Although I guess there might be a broad consensus that any limited health care resources would be wasted on me, once the inevitable rationing of health care takes hold, it just won’t pay to be old.  

Shannon Love sums up the situation nicely: 

So the Democrats have a problem convincing senior citizens that socialized medicine won’t diminish the already dubious quality of care they receive through Medicare. [h/t Instapundit]

Seniors no doubt base this suspicion in large part on their 50+ adult years of watching politicians over-promise and under-deliver. They probably remember back to 1965 when Medicare itself was sold as a cost-saving measure, and today we’re told it’s going to bankrupt the government unless we socialize 15% of the economy. They no doubt wonder how long it will be before Obama’s ideological descendants will tell us that Obama’s miracle plan is a disaster than can only be solved by more socialism.

Seniors have another reason to be nervous. Obama’s plan will put them in direct competition with everyone else for health care spending.

Right now we compartmentalize government health-care spending. We have one program for the poor (Medicaid) and one for the elderly (Medicare). Each is paid for by a separate flat tax on wages. The government doesn’t spend any money on health care for the middle class. This means that if the government spends more money on health care for the poor it doesn’t automatically mean they spend less on the elderly. More importantly, it means that when the government spends more on the poor or elderly it doesn’t directly mean middle-class families have less spent on them. Middle-class families might see their payroll taxes go up but they can compensate by trimming spending in all of their budget areas. Those taxes don’t come directly out of their health-care budgets. With the current system, health-care spending is a nonzero-sum game, i.e., spending more on one compartment does not automatically mean spending less on another compartment.

The elderly consume 70% of all health-care spending.[updated here and here] That means that when it comes to cost control they will bear the brunt of the burden. If we don’t cut spending on the elderly we can’t reduce costs without simply denying care for everyone else. When it comes down to a choice between spending on old people and children, the elderly know full well who we are going to pick.

You know, for those who deny this will be the ultimate result of Obamacare, there is ample evidence out there.  I take judicial notice of the fact that the British health care bureaucrats have decided that steriods are not a cost effective treatment for the elderly, essentially overriding the decision of physicians and relagting countless patients to a life of pain.  Closer to home, our beloved president is on record as saying the hip replacement received by his grandmother was not a wise use of medical resources.

So, for those of you who have chosen to live a healthy lifestyle all I can say is too bad for you.  It just won’t pay to grow old in the brave new world of “hope and change”.

In other (unrelated?) news, it seems The One is not faring to well in the polls of late. 

Overall, 47% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President’s performance. That’s the lowest level of total approval yet recorded. The President’s ratings first fell below 50% just a few weeks ago on July 25. Fifty-two percent (52%) now disapprove.

Looks like those racist angry mobs engaging in un-American protests might be speaking on behalf of the majority. 

Let’s roll!