Japan’s Low Replacement Birthrate gives them an Aging Population and Soaring Debt

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 7th, 2013

Week in Review

The United States debt as a percentage of GDP is approaching 100%.  Meaning that we owe as much as we produce in goods and services each year.  A frightening prospect.  For imagine if you earn $50,000 a year and were $50,000 in debt.  How easy do you think it would be to repay your debt?  Chances are that you will never be able to repay your debt.  But here we are.  Our government borrowing more than ever.  Without any concern of that rising debt.  They say it isn’t that bad.  Just look at Japan.  Their debt is about 200% of their GDP.  And they seem to be doing just fine (see Elderly shoplifters outstrip teenagers in Tokyo by AFP posted 7/8/2013 on France 24).

The number of elderly people caught shoplifting in Japan’s capital city has outstripped that of teenagers for the first time since records began, a report said.

A quarter of the people arrested on suspicion of the crime in Tokyo last year were at least 65 years old, figures showed, amid warnings of increasing isolation in the age group…

Around a quarter of Japan’s 128 million population is aged 65 or older, and the country has a far-below replacement birthrate of an average 1.39 children for every woman.

There are regular reports of bodies lying unfound for weeks or even months after a single, elderly person has died alone. Commentators say the phenomenon is a result of the fraying of familial ties as Japan has modernised.

When you have a replacement birth rate of 1.39 you have an aging population.  One that is growing so old that the rate of people leaving the workforce will soar while the rate of those entering the workforce will plummet.  So just as these elderly people start consuming their pensions and health care benefits the tax base that pays for them will be disappearing.  Perhaps explaining why these people are shoplifting.  As the burden to care for an aging population eventually becomes too great for a government to sustain.  So they cut back.  And leave the elderly to fend for themselves.

When people are having only 1.39 kids on average that means couples are not just having one child.  But a lot of them are having no children.  This is what birth control and abortion have given advanced nations.  The ability to wipe themselves off the map.  Either by a negative population growth rate.  Or by throwing open your borders to try and offset the population decline with new immigration.  Transforming the nation from the native population to the immigrant population.  Replacing the native culture and traditions with the immigrant culture and traditions.  Just like when the Americans moved west and replaced the culture and traditions of the Native Americans.

Two things that just don’t go together are an expanding welfare state and a declining replacement birthrate.  As you have a shrinking tax base paying for that expanding welfare state.  If you want an expansive welfare state you have to have more babies.  Plain and simple.  You have to stop using birth control.  And stop having abortions.  So you can grow the population.  To always have more people in the base of the pyramid than you do at the top.  Like any good Ponzi scheme should.  It’s either that or you have to reduce the size of the welfare state.  So you can live within your means.  That is, what your tax base can afford to pay.

Or you can keep borrowing and printing money like Japan.  And wonder when the deflation and recession of the Lost Decade of the Nineties will ever end.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Aging Populations and State-Provided Health Care will Stress State Systems to Collapse

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 16th, 2013

Week in Review

When people provided their own health care and retirement nest eggs it didn’t matter if the population was aging or getting younger.  For each person planned to take care of him or herself.  But when the government took over health care and retirement nest eggs the age of the population began to matter.  For when the state provides these benefits they have to pay for them via taxes.  And if the population is aging that is a big problem.  Because more people are leaving the workforce and consuming health care and pension benefits than there are entering the workforce to pay for them.

Which means the government has to increase tax rates on those paying for these benefits.  And when people are living longer into retirement it really throws a wrench into the state’s plans.  For it is requiring a level of taxation that simply isn’t possible.  And this is exactly what the baby boom generation is doing to advanced welfare states throughout the world.  It’s causing greater governmental expenditures.  Resulting in larger budget deficits.  And financial crises (see Our aging population set to put a heavy toll on our systems, and we’re not ready by Simon Kent and Shawn Jeffords posted 6/14/2013 on the Toronto Sun).

The first baby boomers began turning 65 in 2012, and by 2036, one out of every four of our neighbours will be elderly…

“We don’t have a health care system in Canada, we have an acute care system,” [Sharon] Carstairs [former senator and was the first woman to lead an opposition party in Canada] after becoming Manitoba’s Liberal leader in the ’80stold QMI Agency.

The very sick are cared for well but we don’t do a good job of keeping others at home and out hospitals and high-cost facilities.

“We’re using acute care hospital beds to hold thousands of Canadians who should be in long-term care or home care,” she says…

Canada has a “little bit of breathing space” for preparations to cope with aging boomers, but not much, suggests University of Toronto professor emeritus David Foot, one of the country’s most respected demographers.

“We need to get this right to prepare for that boomer onslaught,” Foot says. “We can have an excellent system if we choose to.”

Zero hour is 2027.

“The first boomer born in 1947 reaches 80 in 2027,” Foot says.

That’s when the critical mass, the largest bulge of the baby boom, approaches 80 and will require the most care of their lives…

Canada needs to train gerontologists, therapists, psychiatrists, palliative care nurses and specialists, replace the workforce of aging nurses and the army of some 3 million volunteers who currently provide the bulk of in-home care to seniors, say experts…

“The sheer number of baby boomers that will be drawing on the system will magnify and put pressures on the systems that has not been felt before,” he says.

Both the United States and Canada have aging populations.  And a baby boomer bulge coming down the pike.  It will make it very difficult in Canada.  And far worse in the United States.  For they have about 9-times the population of Canada.  And will have 9-times the baby boomer bulge.  Making it a very poor time for the state to take over more pension and health care spending obligations.  Which is exactly what the Americans did by passing Obamacare into law.

The United States is already suffering record trillion dollar deficits.  By the time Obamacare pays to train gerontologists, therapists, psychiatrists, palliative care nurses, specialists, etc., and builds nursing homes to handle the baby boomer bulge the deficit will soar even higher.  Unless there really are death panels in Obamacare.  Which may be the only way not to break the fiscal back of the nation.  Well, there’s that.  Or they could let people provide their own health care and retirement nest eggs like they once did.  And then the age of the population would be irrelevant.  For it basically comes down to these two options.  Either we pay for our own health care and retirement.  Or the government will have to figure out how to cut costs.  And how do you do that when the largest cost is caring for the very old and the very sick?  In a word, death panels.  Well, two words, actually.

Welcome to the brave new world of Obamacare.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

It’s becoming Too Expensive to Raise a Family in Singapore so Fewer are Raising Families

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 7th, 2012

Week in Review

Raising a family is expensive.  Once upon a time you could do it on one income.  But now with huge welfare states requiring heavy taxation one income rarely cuts it anymore.  It takes two.  Childcare.  And more cooperative employers.  For without all of this young people just won’t be able to afford to raise a family (see Survey: 50% couples not have babies because ‘Money No Enough’ posted 10/6/2012 on TR Emeritus).

According to a recent survey conducted by voluntary welfare organisation ‘I Love Children’, about 1 in 2 couples (50%) said not having enough finances is the main reason for not having children…

‘I Love Children’ is a voluntary welfare organization set up in September 2005 with a purpose of keeping Singapore young — by advocating a higher priority to having children, and promoting a society where children are loved and mainstreamed. It hopes to inculcate the value and importance of parenthood and family among Singaporeans, as well as encourage a children-friendly environment in Singapore.

To keep Singapore young.  All nations would like to keep their nations young.  To have an expanding population growth rate.  So they have more young workers entering the workforce than older workers leaving the workforce.  Why?  To avoid the financial crises they’re having in Europe.  Japan.  The U.S.  And like they will probably soon have in China.  Where all of these nations have an aging population.  Where more people are leaving the workforce while fewer are entering it to replace them.  So the tax base is shrinking.  As is tax revenue.  And this at a time when government spending on pensions and health care for the elderly is rising.  Which means fewer and fewer people will have to support more elderly people in their retirement.  As the tax base dwindles governments replace that lost revenue with more and more borrowing.  Leading to those financial crises.

At the dialogue session, 26-year-old Ms Gillian Neo, said, “Currently, infant care in Singapore is still quite expensive. Even the more affordable ones, after government subsidies, is still $700 a month…”

During the the dialogue session, young parents also said that flexi-work arrangements are a major incentive as that will enable them to spend more time with their children…

However, there is still a lot of resistance in the mentality of some of the management of companies towards this mode of working.

“I was offered a full-time work from home arrangement with my previous employer… Six months into it, it really fell flat on the ground. One of the reasons was my immediate supervisor was really not supportive of the arrangement,” said Mandy Loh, a freelance writer…

She said, “In fact, there have been studies done by the employers federation, for instance, to show that for every dollar spent on flexi-work options, the return is S$1.68.”

Madam Halimah also suggested that flexi-work arrangements could be used to attract people to work for SMEs [small and medium-sized enterprise], which are currently facing a labour crunch.

The problem is not lack of affordable childcare.  The problem is that a high level of taxation (often to support an aging population) requires two incomes to raise a family.  Children are not supposed to be a nuisance that we dump off at childcare while we go to work.  They should be raised in a loving family with a full time stay-at-home parent.  A role typically filled by the mother.  The CEO of the house.  While the husband works full time to pay the bills.  Parenting is a team.  It takes two to raise a family.  A mother and a father.  Not a childcare facility.  And, no, this isn’t discriminatory to women because they can’t have a career and be a mother.  It’s what’s best for the children.

The working mom also comes with some baggage.  Especially if she is a key person on a project.  Because a snow day may pull her out of the office when they call an emergency meeting.  If a child falls ill she may be out of the office for a few critical days of the project.  If a meeting runs long because of a crisis she will still have to leave at 4:00 PM to pick up her kids from daycare.  If a project requires an emergency trip to another state she will not be able to go.  School holidays and half-days will take her out of the office, too.  These aren’t hypotheticals.  Many of us have probably experienced this in the workplace.  This is why employers are reluctant to hire single moms or single dads.  And a little reluctant to hire a married mom with young kids.  Because it is often the mother and not the father that will miss work for the kids.  As the father’s career will be more established because of less time missed for the birth of their children.  It’s not unfair.  Men and women are just different.  Women give birth.  Men don’t.

Emphasizing a woman’s career over her children has put more women into the workforce.  Which has allowed greater government spending.  This is why governments want state-provided childcare.  Because they want to get women back into the workforce as quickly as possible so they can resume paying taxes.  Which governments can never seem to collect enough of with an aging population.  Making it ever more difficult for young people to have the children governments want them to have.  To bring new taxpayers into the workforce.  So bringing women into the workforce probably hurts in the long run more than it helps.  For it allows the government to spend more.  But it also discourages young people from raising families.  Leading to fewer children.  An aging population.  And a shrinking tax base.  Which will probably be made up with more government borrowing.  As more nations join those in Europe, Japan, the U.S. and probably China who are suffering from the pressure of aging populations.  And the financial crises they cause.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The NHS does not provide Long-Term Elderly Care just as Obamacare will not provide Long-Term Elderly Care

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 29th, 2012

Week in Review

The Liberal Democrats in Britain don’t care much for the elderly.  For they are just too costly.  And there are other social programs that are competing for these valuable but limited government funds.  Which can be put to far better use buying votes (see Reforming elderly care is not the biggest priority, says Danny Alexander by Rowena Mason posted 9/25/2012 on The Telegraph).

Reforming elderly care is not the biggest priority and just one of many problems on the “long term horizon”, Danny Alexander, a Treasury minister, has said.

The Liberal Democrat denied reports that the Treasury is “blocking” elderly care reforms but fuelled fears it is being kicked into the long grass.

Mr Alexander said the Coalition will “take forward the Dilnot plans” for an individual cap on costs to stop so many elderly people having to sell their homes to pay for care.

This no doubt comes as a shock to most Americans.  Who thought the National Health Service (NHS) provided all British health care needs.   All the way right up to the grave.  But even in the utopian world of national health care the NHS cannot afford long-term elderly care.  Just as Obamacare will not be able to afford long-term elderly care.  Which the Americans will have to provide for themselves just as the British must provide for themselves.

Not only will Obamacare not provide long-term elderly care it will be rationing out health care to the elderly.  Where some callous bureaucrat will say that someone’s loved one will not qualify for anything other than a pill to manage his or her pain.  The so-called death panels included in Obamacare.  Though not called death panels.  But for all intents and purposes are death panels.  As some callous government bureaucrat will have the power of life or death over you.

However, he stressed there are “lots of other social care pressures” and competing priorities, including the needs of vulnerable people with low incomes.

In other words, British death panels.  That will choose when and where they will spend limited government funds.  And when it comes down to a dying old person versus a younger worker who, if he or she survives, will pay more income taxes, guess who they will spend those limited funds on?

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury was speaking at the Liberal Democrat conference in Brighton, where delegates are pushing for more wealth taxes and a crackdown on tax avoidance.

Mr Alexander said the taxman could raise huge amounts of money by making Britons with offshore accounts “play by the rules”. Recovering cash due from accounts in Lichtenstein alone could raise up to £3 billion, Mr Alexander said.

He also said the Liberal Democrats would like higher taxes on the rich to pay for tax cuts for the poor.

Classic class warfare.  Cut down on tax avoidance so more people can avoid paying taxes at the lower end.  Tax the few so the many don’t have to pay taxes.  And, of course, the many will vote for those who further raise the taxes on the few.  Or put in another way, buying votes.

Of course, this doesn’t help the elderly with their long-term care.  But it will provide more benefits for the masses that will vote for Liberal Democrats.  Just as a good policy of class warfare should do.  Buy votes as efficiently as possible.  For there is only so much money available to buy votes with.  Especially when health care consumes so much of these precious, limited, government funds.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

One Former Australian Bank Official accuses the Elderly of using $100 Notes in Massive Welfare Fraud

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 29th, 2012

Week in Review

What’s the biggest problem of a welfare state?  Fraud.  Which large piles of money always seems to attract.  As well as changing personal behavior.  Some are even saying it’s turning the elderly into the greatest fraudsters in all of Australia (see Pensioners fume at welfare fraud claims by Henrietta Cook posted 9/25/2012 on The Sydney Morning Herald).

Former senior Reserve Bank official Peter Mair said elderly Australians were committing welfare fraud on a massive scale and are behind the extraordinarily high number of $100 notes in circulation…

Yesterday, BusinessDay revealed there are now 10 $100 notes in circulation for each Australian, far more than the more commonly seen $20 notes…

In a letter to the Reserve Bank governor, Glenn Stevens, dated July 4, Mr Mair laid the blame squarely on elderly people wanting to get the pension and hiding their income in cash to ensure they qualified for the means-tested benefit.

If you have too much income or too much money in the bank you could have too much wealth to qualify for a means-tested pension.  So the former senior Reserve Bank official is suggesting that people close to retirement are withdrawing their money from the bank to draw down their bank accounts to more easily qualify for those means-tested pensions.  And those $100 bills make it easy to hide piles of cash in a pensioner’s house.  Perhaps needing only one well hid suitcase full of $100 bills to hold all of those bank withdrawals.  At least, that is what the former senior Reserve Bank official is suggesting.

Finance Minister Penny Wong has warned elderly pensioners to properly declare their incomes. Senator Wong said today she had “not been looking looking under pensioners’ beds lately”.

“But I would say we have a system of means testing for access to the pension and people are required to declare their assets and their income in order to access them,” she told reporters in Canberra…

Mr Mair said that in 1996 when the green plastic $100 note replaced the grey paper note, the Martin Place headquarters of the Reserve received regular visits from retirees wanting to withdraw large quantities of the new notes. He said the commercial banks had sent them to the Reserve because they did not have enough $100 notes on hand.

Mr Mair said the return for an Australian close to getting the pension who held $10,000 in cash, rather than declaring it, was “enormous”.

“If putting it under the bed or in a cupboard means you qualify for the pensioner card, you get discounted council rates, discounted car registration, discounted phone rental – in percentage terms the return is enormous,” he said.

So there is a clear advantage to hiding your wealth.  Which the high denomination bills allow one to do.  So the obvious solution to this alleged welfare fraud would be to eliminate those high denomination bills.

His letter to the governor proposes phasing out the $100 and $50 denominations.

“Cards and the internet have delivered a body blow to high-denomination bank notes. They are redundant,” he said. “There is no longer any point in issuing them except to facilitate tax dodging. The authorities would announce that from, say, June 2015 every $100 and $50 note could be redeemed but no new notes would be issued. After June 2017 every note could only be redeemed at an annual discount of 10 per cent. It would mean that, after two years, each $100 note could only be redeemed for $80, and so on.”

Or perhaps they could lower tax rates.  If they are using these $100 bills for tax evasion perhaps taxes are just too high.  Apparently there is an underground cash economy solely to evade or mitigate taxes like the GST and the carbon tax.  It would appear they could come out further ahead if they just cut taxes instead of having all of these taxes (and tax enforcement) for a welfare state that people may be gaming.  It would be so much cheaper for people to pay their own way and not provide for everyone else (as well as the environment) through these excessive taxes that people aggressively try to evade.

The events happening in Australia provide an answer to the commonly asked question.  Are we taxed too much?  A question the Australians are clearly answering in the affirmative.  As most people feel who have a GST as well as a carbon tax.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

China has no Pension or Health Care Benefits for their Rapidly Aging Population unlike in the West

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 22nd, 2012

Week in Review

The Chinese economy is cooling off.  Worse, they have some even more bad news in their future (see Ageing China: Changes and challenges by Damian Grammaticas posted 9/20/2012 on BBC News China).

Life expectancy in China today rivals that in the West – it is one of this country’s impressive advances. Except China has not yet built a social safety net to provide pensions, affordable healthcare or homes for all its elderly.

Yet another reason why the Chinese economy is outpacing those in the West.  While Europe and the United States have suffered from the effects of an aging population China hasn’t.  At least, not yet.  While those in the West keep raising taxes and selling sovereign debt to pay for pensions and health care for the elderly and retired China has been growing their economy and using its proceeds to buy the sovereign debt of those Western nations.

So what is it like living in a nation without a social safety net?

“We don’t get a government pension because I never paid taxes. We don’t have any savings,” he says.

Because he has children and a wife, he does not qualify for a place in a care home – only those without relatives are eligible.

Of Henan’s 8.5 million elderly, just 2% are cared for in nursing homes. So Niu Yubiao and his wife fend for themselves.

The couple have seven grown-up children. But like other young people in the area, they have left home to look for work. Niu Yubiao has no idea where they are.

The reason why they don’t have any savings is not because they are greedy and materialistic.  It’s because they live in abject poverty.  And barely earn enough to survive.  This is what it’s like in China once you leave the modern cities on the coast.  The economic miracle of China has not reached the impoverished masses in their interior.

Today, there are 180 million Chinese aged over 60, just over 13% of the population. That will double to 360 million in fewer than 20 years, when China will have more retirees than the entire population of the US.

By the middle of the century, their ranks will soar again to 480 million.

China is ageing so fast that a process that took up to a century in the West will happen in the coming 30 years here. And as the ranks of the elderly swells, the working-age population is starting to shrink…

China’s incredible economic growth has been built on its vast, cheap labour supply. But the numbers entering the workforce have started falling. China’s birthrate has collapsed – at its peak in the mid-1980s 25 million babies were born every year. Now there are about 15 million births a year. The dramatic drop is the result of a richer, developing society and of the one-child policy…

Currently, China funds only meagre pensions, and there are six workers paying taxes for each retiree – in 20 years’ time, there will be just two workers for every pensioner.

This is the current problem in the advanced economies in the West.  A declining population growth rate following the post-World War II baby boom is bankrupting their nations.  For those social safety net programs the Chinese don’t have were implemented in these Western countries before the baby boom turned into a baby bust.  Now the elderly generations in these nations grow faster than the younger generations.  More seniors are retiring and consuming government-provided pensions and health care while fewer are entering the workforce to replace them and pay the taxes to fund these programs.  So they have increasing government expenditures at a time of declining government revenue.  Thanks to a lower population growth rate.  Which has overwhelmed governments.  Causing greater budget deficits and soaring levels of debt.

As bad as things are in the Western countries what’s waiting for China is of such a massive scale that one shudders to think what will happen.  For even if China continues to enjoy high economic growth their aging population will bankrupt them.  Either by caring for the elderly.  Or by driving up labor costs and/or labor unrest as their baby bust fails to replace those leaving the workforce.  Bringing that economic juggernaut to a crashing halt.

But the scenario is even bleaker.   For they have driven much of their economy with artificial economic growth.  Fueled by Keynesian policies.  Artificially low interest rates.  And government interference into the private sector.  Much like what gave the U.S. the subprime mortgage crisis and the Great Recession.  And much like what gave the Japanese their asset bubble and their Lost Decade.  For all demand-side stimulative growth (i.e., Keynesian growth) ends in Great Recessions or Lost Decades.  Because this kind of growth is inflationary.  And when you inflate asset values you make asset bubbles.  Which ultimately burst.  And when they do they bring down those inflated values to market prices.  The longer those inflationary policies were in place the higher those asset values soared and the more painful the deflationary fall.  Just ask anyone in Japan.  Or in the U.S. with an underwater mortgage.

So China has some unpleasantness in their future.  Perhaps a deflationary spiral.  Along with an accelerated aging population.  Either one by itself is bad.  But together it could be more than the Chinese economy can handle.  And the fallout of any Chinese crash will ripple through every other nation’s economy.  Where we all will feel it.  And suffer the consequences.  Because we are all Keynesians, too.  At least, the economic policies of our governments are.  And when China can no longer buy U.S. sovereign debt there will be no more deficit spending.  Just massive spending cuts.  Or, if they choose to simply print money, massive post World War I Germany inflation.  Where it will take a wheelbarrow full of money to buy a loaf of bread.  Like in post World War I Germany.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The NHS is Rationing Cataract Operations to Senior Citizens as Obamacare will Probably do as Well

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 12th, 2012

Week in Review

The British are proud of their national health Service (NHS).  But they are not always happy with it.  Especially the elderly (see Eye surgeons unite to condemn rationing of cataract operations by half of NHS trusts by Jenny Hope posted 8/12/2012 on the Daily Mail).

Eye surgeons are warning that the rationing of cataract operations by more than half of NHS trusts is putting thousands of patients at risk.

Elderly victims of the cutbacks are being left unable to read, write or drive as they wait longer for surgery…

A joint statement from the Royal College of Ophthalmologists, the College of Optometrists and the Optical Confederation calls for primary care trusts (PCTs) to abandon caps on operations that mean patients have to wait longer.

They say that, in some cases, patients with cataracts in both eyes are being told their PCT will treat only one, leaving people unable to judge distances and more likely to have accidents. ..

‘However, we must remember that the NHS is facing an unprecedented financial challenge and commissioners must live within their means while providing high quality care.’

Again, it’s that again population.  As the senior population swells so does the need for cataract surgeries.  There are just too many people at the top of the pyramid for the fewer workers in the workforce to pay for them.  Which leaves Britain really with only two options.  Compel doctors to work for less (as well as force students to go to medical school so they can come out after that grueling ordeal to make as much as someone who didn’t sacrifice eight years or so to become a doctor).   Or they ration services.  Guess which option they chose?

Watching the NHS as they struggle with both an aging population and budget deficits is telling of what we can expect of Obamacare.  For we have an aging population, too.  In fact, our aging population is much larger than their aging population.  And we have budget deficits.  Which are even larger than Britain’s.  Based on this what is the obvious conclusion?  Obamacare will ration cataract operations for senior citizens, too.

Of course some will say this is the price we must pay for universal coverage.  Denying coverage to some through rationing.  (Did you catch the irony there?)  But the question that just begs to be asked is this.  Is our health care system this bad as it is now?  No, it’s not.  But it will be.  When we turn it over to a vast government bureaucracy.  For whenever did a vast government bureaucracy run anything well?  Or didn’t require ever more funding?

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

The Elderly suffer Insanitary Conditions and Inadequate Nutrition in Britain’s NHS

Posted by PITHOCRATES - May 27th, 2012

Week in Review

National health care is having problems in the UK.  Their biggest customers are suffering from poor treatment.  The elderly.  In part because the NHS does such a good job at keeping the elderly alive (see ‘Friends and family’ test for hospitals by James Kirkup posted 5/25/2012 on The Telegraph).

Ministers are trying to improve standards after warnings from watchdogs that too many patients, especially the elderly, experience poor standards of basic care, including insanitary conditions and inadequate nutrition.

NHS staff are already asked to take the “friends and family” test, but the Prime Minister will say that extending it to patients will bring benefits to the service…

The Care Quality Commission last year found that one in five hospitals failed to meet basic standards of care for elderly patients.

This is a problem.  For many patients in a hospital are elderly.  Almost half of the patients in the NHS are age 60 or over.  So they’re dropping the ball on about half of the 16 million or so patients in the hospitals of the NHS.  If this were baseball batting almost 500 would be pretty good.  But this isn’t baseball.  And it’s just a bit unsettling that of all the moms and dads getting admitted to an NHS hospital about half of them will suffer poor treatment.  Including insanitary conditions.  And inadequate nutrition.

Will this happen in the US under Obamacare?  Well, the US has about five times the population as the UK.  And the UK has been practicing national health care for a long time.  So we probably won’t be as good as the British are at national health care.  So less skilled with about five times the patients?  I think it’s fair to say that the elderly will suffer even more poor treatment in the Obamacare system than they do in the NHS.  Especially with our aging population.

And it’s this aging population that’s the big problem.  People are living longer.  And because they’re living longer they’re having more hospital stays.  Requiring greater health care expenditures.  But because the population is aging the young have to carry ever larger shares of these health care expenditures.  As in higher taxes.  For the group consuming these health care services is growing faster than the group paying for them.  So they raise tax rates where they can.  And ration services.  To make their limited resources cover more and more patients.  Including having nurses treat more patients.  Sort of in a production line mode.  Spend as little time with each patient as possible.  To increase the number of patients processed.  It’s at this point when patients begin to fall between the cracks.  And suffer poor treatment.

This is the direction Obamacare will take us.  For when it comes to national health care the NHS is one of the best.  But it still ranks below most private health care.  Even Medicare.  For Medicare still operates in the realm of the private sector.  The government reimburses health care providers after the fact.  After the patient received treatment in the private health care system.  But once Obamacare morphs into the full-blown national health care system those on the Left want Medicare will struggle to meet the quality level of the NHS.  It will struggle to only mistreat about half of their elderly patients.  Because Obamacare will have five times the elderly patients than the NHS has.  It’s just simple math.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Too Sick or too Old? Sorry, no Health Care for You in the NHS or in Obamacare

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 8th, 2012

Week in Review

Critics of Obamacare warned that this national health care system would contain death panels.  Too sick or too old?  Sorry, no health care for you.  That’s ridiculous said the supporters of Obamacare.  There was no mention of ‘death panels’ anywhere in the bill.  And there’s probably no mention of death panels in Britain’s National Health Service (NHS).  But elderly patients are left to die all of the time.  Precisely because they are too old (see Sentenced to death for being old: The NHS denies life-saving treatment to the elderly, as one man’s chilling story reveals by John Naish posted 4/6/2012 on the Daily Mail).

When Kenneth Warden was diagnosed with terminal bladder cancer, his hospital consultant sent him home to die, ruling that at 78 he was too old to treat.

Even the palliative surgery or chemotherapy that could have eased his distressing symptoms were declared off-limits because of his age.

His distraught daughter Michele Halligan accepted the sad prognosis but was determined her father would spend his last months in comfort. So she paid for him to seen privately by a second doctor to discover what could be done to ease his symptoms.

Thanks to her tenacity, Kenneth got the drugs and surgery he needed — and as a result his cancer was actually cured. Four years on, he is a sprightly 82-year-old who works out at the gym, drives a sports car and competes in a rowing team…

Sadly, Kenneth’s story is symptomatic of a dreadful truth. According to shocking new research by Macmillan Cancer Support, every year many thousands of older people are routinely denied life-saving NHS treatments because their doctors write them off as too old to treat…

This kind of ‘professional opinion’ appears to be costing more than 14,000 lives each year, thanks to routine discrimination by doctors who assume older patients are too frail for surgery, chemotherapy or radiotherapy. 

This is according to experts at Macmillan Cancer Support, who warned last week that every day up to 40 elderly cancer sufferers are dying needlessly because they are being denied the best treatments. This is particularly true, it says, for patients over the age of 70.

The charity estimates that if the treatment of older patients matched that on offer in the U.S., as many as 14,000 lives could be saved every year…

Last week, the respected health research charity, the King’s Fund, warned that prejudice about older people means they often go without treatment for conditions such as depression, and are not even tested for illnesses such as heart disease.

This is despite huge advances in medical care which mean that patients can now successfully undergo major surgery at ages where they would not previously be expected to survive.

In America, doctors pioneering the field of ‘geriatric surgery’ regularly perform open-heart surgery on people in their 90s…

Last year, research by the National Cancer Intelligence Network found evidence of widespread age-based discrimination in the NHS on women with breast cancer.

Its study of 23,000 sufferers found that 90 per cent of those aged 30 to 50 are offered surgery to remove tumours, compared to 82 per cent of those aged 60 to 70, and 70 per cent of those in their 70s…

So if you’re elderly and you live in America you better get your health care fast.  Before Obamacare kicks in.  And decides you’re too old to treat.  For if they’re doing it in the NHS they’ll be doing it in Obamacare.  Not because they are mean and hate old people.  But simply because of the economics.  Doctors will advise families that there is no money to spend on their loved ones.  But don’t be upset.  It’s nothing personal.  It’s just business.

It is ironic that the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) supported Obamacare as they are supposed to represent the elderly that pay their membership fees.  Why you ask would they do something like this?  Well, they sell insurance policies to seniors that pay for what Medicare doesn’t cover.  Medigap policies.  And to get AARP onboard with Obamacare the new health care law exempts AARP from pricing formulas restricting the amount of their premiums spent on non-health services.  Allowing them to charge higher premiums than Obamacare allows other insurers to charge.  At least according to The Daily Caller.  So when Obamacare denies seniors life-saving treatments AARP can tell their families not to be upset.  It’s nothing personal.  It’s just business.

Advocates of national health care like to point to the NHS and say that is the model to follow.  And we are now moving in that direction with Obamacare.  Which can mean only one thing.  Death panels will follow.  Even though they are not specifically mentioned in the bill.  Because when it comes down to it health care is a game of numbers.  Accounting decisions.  Especially when the government runs it.  And the only way to control costs is by rationing services.  And what better way to ration services than by simply withholding them from the greatest consumers of those services?  The elderly.  Don’t think it will happen?  Just look at the NHS.  That is our future.  Where health care isn’t about doing what’s right for the patient.  But controlling costs.  But it’s nothing personal.  It’s just business.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,