Skip Navigation
Megan McArdle

Megan McArdle - Megan McArdle is a senior editor for The Atlantic who writes about business and economics. She has worked at three start-ups, a consulting firm, an investment bank, a disaster recovery firm at Ground Zero, and The Economist. She is currently on leave.
More

Megan was born and raised on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, and yes, she does enjoy her lattes, as well as the occasional extra-dry skim-milk cappuccino. Her checkered work history includes three start-ups, four years as a technology project manager for a boutique consulting firm, a summer as an associate at an investment bank, and a year spent as sort of an executive copy girl for one of the disaster-recovery firms at Ground Zero � all before the age of 30.

While working at Ground Zero, Megan started Live From the WTC, a blog focused on economics, business, and cooking. She may or may not have been the first major economics blogger, depending on whether we are allowed to throw outlying variables such as Brad Delong out of the set. From there it was but a few steps down the slippery slope to freelance journalism. She has worked in various capacities for The Economist, where she wrote about economics and oversaw the founding of Free Exchange, the magazine's economics blog. She has also maintained her own blog, Asymmetrical Information, which moved to The Atlantic, along with its owner, in August 2007.

Megan holds a bachelor's degree in English literature from the University of Pennsylvania and an M.B.A. from the University of Chicago. After a lifetime as a New Yorker, she now resides in northwest Washington, D.C., where she is still trying to figure out what one does with an apartment larger than 400 square feet.

An UnCLASS-y Act

By Megan McArdle
Oct 17 2011, 11:10 AM ET Comment

I was traveling on Friday, so I missed blogging about the untimely demise of the CLASS Act, the long-term care program long-dreamed-of by Ted Kennedy which helpfully added over $70 billion to ObamaCare's projected deficit reduction over the ten-year CBO forecast window . . . before blowing up into another monstrous, budget-busting entitlement.


HHS, which was required to certify that the program was sustainable, couldn't, and thus it is no more.  The program has taken about half of ObamaCare's projected deficit reduction to the grave with it.  Conservatives are having a field day, but Kevin Drum argues that this is actually good news:

Yesterday the Obama administration finally abandoned the CLASS Act, a program to subsidize long-term elderly care that was part of the healthcare reform bill. Conservatives are in full war whoop mode over this, and I suppose I don't blame them. The budget forecasts for CLASS were always dodgy, and conservative concerns about this have now been vindicated.

But they should contain themselves anyway. What happened here is that government worked exactly the way it ought to. The CLASS Act was passed in a fog of rosy estimates and emotional appeals (it was one of Ted Kennedy's longstanding priorities), and the Department of Health and Human Services immediately began the detailed work of writing the implementing regulations to get it up and running. And guess what? They did their work honestly and conscientiously. Even though it was a liberal program promoted by a longtime liberal icon, HHS analysts eventually concluded that its conservative critics were right and the program as passed was flawed. So they killed it. And most of the liberal healthcare wonks that I read seem to agree that, unfortunately, HHS was right.

This is how we all want government to work.

It is of course, great news that the administration has not actually gone forward and implemented an unsustainable program that would have had disastrous effects on the federal budget.  But it's not great news that HHS has found that the program was just as disastrous as conservatives said it was . . . yet a Democratic Congress, deep in the passion of their historic moment, passed the damn thing anyway.  It's in fact deeply troubling.  The problems with CLASS were known from day one, but no one listened, because it gave them good numbers to sell their program politically.


Now it turns out that ObamaCare reduces the deficit over ten years by about $70 billion instead of $140 billion.  Only . . . what about all the other stuff that had problems, like the reimbursement cuts that both Medicare's chief actuary and the head of the CBO warned might very likely prove too deep to sustain medically or politically?  Can we assume that Democrats exercised the same thought and foresight about the other parts of ObamaCare that they did with the CLASS Act?  How come all of those liberal health care wonks that Kevin cites were unable to identify the problems with this program before it passed?

Last March, I did a retrospective on the law's first year anniversary, wherein I pointed out that there had been a lot of bad news, and no upside surprises.  Six months later, we've had more nasty surprises, and the "upside" consists of the entirely unsurprising revelation that forcing insurers to cover kids up to 26 results in more kids under the age of 26 being covered, at some cost in rising premiums.

During the debate over health reform, a lot of liberals were suggesting that ObamaCare's deficit reduction was just as likely to be larger than projected as less--or even that the CBO's scoring process systematically underestimated the savings from new health care programs.  Jonathan Cohn professed himself "baffled" by the belief "that, rather than try and craft a fiscally responsible program, the Democrats instead figured out the CBO's accounting methods, came up with ways to make an expensive program seem deceptively cheap, and then fiddled with the numbers to get the result they wanted."

But how else do we explain the CLASS Act, which the Washington Post warned about in December 2009?  Or the utterly moronic provision forcing small businesses to give 1099s to all their vendors?   Are we really to assume that these were not stupid gimmicks put into the law to, erm, "make an expensive program seem deceptively cheap", but rather, represent the sober and considered judgement of Democratic legislators and the Obama administration about sound fiscal policy?

That's a far scarier thought, actually.  For if the CLASS Act is genuinely what those legislators and that administration consider a good idea, we might as well just hand over our wallets and pray.


Presented by

More at The Atlantic

The $630-Million Trees That Sparked a Social Media Revolt in China The $630-Million Trees That Sparked an Online Revolt
The '7 Dirty Words' Turn 40, but They're Still Dirty The '7 Dirty Words' Turn 40
What It Means That Computers Can Tell These Smiles Apart, But You Can't Which Smile Is Fake? (This Computer Knows)
Have You Ever Tried to Sell a Used TV? Have You Ever Tried to Sell a Used TV?
The Fake Magazines Used in Blade Runner Are Still Futuristic, Awesome Hey, Is That Really the Magazine From the Movie 'Blade Runner'?

Join the Discussion

After you comment, click Post. If you’re not already logged in you will be asked to log in or register.
blog comments powered by Disqus
View All Correspondents

The Biggest Story in Photos

Where in the World? Part 3: A Google Earth Puzzle

May 25, 2012

Subscribe Now

SAVE 59%! 10 issues JUST $2.45 PER COPY

Facebook

Newsletters

Sign up to receive our free newsletters

(sample)

(sample)

(sample)

(sample)

(sample)

(sample)

Megan McArdle
from the Magazine

Why You Can’t Get a Taxi

And how an upstart company may change that

Europe’s Real Crisis

The Continent’s problems are as much demographic as financial. They won’t go away soon.

Why Companies Fail

GM’s stock price has sunk by a third since its IPO. Why is corporate turnaround so difficult…