Why Are Grandma & Grandpa So Riled?

Seniors across this nation are up in arms over the proposed cuts in Medicare of $50 billion in the healthcare bills before Congress. President Obama and the Democrats are pretending that these cuts will not result in healthcare rationing and accessibility problems. They claim the cuts will all be from cost-savings or the introduction of new efficiencies. They say there will be no change in the healthcare that grandma and grandpa receive. Seniors know better.

Grandma and grandpa have plenty of past experience with the outcomes of previous Medicare cuts. When Medicare reimbursements to doctors are cut, doctors drop out of Medicare. Many seniors have been forced to change doctors who accept Medicare assignment unless they could afford to pay the difference between what the doctor charges and Medicare pays for services. Premier healthcare providers such as Mayo Clinic become inaccessible to all but wealthy seniors because Mayo Clinic no longer accepts Medicare assignment. If grandma and grandpa live in rural areas, they have an especially difficult time finding healthcare, often having to travel long distances to find providers who accept Medicare assignment.

Let’s look at H.R. 3200, the most fully developed healthcare reform bill presented to the American people thus far. For grandma and grandpa, it is a disaster.

“In 2010, 40.2 million seniors 65 years and older will be eligible for Medicare. That number is projected to rise to 54.8 million in 2020 and 88.5 million in 2050, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.” (Source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/06/end-life-counseling-intensifies-health-reform-debate/) Grandma and grandpa are smart enough to know that you cannot cut Medicare expenses by over ten percent at the same time you increase enrollees by thirty percent without drastic impacts on services.

To adequately provide for these new enrollees, you would have major cuts in services even if you had zero reductions in Medicare’s budget. That budget needs to grow in order to provide current benefits to both current and those additional enrollees. The Congressional Budget Office [CBO] warned that the proposed Independent Medicare Advisory Council [IMAC] “to rein in Medicare spending would do little to save the government money over the next 10 years.” The CBO estimated it might save $2 billion between 2010 and 2019, a pittance (less than 0.2%) of the $1 trillion plus cost if H.R. 3200 passes. Furthermore, CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf wrote, "In CBO's judgment, the probability is high that no savings would be realized." (Source: http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/cbo-medicare-council-would-have-little-savings-effect-2009-07-25.html)

During his presidential campaign in October 2008, Obama accused his rival, Senator John McCain, of supporting “drastic cuts” in Medicare. Obama said, “If you count on Medicare, it would mean fewer places to get care and less freedom to choose your own doctors. You’ll pay more for your drugs. You’ll receive fewer services. You’ll get lower quality care. I don’t think that’s right. In fact, it ain’t right.” (Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203517304574303014243807246.html)

What a difference a few months make! Obama and the Democrats have declared war on grandma and grandpa’s health plan. “The federal government is going to decrease Medicare payments to physicians 37% over the next nine years. In that same nine years the cost of treating patients is expected to rise 22%.”

We will need over 124,400 new doctors (a 23.6% increase) by 2025. In-patient hospital care is expected to increase by 36.6%. Currently, medical school enrollments are down, and more doctors are retiring or leaving the profession. The reasons include the high cost of medical education, the long hours, the paperwork required by insurance companies and Medicare, and the ever-present fear of lawsuits. As Dr. David Kahn, D.C., of Fernley Chiropractic wrote, “All this adds up to someone who [is] getting paid less for doing more work, with more obstacles in the way.” (Source: http://www.rgj.com/article/20090729/FERNLEY03/907290353/1306/fernley) Senator Pat Roberts (R-KS), in commenting on government-run health care, said, “It won't matter if 100 percent of Americans have health insurance if they don't have a doctor to see them when they are sick.” (Source: email newsletter from CMPI, July 27, 2009)

Congresswoman Ginny Brown-Waite (R-Florida) was bluntly honest when she said the House healthcare bill essentially tells senior citizens to "drop dead." "Despite their promise to care for our seniors, Democrats have decided that it's too expensive to care for my senior constituents… This bill would cut an additional $156 billion from the Medicare Advantage program in order to pay for the government expansion of healthcare for the young, the healthy, and the wealthy." (Source: http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=616402)

Former Senator Tom Daschle, Obama’s first choice for Secretary of Health and Human Services, has been called back to the White House to consult on how to get healthcare legislation through the House and Senate. Grandma and grandpa should be alarmed. Daschle wrote in his book, "... Health-care reform will not be pain free. Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them." (Source: http://whitehouse.gov/assets/hero/hero_weeklyaddress_7-18-09_CK-0081.JPG)

The fact is old people need more healthcare than young people. Ninety percent of an individual’s healthcare costs will be incurred during the last ten percent of his or her life. That is reality. Unfortunately, too many in Obama’s administration, if not Obama himself, believe that seniors do not have the same Creator-given, inalienable rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” as younger people. The signers of the Declaration of Independence did not discriminate against any age group when they wrote those words.

Many in Obama’s inner circle believe it is moral to discriminate against seniors. They would deny seniors healthcare at the time they most need it. A prime example is Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, Obama’s special health policy advisor and brother to the President’s Chief of Staff. In the January 2009 issue of the medical journal The Lancet, he wrote that if healthcare has to be rationed, he prefers the "complete lives system," which "discriminates against older people." This system assumes that seniors can be denied health care in the later years because they have lived “complete” lives. Scarce resources should go to younger people who have not yet had the chance to live a “complete” life. Ten years earlier, in an article in the Hastings Center Report, Dr. Emanuel wrote health services should not be guaranteed to "individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens," giving as "an obvious example… patients with dementia." (Source: http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=616402)

In case you think grandma and grandpa are being paranoid, just look at the newly released directives from the Center for Disease Control (CDC)regarding swine flu vaccinations. In the past, seniors have always been among the first to receive vaccines because the elderly are considered at great risk for complications from the flu. However, with the swine flu vaccine, seniors are not at the head of the list of recipients. They are not even on the list! Instead, children top the list, then healthcare workers and first responders, then young adults, the middle aged, and finally those 55-64. If you are 65 or older, the C.D.C. evidently does not consider you even worthy of consideration for protection from a potential swine flu pandemic.

Now, do you understand why grandma and grandpa are so upset? Why so many are showing up at Town Halls angry and vocal? Why many of them are resigning from the A.A.R.P.?

The words “ration” and “rationing” of healthcare do not appear anywhere in the 1,800+ pages of H.R. 3200. They don’t have to be spelled out explicitly. Seniors know the only possible outcome of the radical cuts proposed for Medicare can mean one thing and one thing only: rationing of care. And any politician who says otherwise is flat-out lying.