Abe F. March

Death sentence for seniors?

Healthcare has become a political issue.  Many opposed to change take the attitude that their mind is made up and don’t want to be confused with an opposing view.   They cite abuse and use that argument to kill any new program .  Concentrating on the negative instead of the positive is a mindset that resists innovation/change.  I don’t know of a perfect healthcare program, however I do know of programs that work well in spite of alleged abuse.  In some situations, what one perceives as abuse others consider preventive medicine.  Early detection of a problem can save lives as well as costs by regular visits to the doctor instead of waiting for an emergency that cause greater costs both financially and physically.   

I am familiar with the mindset of some health insurers since I was once a health insurance salesman.  I am familiar with the American health care program as a user.  I am also familiar with a European healthcare program as a user.  My personal experience with a good program prompted my desire to push for a better healthcare program for American citizens.    Concentrating on programs that don’t work and/or using isolated examples of abuse to prevent change are not constructive.      

Confusion is amplified with the term “government controlled” Government controlled means the government sets the rules/standards by which the insurers operate.  The government does not administer the program.  The government’s job is to monitor the established program(s) to insure compliance.    

In a good program, no one is rejected for pre-existing conditions and everyone is eligible for coverage.  Everyone who has an income pays based on a percentage of their income, regardless of the income source. Trying to associate the term welfare with universal healthcare is just another attempt to block reform.  

We have witnessed the attempt of one political party to balance the budget by cutting Social Security and Medicare.  The lifeline of many seniors is their social security.  Social Security is not a charity.  Employees pay a tax into a SS fund.  Upon attaining the age of eligibility, they are entitled to receive compensation as stipulated by law.  

Law abiding senior citizens withhout a guarantee of their SS income is a travesty of justice.  Not everyone has a separate retirement program and SS is the only income for many seniors.   Additionally, seniors count on a government sponsored healthcare program, i.e., Medicare.  Without these funds, the senior is sentenced to an untimely death.  There are some seniors who would prefer to die and escape the pain and suffering they must endure.  Our taxes pay for the housing of criminals who get a roof over their heads, food and healthcare.   A senior without an income may lose their home.  Healthcare costs may also contribute to the loss of their home.  Should these law abiding citizens turn to crime for survival?  It appears that the people who wish to deny the seniors their means of survival are those who have security provided for by the tax payers and that includes the taxes paid by the seniors they unwittingly are sentencing to an early death.   A lethal injection would be more humane.