Dick Morris, back in early July, was the first to outline the danger that ObamaCare represented to seniors, effectively gutting Medicare to pay for the new system and rationing health care in favor of those that are younger on cold bureaucratic statistics. Opinion polling has since started to bear out his thesis about the opposition of the elderly to ObamaCare and the so-called “public option.”

Power Line notes:
(Read more after the leap)

The Democrats seem to be operating on the premise that longevity is a burden to society. Thus, they have pushed for “comparative effectiveness research,” which McCaughey [an expert writing for the Wall Street Journal] calls “code for limiting care based on the patient’s age.” In Britain, comparative effectiveness formulas had led to denying treatments for older patients who have fewer years to benefit from care than younger patients.

McCaughey points out, however, that “a patient who dies at 67 spends three times as much on health care at the end of life as a patient who lives to 90.” The real cost to society results when the elderly become disabled. For it turns out that nondisabled seniors use only one-seventh as much health care as disabled seniors (they don’t need nursing homes, vast amounts of intensive care, etc.). Moreover, medical procedures such as heart valve replacement and knee and hip replacement have had a major impact on steadily reducing disability rates, thus decreasing costs.

By shifting resources away from specialty care, by cutting Medicare by $500 billion, and eventually by rationing health care based on the concept of comparative effectiveness, “Obamacare” would put an end to this virtuous cycle. It would also substantially reduce the quality of life for seniors.

But don’t worry; McCaughey notes that Obamacare will provide seniors with counseling on end-of-life options, including refusing nutrition where state law allows it.