One of the things I’ve wondered about is the big picture regarding Covid-19. Somewhere out there, people are calculating the “savings.” But I’ve seen nothing of it in the press. It must have occurred to others that the target population for Covid mortality is largely the Social Security crowd. Retirees. I ran some numbers–it’s easy. You can do it in just a couple of minutes.
Assuming that we’re probably at 200,000 deaths now (the official numbers are a bit lower, but there’s a nodding acceptance that we’re not including all the Covid deaths.) Figure about three quarters of them are seniors…with complications and co-morbidities. Those folks are collecting Social Security and they’re on Medicare.
If they average $1,000 per month in SS benefits (again, I’m picking a lower number, intentionally), then it’s 150,000 times $1,000, times 12 (for an annual number.) Do the math. It’s staggering. That number doesn’t address the savings in Medicare (which must be amortised to first cover the averaged $46,000 expense per Covid case.) And that’s for immediate deaths, so far. Estimates on senior Covid fatalities indicate that, on average, they’d have lived another 9 years, but for the pandemic.
Experts are saying our mortality numbers could easily double if we don’t take social distancing and hygeine protection (masks and hand-washing) seriously. Honestly, I don’t see evidence that the general population is taking adequate precautions. Many others will survive the actual illness, but ultimately die earlier, because of the damage done to lungs and hearts. One wonders if the government has dragged it’s feet, not out of incompetence (though there’s plenty enough of that) but leveraging the savings and relief from the burdens of supporting an aging population.
I’m not a conspiracy kind of gal, but I read a lot about Covid-19, and I am curious that no publication has noted the potential budget-balancing “upside” of the pandemic. Not one. Is this the Social Security solution?
What’s up with that?
Yeah but…
What’s the cost of an average stay in intensive care for those deaths? Not to mention that about half of otherwise healthy survivors may have serious long-term impacts. Some figures go as high as 80%. That’s one hell of a wrecking ball, and it just keeps swinging. Trumps “let it roll” non-response will be his permanent memorial. Hardly anyone on the planet has got it as wrong as the US.
LikeLike
I didn’t say it was a good thing. This Administration has completely failed to do the one most important thing a government is supposed to do. And, though I won’t go so far as to say it’s intentional…the planned to fail. That’s what happens when one cuts the funding for Disease Control. Some screw up by failing to plan, the US screwed up by planning to fail. (And you’ll note that, at the height of overwhelming the medical system…poor people and people with poor statistical chances of survival were sent home to die.) They didn’t even pretend to care. (The report on the Sturgis fiasco estimated the average cost of Covid treatment at $46,000. I have to take them at their word, knowing that some cost well over that. I suppose those sent home to die helped to bring the costs down.) And, you note that the survivors have long term impacts–this will shorten their lives and result in further SS savings. (Not that that is a good thing.) Trump should be charged with crimes against humanity–but that’s well beyond the scope of this original post.
LikeLike
This combined with not collecting Medicare and SS taxes from those making less than 100K will drive the whole social safety net of these programs into the hole. Hooray! If you ain’t a worker bee for an overlord, you are worthless . . .
LikeLike
I’m no worker bee…but I’m not going down without a fight.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good for you!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh yes, I have thought that ( and worse). So very Dickens of us. But it is so very hard to put everything to stupidity, although maybe that is too much credit. Covid takes out the old and many of those of us with more pigment to their skin, tell me that this administration feels that is not one of the pluses. We have evil people in charge and it would not be beneath them.
Vote!
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s hard to weigh the stupidity/intentional factors here–the failing to plan, versus planning to fail factors. But the Administration had a number of reset options along the way–and took none of them. When it was leaked that the task force considered whether rapid testing was worth it (because, at that time, the hot spots were in blue states), we had the information necessary for the Administration’s response to be chargeable criminally.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have often thought that this administration simply does not care about those who are dying—old, black, brown…But you have brought it to a point that I hadn’t got to yet. Cutting the payroll tax that funds social security was just the first step …
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sadly, nothing would surprise me anymore….
LikeLiked by 2 people
Never thought of that. Your brain works darkly at times. Well, I guess if it inordinately affected younger, we’d have to calculate the savings of not dealing with their life-long worth of health issues. Yikes! Now I’m dark!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nice blog
LikeLike