As we continue to rush headlong toward a system modeled after the MVNHS© [Much Vaunted National Health System], it's becoming increasingly apparent that seniors will bear the brunt of the reductions in both access to, and availability of, health care. As Mike pointed out last month, "mandatory, private long term care insurance would be “primary” to NHS." The point of that exercise is to wean folks from the public trough, at least as regards funding of long term care needs.
But that's only the most benign of proposals. In what can only be ascribed to that British penchant for dry humor, "elderly people could pay up to £25,000 [ed: about $40,000 at today's exchange rate] to guarantee basic social care under proposals aimed at ending the "cruel lottery" of old age care."
The problem, you see, is that British seniors are perceived to have been getting a "free ride" for far too long, and the time has come to pay the piper. Of course, those who have been paying their own way are among those to be penalized; Health Secretary Andy Burnham "admitted the present care system was "flawed", with inconsistencies across the country and people penalised for prudence."
Ooops.
And yet that's precisely the kind of flawed system being touted here. As former Clinton advisor (and pedicure enthusiast) Dick Morris notes, "Obama’s health care proposal is, in effect, the repeal of the Medicare program as we know it." He bases this on the fact that, under the President's plan, Medicare beneficiaries will enjoy the least access to medical care, and cherished end of life decisions will be taken out of their hands.
Of course, AARP, the 800 pound gorilla of senior care lobbying organizations, is hard at work fighting for its members' very lives.
Right?
Well, not so much.
It's probably a good thing that my mother's not still around to see this. Of course, if she were, it apparently wouldn't be for long.
Posts
