If it's true that the notices (which may or may not be announcements of the creation of death panels) are included in the package that contains the citizen's income tax form, then nobody who'd be affected by the information on those notices can testify (or have testified for him, on his behalf) that he didn't at least see the notice.
It's about the value to us of a non-wealthy, just-starting-out, Stephen Hawking, or of all the non-wealthy and just-starting-out Michael Kinsleys. It's Katha Pollitt without her computer, or The Nation no longer online and back to depending upon paper, and aware of the need to respond to all those letters and comments when it stands to gain nothing more and better, from that responding, than good will--even the best will, if you consider that you yourself didn't object to the notice that was the start of all this.
It's about communicating, communication, the ability to communicate. And then it's about technique, precedent, habit and rights, and not only those of the elderly among us. When has Paul Krugman, NYT columnist and Nobel Prize-winning economist, considered the question of whether it's even legal (and to say nothing of whether it's economical) for the Obama administration to order those notices to be included with a communiqué that originates with the IRS but which is moved by the Postal Service and assumed to be private. But Obama did expect to gain, didn't he, even if the form of the capital he'd receive would be political? Katha Pollitt, principled? Who can say?