In an America already divided along racial, economic and political lines, the health care debate has spawned another fractious schism, based on age. It’s not just an older population vocalizing fears over proposed changes to the health care system on which many depend for survival. It’s also the unexpected anger of younger people who think that seniors are getting a better “deal” than they are!

 When my mother was 82, she and I traveled on our own to the Far East and frequently observed something not customary in America: a reverence for the elderly. On public transportation and even in restaurants, younger people rose spontaneously and offered her a seat.

Nowadays the only thing rising in some young Americans is resentment. A local letter writer  opined: “Old folks have Medicare and young children get SCHIP (State Children’s Health Insurance Program). Adult Americans are left to fend for ourselves!” When did “fending” for oneself in the prime of life change from a personal  obligation to an expectation of government (i.e. taxpayer) assistance?

Pampered generations are casting covetous eyes on the benefits oldsters receive. No doubt they believe that expensive state-of-the-art medical equipment is better reserved for them than squandered on a passé generation. And while nobody wants to pull the plug on Granny,   some seem willing enough to accept basic provisions of the proposed health care plan that would  take an estimated $450 billion from Medicare’s budget through 2019 and an additional $113 billion from Medicare Advantage (serving 10 million seniors) to fund the expansion of health care for them and others. 

In the current debate, Medicare, which turned out to be seven times more expensive than  originally anticipated, has been alternately blamed and praised. On the one hand, it’s riddled  with rampant fraud and corruption, which, if eliminated, might cut costs  considerably for the entire health care system. One wonders, then, why that isn’t being done right now. And  if Medicare, a government-run program, is so out of control, why are we looking to duplicate it on a larger scale?

While most experts agree that mismanaged Medicare is unsustainable, an article advocating a government (public) option stated that Medicare is a success simply because it has no competition! But isn’t the administration touting a public option based on the supposed benefits of competition with existing private plans?

Americans envious of Medicare may suppose it’s “free” coverage for lucky seniors. At the very least, they figure it’s  better than  what they have, and think seniors are selfish and hypocritical for “denying” it to them.

The truth is that Medicare is no panacea. Nor is it free. Or uncomplicated. I recently received a 120-page Medicare booklet for 2010 describing a confusing array of “options.” Most seniors have paid into a health plan all their working lives and even now make automatic Medicare payments. Inasmuch as standard Medicare pays only a portion of medical costs and nothing for medications, seniors generally must buy into a supplemental plan or an HMO to cover other expenses. Even then, they’re often stuck with left-over charges and drug co-pays. Some procedures (e.g. dental, physical exams, certain tests, etc.) are not covered by Medicare at all.

Doctors get paid less for treating seniors than they do for other patients. And every health care plan  Congress has considered would cut that amount further, in essence punishing those who treat the old.  The result will be fewer doctors willing to do so. Is this a conscionable means of saving money?

Yes, health insurance premiums are too expensive for everyone, except maybe our lawmakers and other government employees. But ways can be found to reduce costs short of neglecting the elderly, who have the highest number of health problems and the least amount of earnings. Thanks in part to modern medicine, people are living longer than they ever have before. Are we now telling them that they have lived long enough?

Doris O’Brien lives in Vandenberg Village.