mandatory program (its the only way it would be sustainable, & was probably the plan all along)

 

[Mr_Ed]

"I think the CLASS Act IS a good thing for the country"
1) It will NOT use any taxpayer dollars.
2) It will NOT "go bankrupt" because the secretary of HHS is required to raise premiums AND/OR lower benefits to keep the program solvent.
3) It will help the poor stay out of nursing homes.
4) It will raise awareness for everyone else to plan for the risk of long-term care.
5) It will help to reduce Medicaid expenditures.

All of these points are a good thing.

You can't possibly believe what you wrote. Each point you make is so ludicrous, I won't insult you by even addressing your post.

I guess you believe everything this administration tells you.
Pretty sad.....................

You can't address my post because you can't refute the facts. You have no recourse but resort to argumentum ad hominem. You have to label me as some brain-dead-left-winger who watches MSNBC all day and believes "whatever I'm told by this administration".

Get a brain, Arthur. Try examining the facts.

You base your opinions about "what you've been told" about the CLASS Act by people who haven't even read the legislation.

If you'd read the legislation you'd see that the first three points are true and are exactly what the law says.

You're against the CLASS Act for what it "might become" not for what it is. Do you really think that the Secretary of HHS will violate the law, risk going to prison, and somehow steal taxpayer dollars? You can't be that ignorant.

I don't like the rest of the PPACA. The CLASS Act is the only thing in the PPACA worth keeping.

nadm

 

[scagnt83]

I think the CLASS Act IS a good thing for the country.

1) It will NOT use any taxpayer dollars.
The government always says this
They can only raise premiums so much before it becomes unaffordable; and they cant just not pay benefits, so how do you think they will fund the unfunded benefits?

Oh wait!! I have the answer.... they will just print the money!


2) It will NOT "go bankrupt" because the secretary of HHS is required to raise premiums AND/OR lower benefits to keep the program solvent.

Refer to number one/ so they are going to lower benefits... is there a guaranteed floor?? Thats a recipe for extreme overpayment imo.

If they do indeed stay away from taxing to fund it, then how low do you think the benefits will go for a pool of unhealthy (mostly low income) people?

But that probably wont matter, because the gov will just force care facilities/providers to take whatever they pay them (think medicare/medicaid, but w/ all high risk people)

3) It will help the poor stay out of nursing homes.
Why dont you explain this one a bit more if you dont mind..

But keep in mind my above statements about benefit levels vs. premiums, caretaker payments, & the fact that most of the poor are not as financially savvy as higher income people; so they are less likely to know if an insurance program is a fair deal or not.


4) It will raise awareness for everyone else to plan for the risk of long-term care.

They could do this through ad campaigns a lot cheaper and more effectively. (think stop smoking ads on tv)

5) It will help to reduce Medicaid expenditures.

By moving the cost to "CLASS expenditures".... its all coming out of the same bucket once the program goes into the red..

So tell me why an insurable person would take part in CLASS?
Would the future benefits be better than LTCI?
More guaranteed than LTCI?
More options than LTCI?
More affordable than LTCI?


They basically made an "uninsurable" LTCI program, because thats the only ones who will take part in it. And how many of those uninsurables will be able to afford the future premium hikes that will be required to keep it solvent when no healthy people join?

 

[Arthur Rudnick]

"You have to label me as some brain-dead-left-winger who watches MSNBC all day and believes whatever I'm told by this administration"

Well put Scotty...........

And, the fact that you live on the Left coast also confirms your statement.

For your information, I did read the legislation and just like everyone else who has read it (from the unbiased to the government's own appointed committees), everyone on the planet says this program is nothing more than a scam that's unsustainable and will be forced to use taxpayer's dollars within 15 years. (I believe the word Ponzi Scheme was used a number of times) The purpose of CLASS is to generate $75 billion dollars worth premiums in the first 5 years that won't be used for claims.

Do you think that just maybe, those $75 billion is there to offset the cost of Obama-Care?

Do you mean to say that in order to keep the program viable, HHS will just lower the benefits to $5.00/day and raise premiums to $1,800/month? Great idea.

Oh, that's right, the legislation says taxpayers dollars can't be used.

The Law also states that the government is responsible for our $119 TRILLION Social Security Trust Fund. But guess what? In spite of the law, the Fund is due to go broke in 20 years. Maybe the taxpayers will have to make up that money?

Oh, I forgot, Social Security is supposed to be self-sustaining, so taxpayers will never have to contribute.

Brain-Dead?......................... You said it, not me.

 

[Mr_Ed]

"You have to label me as some brain-dead-left-winger who watches MSNBC all day and believes whatever I'm told by this administration"

Well put Scotty...........

And, the fact that you live on the Left coast also confirms your statement.

For your information, I did read the legislation and just like everyone else who has read it (from the unbiased to the government's own appointed committees), everyone on the planet says this program is nothing more than a scam that's unsustainable and will be forced to use taxpayer's dollars within 15 years. (I believe the word Ponzi Scheme was used a number of times) The purpose of CLASS is to generate $75 billion dollars worth premiums in the first 5 years that won't be used for claims.

Do you think that just maybe, those $75 billion is there to offset the cost of Obama-Care?

Do you mean to say that in order to keep the program viable, HHS will just lower the benefits to $5.00/day and raise premiums to $1,800/month? Great idea.

Oh, that's right, the legislation says taxpayers dollars can't be used.

The Law also states that the government is responsible for our $119 TRILLION Social Security Trust Fund. But guess what? In spite of the law, the Fund is due to go broke in 20 years. Maybe the taxpayers will have to make up that money?

Oh, I forgot, Social Security is supposed to be self-sustaining, so taxpayers will never have to contribute.

Brain-Dead?......................... You said it, not me.

So you're against the CLASS Act because in 15 years it might become unsustainable--even though the law specifically states that the benefits must be reduced AND/OR the premiums must be increased in order to keep the program financially viable for 75 years?

You must not have read the legislation because the legislation contradicts what you're saying. (Then again maybe you did read it, but you just don't understand what you read.)

"Left-coast"? I've from New Joisey. Look it up on google maps.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

So tell me why an insurable person would take part in CLASS?
Would the future benefits be better than LTCI?
More guaranteed than LTCI?
More options than LTCI?
More affordable than LTCI?


They basically made an "uninsurable" LTCI program, because thats the only ones who will take part in it. And how many of those uninsurables will be able to afford the future premium hikes that will be required to keep it solvent when no healthy people join?

The CLASS Act has underwriting. In fact the underwriting in the CLASS Act is MORE stringent than the underwriting in some of the group LTCi policies offered today.

In order to qualify for the CLASS Act someone must work for at least 3 years and they can't qualify for benefits until they've paid premiums for 5 years. That is A LOT tougher than many of the group LTCi policies that have guaranteed issue or modified guaranteed issue.


nadm

 

[Arthur Rudnick]

You must not have read the legislation because the legislation contradicts what you're saying. (Then again maybe you did read it, but you just don't understand what you read.)

Good point......
Actually, I did read it but I didn't understand it.
I mean I didn't read it, but I do understand it. Then again, why should I read it OR understand it when you have a pretty good handle on it and I can always ask you to expalin it to me.

"legislation contradicts what you're saying"

And, common sense contradicts what you're saying.

"The CLASS Act has underwriting. In fact the underwriting in the CLASS Act is MORE stringent than
the underwriting in some of the group LTCi policies offered today.

In order to qualify for the CLASS Act someone must
work for at least 3 years and they can't qualify for benefits until they've paid premiums for 5 years. That is A LOT tougher than many of the group LTCi policies that have guaranteed issue or modified guaranteed issue"

Now THAT'S a brilliant statement. Someone who has MS and is in a wheelchair, but has worked for 3 years can get a Guaranteed Issue policy.

Someone who is a parapalegic but works, can get a Guaranteed Issue policy.

Someone who had a leg amputated due to diabetic complications, but has worked for 3 years can get a Guaranteed Issue policy.

You call working for 3 years tough underwriting?

Do you honestly believe what you wrote?

You sound like someone who started in this business yesterday.

Whether you want to admit it or not, the feds have written lots of laws in the past that at the end of the day, doesn't work as promised.

Prohibition was legislated and it was the law of the land. How'd that work out?

I'm not sure, but I think that murder was legislated to be against the law. But, people get murdered everyday.

So again, you obviously believe everything Mr. Obama & crew tells you.

 

[Mr_Ed]

I'm against the PPACA, except for the portion of the legislation entitled the "CLASS Act".

 

[scagnt83]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The CLASS Act has underwriting. In fact the underwriting in the CLASS Act is MORE stringent than the underwriting in some of the group LTCi policies offered today.

In order to qualify for the CLASS Act someone must work for at least 3 years and they can't qualify for benefits until they've paid premiums for 5 years. That is A LOT tougher than many of the group LTCi policies that have guaranteed issue or modified guaranteed issue.


nadm

I dont consider "working for 3 years" tough at all! Are you kidding?

And having to pay for 5 isn't a big deal either.


I have dealt with plenty of uninsurables who have had employment for much longer than 3 years.


Employment is (should be) a very small part of LTC underwriting.

So tell us what health requirements it has....

 

[VolAgent]

I dont consider "working for 3 years" tough at all! Are you kidding?

And having to pay for 5 isn't a big deal either.


I have dealt with plenty of uninsurables who have had employment for much longer than 3 years.


Employment is (should be) a very small part of LTC underwriting.

So tell us what health requirements it has....

This is mean, but have you seen a Wal-mart greeter lately? 3 years of employment is nothing.

 

[Arthur Rudnick]

Employment is (should be) a very small part of LTC underwriting.

So tell us what health requirements it has....

There is NO medical underwriting at all in order to be a CLASS Act policyholder, other than having a job for 3 years.

This is a Guaranteed Issue product, as in:
If you have had a job for 3 years, you are guaranteed a policy.

Great concept with every uninsurable person jumping in first, commonally referred to as a "death spiral" which in spite of some earlier comments, make this program unsustainable, no matter how you color it.

It's not in the legislation, but i'm assuming the applicnt has to be breathing............ but I'm not certain.

Oh, and if you're 18 yrs old, your premium is $5.00/month and if you're at the poverty level, your premium is $5.00/month.

Two great groups to target for private LTCi.