Americans Are Dying Younger, Saving Corporations Billions (bloomberg.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Bloomberg: Steady improvements in American life expectancy have stalled, and more Americans are dying at younger ages. But for companies straining under the burden of their pension obligations, the distressing trend could have a grim upside: If people don't end up living as long as they were projected to just a few years ago, their employers ultimately won't have to pay them as much in pension and other lifelong retirement benefits. In 2015, the American death rate -- the age-adjusted share of Americans dying -- rose slightly for the first time since 1999. And over the last two years, at least 12 large companies, from Verizon to General Motors, have said recent slips in mortality improvement have led them to reduce their estimates for how much they could owe retirees by upward of a combined $9.7 billion, according to a Bloomberg analysis of company filings. "Revised assumptions indicating a shortened longevity," for instance, led Lockheed Martin to adjust its estimated retirement obligations downward by a total of about $1.6 billion for 2015 and 2016, it said in its most recent annual report.

Mortality trends are only a small piece of the calculation companies make when estimating what they'll owe retirees, and indeed, other factors actually led Lockheed's pension obligations to rise last year. Variables such as asset returns, salary levels, and health care costs can cause big swings in what companies expect to pay retirees. The fact that people are dying slightly younger won't cure corporate America's pension woes -- but the fact that companies are taking it into account shows just how serious the shift in America's mortality trends is.

Comments

Obamacare and the oldster extermination program.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

I see a lot of talk about the benefits to corporations, a little about possible causes of the drop in life expectancy in the US.

But the latter is all about minor stuff. I haven't seen a single mention of the elephant in the room: Obamacare and its effect on the healthcare and finances of the older part of the popuation.

Obamacare drastically increased the cost of, and reduced access to, medical care for oldsters. In the case of my wife, for example:
  - The premiums nearly QUADRUPLED. (Currently over $14,500 per year, just for her.) QUADRUPLED. (Currently over $14,500 per year, just for her.)
  - The deductables increased.
  - She had to change specialists (for several life-threatening conditions) twice (so far). Some went out of practice, others weren't on the limited plans available to her.
  - During the hunt for competent replacements (and bringing them up to speed on her conditions) here treatments were thrashed: Substitution of inferior medication, interruption of medication for months, complete abandonment of any treatment for one condition, etc.
  - The price of medical devices and treatments climbed.
and so on.
Her situation is not unique.

This is not surprising: Obamacare is (admittedly) based on the "Complete Lives System", which directs healthcare resources away from those under 15 (and especially under 6 months) and over 40, and toward those between those ages.

This was predicted. And not just once Obamacare (or even Hillarycare in the Clinton administration) was proposed.

As far back as the early '80s, the impending doom of the Social Security System and other government retirement programs was a big issue. (When CNN was new I recall one interview with a high federal bureaucrat, who said "we have to get the death rate up to meet the birth rate" - a "slip of the tongue" that got edited out in the three-hours-later rebroadcast of the live show. B-b )

Opponents of government programs to interfere with, or take over, medical care have long pointed out that the government treats the citizens, not like people, but like a herd of domestic animals, living and dying for the benefit of their owners. Maximum benefit is obtained when the weaker newborn are killed off before they cost more than they will ever produce, and those getting too old to produce are killed off, saving the costs of feeding and maintaining them.

By those principles, now that their income taxes and productive output is dropping (or about to drop) and their load on retirement and health-care programs is rising, it's time to first loot the savings of, then kill off, those approaching or passing retirement age - starting with the boomers and genXers.

Whether this was the actual purpose of Obamacare, that is certainly much of its effect. And now we're starting to see it in the lifespan statistics.

Hang in there - it will keep getting worse.