No wonder our beleaguered seniors are confused about FutureCare and the status of health insurance. So are the rest of us. The good news is that common sense is beginning to surface in the knowledge that this scheme is unsustainable.

The bad news is that among other unintended consequences, FutureCare creates double jeopardy for current taxpayers and future generations.

There is no doubt that providing health care to an ageing population is a complex problem. FutureCare is not the answer, however, as there are many seniors who can afford private health insurance while there are many non-seniors who cannot.

To bring some clarity to this issue, it is important to differentiate FutureCare from universal health care.

Universal health care is for everyone child, worker, non-worker, elderly, sick, healthy, etc.

Everyone who works, earns revenue, pays any form of taxes and then contributes to the overall cost. The risks are spread over the young, healthy and the unhealthy. Everyone pays in and everyone benefits.

With rising costs of health care and ageing populations, however, countries with universal health care such as Canada and the UK are struggling to pay for their national health schemes.

President Obama is staking his presidency on this very issue.

With FutureCare, Government is charging $260 a month for health insurance to a select band of persons who happened to be on their H.I.P. scheme on a certain date and were aged 65 or older, while thousands of other seniors are left out in the cold. The benefits are comprehensive and include dental and vision care, plus prescription benefits.

This is a Rolls Royce benefit package for an arbitrarily selected few at pedestrian cost to them while the actual costs are being picked up by the taxpayer.

One unintended consequence of this has been to drive private insurance providers out of the "low-cost" or H.I.P. equivalent market. Private companies cannot compete because they cannot charge $260 per month for health insurance when, in fact, the real cost of that cover for seniors a high-risk group is far closer to $750-$2,000 per month.

Companies are not charities. They exist to make a profit while providing a service or product. They are trying to balance their books as their actuaries tell them that risk rises with increasing old age. This, together with our routine approach to health care consumption regardless of cost, increases the overall cost of health care to insurance companies and the customer.

Guesstimated costs for FutureCare range from $10 million to $90 million per annum, depending on who qualifies, how many, what benefits, etc. However, there are two numbers that are undisputable.

One is the number of persons aged 65 or older will double to 22 percent of our population by 2030 from the census taken in 2000. The other is the rising cost of health care which is rising at 15 percent a year. (This was explained in a carefully researched article by my fellow columnist Martha Myron in this newspaper on September 26).

As a result, not only are costs going up but the number of people paying into the system is going down in relation to the growing number of those who will lay claim to the benefits.

This means the so-called "free" FutureCare is far from free. It is mortgaging the financial future of our children and grandchildren. Not only will they have to pay more taxes to support this scheme, they will have to pay for their own health care through private insurance providers while they are working.

This is double jeopardy. Unlike education, where our taxes pay for public education while the individual has the choice of also paying for private education, with Future Care there is no choice. The worker will pay for private insurance and FutureCare at a time of rising costs and ageing population another double jeopardy.

We owe it to future generations to provide equitable laws and policies. We owe it to future generations to provide an economic climate in which they are encouraged to work, save and invest for their economic well-being during and after their working lives. We owe it to future generations to teach them to care for those less fortunate. And we owe it to future generations to back down from promises that unfairly benefit the few and impose an intolerable burden on the majority.

Marian Sherratt is president of SORCOS, a social research and consulting firm. She writes on issues concerning our ageing population each month in The Royal Gazette. Send e-mail responses to m.sherratt@sorcos.com">m.sherratt@sorcos.com.