I hate articles like this one posted on the AARP website: ‘If I’d Had to Wait Until 67 for Medicare, I’d Be Dead’.

AARP – A Rant
In fairness, I am not a huge fan of AARP.  They bill themselves as an organization that exists to protect the interests of seniors and, while they do focus on topics that are important to seniors, they mostly exist to sell products and services to seniors, enriching AARP management.  

I hate articles like this one posted on the AARP website: ‘If I’d Had to Wait Until 67 for Medicare, I’d Be Dead’.

AARP – A Rant

In fairness, I am not a huge fan of AARP.  They bill themselves as an organization that exists to protect the interests of seniors and, while they do focus on topics that are important to seniors, they mostly exist to sell products and services to seniors, enriching AARP management.  

Even worse, in my cynical view, they care nothing at all about the long term health of either American seniors or the country as a whole.  They are perfectly willing to sacrifice the long-term well being of seniors and the country to demand unreasonable or at least unaffordable benefits for seniors. What I am not sure of, is whether they truly, philosophically believe we should cannibalize the country for short-term gains or are simply posturing because it gets people to read their website and buy products and services.

If I’d Had to Wait . . . .

This article is a perfect example of that kind of self-serving, and ultimately destructive, advocacy.  It is an emotionally charged argument that does not look at the big picture. The fundamental proposition of the article is that the government owes us, no matter what.  If AARP and other advocates are going to be consistent here are some additional actions they should be advocating:

  • That the Medicare age actually be reduced not increased.  If this man would have died, if the age was at 67, it has to mean that we would save lives if the age was set at 63 or perhaps it should be 61 or 59.  It doesn’t matter where the age is set, you will always be able to make the argument that lowering the age will save someone’s life.
  • If they are really serious about saving the lives of seniors, they should also be demanding much stricter drivers licenses for those over age 50 (when AARP membership starts).  Imagine, the lives we would save by demanding yearly driving tests and health certifications from physicians.
  • We should restrict the speed limit to 45 mph.  We would likely save ten or fifteen thousand lives a year.
  • How about mandatory annual obesity screening?
  • Banning the sale of alcohol and tobacco could potentially solve the entire health care crisis.

Given time, I could create a list of 50 or more items that would protect people but it begs two questions:

  • How are we going to pay for it?
  • Is that the kind of world we want to live in?

One more thought . . .

I wish I could ask the employers and individuals who are bemoaning the potential costs, where they think the money that supports Medicare comes from. In 1970, 5 years into the program, Medicare cost about $7 Billion, or 3.5 percent of federal spending. By 2010 it had grown to $524 Billion, and 15 percent of spending. That money is not falling from the sky: we are all paying for it one way or another. Life has risks and the government can’t and shouldn’t pay for everything. What say you? Steve Moran

Don’t miss a single issue of Senior Housing Forum, subscribe today. It is free! We do not sell or share your contact information. The posts are practical and never too long. Go to the main page of Senior Housing Forum and on the top you will see a link to our subscription sign-up page. You will receive notification when a new article is posted. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Finally: If you know anyone who is looking at emergency call systems I would appreciate the opportunity to talk with them about Vigil Health Solutions.