Robert Samuelson argues here that it's not true that most older people are struggling economically, and so older people who can afford it must begin paying more for the social security and medicare benefits. Here's a quote:
People do not lose their obligations to the larger society by turning 65. We need to refocus these programs on their original purposes. Social Security was intended to prevent poverty, not finance recipients’ extra cable channels. Medicare provides peace of mind as well as health insurance; wealthier recipients can afford to pay more for their peace of mind. Burden-sharing needs to include the elderly. This is the crux of the budget problem. Facing it is both a moral and financial imperative. With the 2012 election looming, major overhauls of these programs seem unlikely. Still, more modest changes (slow increases in eligibility ages, added taxation of Social Security benefits, costlier Medicare for upscale beneficiaries) could produce significant savings. If even these are absent, the meaning will be plain: Old stereotypes continue to trump new realities.
There's at least one other side to the argument. What has provided social security and medicare broad public support is that virtually everyone has a stake in them. If they become means-tested public benefit programs --- like other welfare programs --- would they lose that broad support, putting them at risk even for older people who rely on them for basic income support and medical care?
Comments