Term Limits for Seniors or Politicians?

It’s clear that the healthcare bill that is currently before the House will require considerable savings in order to achieve the deficit neutral goal that President Obama promised when this process began. Even then, it now appears that a middle class tax increase will be required in order to supplement the significant tax revenue shortfall that is now apparent as a result of this severe recession. So the question is why do we need to junk our current healthcare system at a time when we clearly can’t afford it and there are also bi-partisan proposals presented which will reduce costs in the current system and maintain the quality of care we now have, cover those uninsured who want coverage and are qualified to receive it, without bankrupting the country. I guess Nancy Pelosi will have to answer that question.

The Real Objective Behind Healthcare
The real answer is that the Democratic Party is hell bent on single payer universal healthcare and eventually junking the Medicare system and this is Phase One of that effort. The initial focus is on seniors who represent one-fourth of Medicare costs in the final years of their life. Therefore, eliminating tests, procedures, and medications for seniors because they are no longer in their “productive” years will result in considerable savings according to some of Obama’s czars, who believe that an early exit for “non-productive” citizens will be beneficial for the economy. This philosophy has been discussed in the stimulus bill and further expanded upon in the healthcare bill and exposed in the Wall Street Journal article: http://www.defendyourhealthcare.us/assaultonseniors.html

Seniors Are Assets Not Liabilities
Well, maybe someone should inform the current administration that these seniors are mostly responsible for the economic growth and accomplishments of this country to date and have already paid into the Medicare and Social Security system for all of those who have preceded them because the government has run a giant Ponzi scheme on the funds that have gone into these programs for the last 40-75 years.

Since all legislators have their own very generous government pension and healthcare benefits for life and can continue to work their 1-2 months/year in wheelchairs and walkers, since they have no term limits and people keep voting them in because their seniority provides earmarks and pork barrel legislation for their communities, I guess they don’t care about those of us who have mandatory retirement or get “terminated” because we’re “too old”.

Perhaps they should ask how much the currently “productive” people have learned from their predecessors, how much the youth of this country relies on and seeks the wisdom of their grandparents, and how many of the world’s population want to keep their mothers and fathers with them for as long as they can?

Doctors Not Government Should Decide
Sure, we know that many people have living wills and don’t want to be kept alive artificially, but most of us want to hold on as long as our quality of life is good and our families want us around. However, we’re not talking about terminal illness here; we are talking about government making Orwellian decisions about your right to available healthcare relative to someone who they conclude has more “productive” potential.

I think we should have term limits on politicians, not on seniors, and I think it is absolutely preposterous to have to write a column about this as a citizen of the wealthiest country that ever existed on this planet.