Some Economic Implications of Old Farts

Posted on January 18, 2010
Filed Under Old Farts |

Here’s a Podcast of this post:

 
icon for podpress  Some Economic Implications of Old Farts [9:08m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (94)

____________

As President and sole member of FOFA (Future Old Farts of America), DrRich owes a duty to his membership to strive to see that they receive the full portion of the benefits and entitlements that are coming to them, once they finally arrive at that long-promised and long-awaited Future.

Accomplishing this, one naturally thinks, should not be that difficult. The world has been turning at our every whim - we in FOFA and the baby-boomer generation of which we are a part - since Disney first placed a coonskin cap on Davy Crockett and unexpectedly triggered an economic boom. From that instant, our caprices of the moment (from Barbie and the Twist to Botox and Viagra) have made and broken empires. The great economic machinery of Western Civilization for nearly 60 years has become finely tuned to unfailingly meeting our every desire. Accordingly, it is only natural that we have settled upon the conviction that the world was put here for our benefit, and thus, whatever it is we want must necessarily be right and good.

So, as the years pass and our health gradually becomes our chief concern, it is equally natural for us to assume that not only will the very best healthcare available be pressed upon us by a grateful society, but also, perhaps, the universe itself may somehow reveal at last its deepest secrets, and arrange for us to live forever. But while this latter dream may seem a bit of a stretch (even for us), at the very least our fellow citizens, continuing the pattern of utter solicitude with which they have striven so mightily and for so long to fulfill our tiniest wishes, and fearing what a cold, dark place the world would become without our continued presence, will surely insist on our receiving the very best healthcare available. And so, when the time comes such that what we desire most is a nice, expensive sojourn in the intensive care unit of our choice, why, who’s to stop us?

Well, prospective FOFA members, DrRich is here to warn you that you will be stopped. For, the sheer size of our generation, which since the 1950s has made us the masters of the universe, is about to become a very great liability, and likely a lethal one at that. It is best not to book your stay in that ICU you’ve had your eye on in Waikiki.

You see, future old farts, some people in Washington have done some calculations. They have figured out that what our generation will cost the government over the next 30 to 40 years, in existing Social Security and Medicare obligations alone, amounts to between $35 - 55 trillion.

Don’t even try to imagine how much money that is.

It is orders of magnitude more money than the government can actually spend on us. So obviously, that money will not be spent on us. And the only question we should be asking ourselves is: By what methodology will the government not spend that money on us?

There are several options, of course. The Top Three are: revolution (i.e., establishing a new form of government that disowns all obligations of the old government); societal disintegration (i.e., no government at all); and, in one form or another, euthanasia (i.e., achieving a highly evolved government that assumes divine prerogatives). It is reasonably likely that before we’re done we’ll end up sampling all three.*

Given these possibilities, it ought to be clear that those currently in power will pull out all the stops to prevent the first two choices. The third choice, on the other hand, will seem quite palatable to them, and even desirable. But, they undoubtedly understand, they will need to be reasonably circumspect about how they accomplish it.**

Fellow Boomers, DrRich wonders whether you fully appreciate how much your government needs you to die? (And preferably, the day after you turn 65). Until you’re 65 or thereabouts, you are likely putting money into the Great Collective Kitty, and so you are at least not much of a liability (and are potentially an asset) to your government. But the moment you begin collecting Social Security and Medicare, you become a severe liability. And from that moment on, the prospect of your death becomes exceedingly attractive, since upon your demise the government: a) gets to keep the remainder of your Social Security contributions, b) gets to stop paying for your healthcare, and c) acquires whatever proportion of your estate the death tax ends up allowing for.

To put it more succinctly:

Our leaders, of course, will strenuously deny they want us all dead as soon after we turn 65 as they can manage, but what do you expect them to say? To see the truth one must only look at the facts, soberly and objectively. For the next several decades our leaders will be straining under the intense and ever-growing pressure of a massive $50 trillion liability, which is caused by entitlements they have promised to us, and which gravely threatens their continued viability, and possibly their very lives. It is not possible they can really hope for us old farts to enjoy great longevity (though, DrRich supposes, it is nice of them to say so). It is equally impossible that they will refrain from thinking up ways to hasten our demise.

But again, they will need to be circumspect about it. And being circumspect about it implies using statistics creatively.

In a future post, DrRich will point out some of the ways in which these creative statistics are already being employed.

*Clearly there are other options for dealing with the problem, but they tend to include such things as publicly laying out the unfortunate facts, and working through a series of very difficult, painful and unpopular steps. So these options are not worth mentioning except possibly in a Top Twenty list; they are certainly nowhere near the top three.

**The Tea-Party movement has demonstrated that, despite all the convenient crises that have occurred or have been invented over the past couple of years, and despite the extravagant exertions that have been made not to let those crises go to waste, the peasantry remains disturbingly retrogressive, and is still not yet ready for truly enlightened rule. Therefore, circumspection is called for.

Comments

13 Responses to “Some Economic Implications of Old Farts”

  1. jtnRN on January 19th, 2010 9:59 am

    There are many of us who, although years away from 65 ourselves, realize that even a newborn is a FOFA. Just one more reason why in the end the only health care system that will truly work fairly for all Americans is one in which we are all participants equally - cradle to grave. As for your reasons why the government would want us dead - a) don’t spouses get the remainder of SS payments? and c) if you actually will pay the estate tax, then you can afford all the healthcare you need without the help of the government.

  2. DrRich on January 19th, 2010 10:45 am

    jtnRN,

    Thank you for submitting your application to FOFA. It is rejected.

    You see, as President (and sole member) of FOFA, it is for me (and not you) to say who prospective members are. No whippersnappers allowed. (Sorry.) You young folks are the ones whose money we in FOFA must have, in order to support the long, happy lives full of healthcare consumption we’ve set our hearts on. It would be counterproductive to allow such people as yourself into our organization, since your interests (i.e., your own well-being) are so counter to ours.

    As to your specific comments:

    a) Spouses get Social Security benefits of deceased partners, but apparently I must remind you that surviving spouses (unless they are those young trophy spouses some in my generation have made it a habit to collect) will also be on the endangered species list.

    b) (Glad you see no objection to “b,” since it alone is a vital consideration.)

    c) It appears you believe that future estate taxes will always look something like they do today. I do not believe this is a good assumption, given the absolute need our government will have for our money, especially when we die.

    Furthermore, having recommended what sounds like a universal single-payer healthcare system, you then assume that people will be permitted to spend their own money on their own healthcare. I must point out that: 1) single-payer means single-payer, and if you are paying for some of your own healthcare that’s two payers, and 2) single-payer mavens will consider any self-pay provisions to be unfair and discriminatory (to their constituencies), will try to ban it.

    Rich

  3. jtnRN on January 19th, 2010 1:56 pm

    I guess I’m okay with not being allowed into the club - I doubt the meetings were any fun. Of course, my point is that the interests of FOFA and “whippersnappers” are not actually counter to each other, unless young people don’t care about their parents and don’t think that they will ever grow old. Okay, so now I see the problem.

    b) I do not think this is an issue because I believe that most of us are willing to pay for our elders now with the understanding that we will be treated the same, not to mention most of us are not complete bastards. Or maybe I’m just projecting.

    I have read before how you feel that single payer means that you are not allowed to spend outside the system, but I am unaware of any propsals that actually say that. In Europe you are allowed to spend outside the system or have privatre insurance beyond the government plans (England), so why not here? But if it makes you feel better i will start calling for a two payer system.
    I have read your proposed system (although I have not read the book)and find it quite interesting and sonething I could get behind. Of course I am a progressive; conservatives, libertarians, tea-partiers, etc. would simply decry it as socialism with death panels. The only support for the plan today would come from progressives/liberals, for whom you seem to have some contempt. Doesn’t matter, nothing real will be done until things get much worse.

  4. Sandra Brown MD on January 20th, 2010 10:36 am

    Um, in England you are NOT allowed to spend outside the system for things the system won’t buy. You can buy stuff faster (and probably better quality) that’s on the yes list. But you aren’t allowed to buy your own tamoxifen for your own breast cancer, to note one recent example, if you don’t fit the CIE eligibility checkboxes for the drug. Or maybe that was an international urban legend. But it sounded true.

  5. jtnRN on January 20th, 2010 11:59 am

    Dr. Brown,
    I did a simple google search of several sites describing the system in England, and they all made it clear that there is a system of private health insurance that can be bought by anyone in addition to the mandatory NHS. Is it restricted in what it can offer? I don’t know, but clearly you can spend your own money on healthcare. Please note that I am not advocating for the English system here(prefer privately owned and run hospitals, etc., except for the VA!).

  6. DrRich on January 20th, 2010 12:08 pm

    jtnRN and Dr. Brown,

    The rules in England have been evolving. Originally, individuals were not allowed to buy healthcare outside the NHS. Then, they were allowed to, but once they paid for something that NICE had decided not to cover (such as “extra” breast cancer therapy), they were banned from receiving any more healthcare through NICE. Recently (past year or so), it is my understanding that this rule has been liberalized somewhat, after the kerfuffle over breast cancer, so that in at least some instances it is OK to buy healthcare yourself without suffering the NHS death penalty.

    Rich

  7. Praveen on January 20th, 2010 5:55 pm

    Might I add that in almost every country with universal health care (I am aware of 32) with the exception of England and Canada, you are allowed to buy premium health care of any sort that you like.

    In particular, in Ireland, Singapore, and Israel, explicit two-tier systems enable everyone to get basic universal health care, while getting premium services only if they pay extra. There are many models for universal care, and it’s quite sad that the US discussion focuses only on single payer and insurance mandates.

    Having said that, here’s what I think the Dems should do now in light of Brown’s victory in MA:

    Put together a bill with:

    1. Tort Reform
    2. Selling of insurance across state lines
    3. Medicare Advantage subsidy cuts to stabilize the bleeding of the Medicare trust fund
    4. A ban on insurance recissions except for outright (criminal-intent) fraud
    5. Some small-business and/or high risk pooling scheme

    There, that’s half of what Republicans say they want, and half of what Dems say they want, and it keeps Medicare from going broke for a few more years. If Republicans they won’t vote for that, they’re not interested in any compromise on the issue. Then it’s just better to wait for Medicare insolvency to force action - that will occur by 2015 anyway.

  8. The Happy Hospitalist on January 21st, 2010 12:19 am

    I thought Obama’s plan of spending 20 billion dollars on IT was going to fix the liability issue. Perhaps Future Old Farts with Lap Tops could be the new Democratic motto. I kind of like the ring of that. LOL

  9. Pharmacy First on January 21st, 2010 6:43 am

    Public Healthcare works just fine over here in the UK. I still don’t quite get why it is such a major issue in America? Everyone benefits!

  10. Andy Marcos on January 21st, 2010 8:44 pm

    “Public Healthcare works just fine over here in the UK. I still don’t quite get why it is such a major issue in America? Everyone benefits!”

    Pharmacy First, It is not about who benefits here in America, it is about maximizing who PROFITS! In this case, mainly the insurance and drug companies.

    Marco

  11. ED on January 27th, 2010 4:47 pm

    I must say this is a great article i enjoyed reading it keep the good work

  12. Maureen on February 7th, 2010 12:50 am

    jtnRN-
    I think those in my generation (I’m 22) are well aware that in our old age medicare and social security will not be around for us. And although I would like to live in a world where health care costs are not an issue old people could have unlimited free care this is not that world. I know people my age with over $100,000 in school dept. Many of the people I know can’t afford health care. I know a few people my age with health problems struggling to pay for health care. Why should the baby boomer generation be considered more important then my own? Why should they get cheap education, possibly decades of free health care and monthly social security payouts while my generation struggles to support them while starting careers and families with unreal amounts of dept?

  13. DrRich on February 7th, 2010 8:46 am

    Maureen,

    I’ll believe that most in your generation are well aware that their futures are being consumed today by older Americans, when I see most in your generation stop voting for the people who keep upping the ante in their promises to older Americans. And I’m talking here about not only Medicare and SS, but in the outrageous pensions and health benefits our politicians are awarding public service employees.

    The problem you’ll face is far greater than merely not having Medicare and SS. The school debt you owe is dwarfed by the “entitlement debt” you already owe to the generations ahead of you. You won’t have the opportunity to accumulate the wealth you’ll need to pay on your own for your retirement needs.

    I believe we have time to fix this problem in a civil and even equitable manner - but only if we begin taking difficult action soon. And the people we keep sending to Washington (both parties) are doing the opposite of what needs to be done.

    Rich

Leave a Reply