In the public discussions leading up to the passage of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare,) a point repeatedly brought up by the opposition was that it would lead to discrimination against the elderly. It now appears that the critics were correct.
“Senior citizens”, notes Sciencecodex, “were concerned about the Affordable Care Act because they knew adding more people to Medicare would lead to even fewer doctors available. And they were right, they are now discriminated against by the healthcare system and it is not just stressful, it is literally bad for their health. A national survey shows that one in every three older Americans who are on the receiving end of age-related discrimination in the healthcare setting will likely develop new or worsened functional ailments in due course. This follows a study led by Stephanie Rogers, a fellow in geriatrics at UC San Francisco in the United States.”
HOW THIS HAPPENED
The question, of course, is how this occurred. A Forbes study provides an answer.
“One of the best kept secrets of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is that it imposes a global budget on Medicare spending – for the first time in the program’s history. Heretofore, Medicare was a pure entitlement program. The government had to pay for whatever care the elderly and the disabled obtained. But going forward, the health reform law imposes a cap on spending.
“For most of its history, per capita Medicare spending in real terms grew at about twice the rate of growth of real per capita GDP – just like the rest of the health care system. But going forward, the law requires Medicare to grow at a rate that is not much more than the growth of GDP – regardless of what happens to other health care spending. If the historical trend continues, that means spending on health care for the elderly and the disabled will grow about half as fast as spending on everyone else’s care…
“One bad result is that that Medicare beneficiaries are likely to be pushed into a second tier health care system – where access to care will become increasingly difficult, as seniors less financially attractive to providers become Medicaid patients. The impact will become worse through time. For example, unless the law is changed, by the time today’s teenagers retire (2065):
- Medicare spending on hospital Part A services will be half of what it would have been under the old law.
- Medicare spending on doctors (Part B services) will be 61 percent of what it would have been under the old law.
This element in kamagra tablets has been the most energetic substances used to formulate Kamagra tablets. sildenafil best price https://regencygrandenursing.com/search viagra sale in canada The physician may go through some of required typical process to make sure about the reason and recommend testosterone replacement therapy for the same. Another study published regencygrandenursing.com order generic cialis in 2013 concluded that Sildenafil medication increased the serum testosterone levels in men. These inabilities created turbulence in generico levitra on line reference their mind by hampering their intimacy with their partners.
“As Thomas Saving (a former Medicare Trustee) and [John Goodman] noted in a blog post at Health Affairs, for 65-year-olds, the forecasted reduction in spending is roughly equal to three years of average Medicare spending. For 55-year-olds, the loss expected is the rough equivalent of five years of benefits; and for 45-year-olds, it’s almost nine years.
“How does Obamacare accomplish the spending reductions? The new law gives an Independent Payment Advisory Board the power to recommend cuts in reimbursement rates for providers of health care. Congress must either accept these cuts or propose its own plan to cut costs as much or more. If Congress fails to substitute its own plan, the board’s cuts will become effective. Moreover, the advisory board is barred from considering just about any cost control idea other than cutting fees to doctors, hospitals and other suppliers.”
THE POLITICAL ANGLE
Some reviewers believe there is a political angle to these decisions. An American Thinker article describes this:
“The present Democratic regime is throwing [seniors] under the bus, in favor of the young (and often unemployed) voting groups that they depend upon to keep them in power…
“…ObamaCare… requires that two healthy young people enroll to support three older sign-ups. The young are not cooperating; in fact, many of them will have to be subsidized. The Democrats won’t dare antagonize them, since they are one of their most important supporting groups. So guess who’s going to get thrown under the bus. [seniors] are living too long and spending too much healthcare money to do so. You must be persuaded to gracefully depart
“One way is healthcare rationing. You probably laughed when Sarah Palin began talking about ObamaCare death panels…But that may not be enough to balance the budget. Old people who should die and won’t die may have to be persuaded to die.”
INTERNATIONAL EXAMPLES
Proponents of the legislation frequently noted that the United States was out of step with most of the nations of the world, which had more government involvement in the field.
Those advocates should have reviewed those other nations more carefully, particularly in their treatment of senior citizens. Interestingly enough, those programs envied by American proponents of Obamacare do discriminate against seniors. In a significant expose in England’s Daily Mail , it is revealed that “According to shocking new research by Macmillan Cancer Support, every year many thousands of older people are routinely denied life-saving NHS treatments because their doctors write them off as too old to treat.
“It is often left to close family members to fight for their rights. But although it is now British law that patients must never be discriminated against on the basis of age, such battles often prove futile…experts at Macmillan Cancer Support… warned last week that every day up to 40 elderly cancer sufferers are dying needlessly because they are being denied the best treatments. This is particularly true, it says, for patients over the age of 70…
“Discrimination against the elderly affects not only cancer treatment but goes right across the board, according to another new report…
“Last week, the respected health research charity, the King’s Fund, warned that prejudice about older people means they often go without treatment for conditions such as depression, and are not even tested for illnesses such as heart disease.
“The Patients Association and Care Quality Commission have both recently published studies detailing ‘shocking’ standards.”
Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca.) famously stated that “we would have to pass [Obamacare] to find out what’s in it.” The legislation has passed, and what has been found is inappropriate, especially for seniors.