President Obama claims that his Obamacare will reduce the overall cost of medical care. There are lots of detractors, including me, who say that this is impossible without limiting the types and amount of medical care available. But, could he have in mind achieving government cost savings in another way? If Obamacare eventually leads to reductions in the medical care options available to the elderly, their life expectancy will be shortened. This will lead to reduced payouts in Social Security benefits.
I know that he claims that no such policy is included in Obamacare. Perhaps it isn’t in the current bill, but what about next year? It can always be added later. Actually, it doesn’t have to be spelled out in the bill itself. It can simply be implemented as a preferred practice by the policy making board that the bill does authorize.
There are also a lot of federal civil service retirees out there drawing their pensions directly from the Treasury. Although federal workers contribute a percentage of their salaries to a “retirement fund,” no such fund exists. The government just spends the contribution on something else and assumes the responsibility to pay retirees from the Treasury.
So, if federal retirees start dying at a younger age, further government cost savings will accrue. There aren’t nearly as many federal retirees as Social Security recipients, but federal retirees generally draw more than Social Security recipients.
If four retirees draw an annual pension of $50,000 dollars each from federal civil service and/or Social Security, the government saves a million dollars if they die five years younger. And that doesn’t even count any savings on their medical care.
Is this fear-mongering? I don’t think so.
Not only is this posting indeed mongering fear, it is based on false premises and contains no supporting evidence.
There could not possibly be more restrictions in “Obamacare” than are contained in present insurance policy provisions written to provide profits and not care. The more claims that are denied the more profits (unearned) for the paper shufflers.
Health care should be run by health care professionals, as they are presently in Kaiser Permanente of Northern California and the Mayo Clinic, as set out in a recent New Yorker article.
Let me be a bravery monger: PROVIDE HEALTH CARE FOR EVERYONE, and show all of our citizens, as will as our fellow world inhabitants, that we care.
Of course there is no supporting evidence. I’m just postulating a motivation for Obamacare. Did you notice that I opened with a question?
Why not FOOD FOR EVERYONE first? Food is much more critical to our survival than health-care. Let’s put the government in charge of producing and delivering food to everyone.
We clearly disagree on the proper role of government.