Is Health Reform Meant To Save Social Security?

I am beginning to wonder if health care reform is meant to solve the social security problem. Social security is running out of funds. How can less money be spent on social security? Every year more and more people are entering the system. If fewer people received social security, the system could be saved. If medical treatment was restricted to those who received social security, the number of recipients would be reduced.

All the health care proposals being considered cut Medicare by over 500 billion dollars. As more people enter Medicare, how can costs be massively cut and benefits not be affected? Eliminating fraud alone will not accomplish this and why has eliminating fraud not been addressed long ago? The government says it will cut waste. So what does the government consider waste? Is it denying treatment to seniors when that treatment would be approved for those who are younger? Is this waste? Some of the president’s remarks indicate that it would be.

Medicare already has arbitrary restrictions. A bone density test can not be ordered without a diagnosis of osteoporosis. Osteoporosis is diagnosed by a bone density scan. It is a Catch 22. This is government bureaucracy at work.

Only half the doctors in this country currently accept Medicare. Next year, their reimbursement will be cut by twenty-one percent. Other cuts are proposed for the not so distant future. Fewer and fewer doctors will accept Medicare. Lines will get longer and in some areas cease to exist.

The current health care proposals are all a bad deal for seniors. The health care proposals are being paid for by cuts that only effect seniors. The plans are build on the backs of seniors. Plans would virtually eliminate Medicare Advantage, which supplies health care to about twenty-five percent of seniors. Many of these are low income seniors. In some sections of the country this is the only plan available. Civilizations are judged by how they treat their very young and very old. It is not about “cost effectiveness”. It’s about valuing human life.

Signed,
The Electorate

Health Care: Seniors

You represent Florida. Florida is the land of retirees. The proposed health care bills will have a very adverse effect on seniors.

A large portion of the proposed bills will be paid for by cuts in Medicare. Medicare will be cut by over 500 billion dollars. These cuts will be made as more and more “baby boomers” enroll in Medicare. Seniors are told that their benefits will not be cut and the quality of care will not suffer. The cuts will be offset by increased government efficiency. Is this the same government that is bankrupting Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security? Is this the same government that instigated and ran “Cash for Clunkers”? The reimbursement rates for specialists and treatments are being reduced. An example of these cuts is the reduced allowance for an echo cardiogram ( a basic diagnostic procedure ). Its reimbursement rate will be cut by 40%. By drastically reducing rates the government is, in effect, rationing treatment. People will needlessly die because of these cuts.

The stimulus bill created the Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER) panel. The House bill proposes a Benefits Advisory Board. These boards will decide what treatments are acceptable and who may receive them. Health care is to be “cost effective”. How “cost effective” will seniors be deemed to be?

I am dreading the time when I will have to depend on Medicare for my health care. Age should not be a determining factor for receiving health care. Can’t our government do better than this?