We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Well, on the other hand, they've been paying in their whole lives. Kinda sucks to find out you had a what... extra 10-15% tax that you could have used to invest, or buy a house, or started a business and instead it's not even going to be yours as was promised?
I hate social security, but people who are 64 are going to be somewhat screwed. Or we will. Or everyone will, most likely.
You are probably right about who will get shafted -- your higher estimates, that is.
There's a lot of talk about "30 million additional patients." That number is probably a large exageration. (I'm against government-run healthcare finance, I just want the discussion to stay on facts). Most uninsured people are getting care already. Some are paying their own bills, some are paying part, and some just aren't paying. Some people, I'm sure, go without care for minor problems -- I do that myself and I have insurance. They may or may not get more care if they have insurance but their care isn't going to drive costs up hugely nor overwhelm existing healthcare facilities.
Almost no one goes without care for serious injuries or illness. So adding 30 million people to insurance programs of various kinds probably doesn't mean a 10% increase in healthcare demand and nothing like a 10% increase in demand for high-end healthcare services like cancer care or heart care.
A chunk of the trillion-dollar Dem-care cost would be re-arranging who pays for stuff rather than additional costs. The additional costs will probably come, based on the history of government programs.
There is some self-interest involved in seniors opposing ObamaCare. But a lot of that is the fault of O and the Democrats. They promise too much while the opposition exaggerates at every opportunity.
Seniors have been told they will lose absolutely nothing. But experience indicates there is no reason to believe that.
If seniors trusted the authors many would accept a bill modifying Medicare. But virtually no one in Washington of either party seems believable. And the greatly conflicting cost projections are regarded with the contempt they deserve.
Personally I don't think it makes much difference. We can't pay for the system we have now. And we can't pay for what is proposed. Printing money and foisting bonds upon foreign buyers can't last, it never has.
Until Americans start paying for what they consume, both goods and services, our decline will continue. Who gets hurt and how badly remains to be thrashed out.
One might look at the unions, too, who carry Cadillac insurance benefits that might be taxed under Obamacare.
Also, I have heard from some seniors retiring to new locations that docs won't take on new Medicare patients who they didn't treat prior to age 65. Does anyone know if this is a big problem or is it limited to communities overrun with older populations?