Boner

I ran across this on Slate. Very interesting article, and I'm sure this guy's viewpoint would be hotly debated. I'm not quite sure about it. I am of the mindset that we are to take care of our elders, especially since we enjoy freedoms that they fought for. However, this guy has some good points. Read the article and let me know what you think.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2092302/


Meet the Greedy Grandparents
Why America's elderly are so spoiled.
By Steve Chapman
Posted Wednesday, Dec. 10, 2003, at 8:16 AM PT

When Social Security was founded, offering a federal pension at age 65, most of the people born 65 years earlier couldn't take advantage of it. They were dead. For the lucky ones who lived long enough to collect, the new pension system, founded in 1935, was meant as a modest support in the brief span before they passed on to glory. No more. Since then, life expectancy at birth in America has increased to more than 77 years. For the majority of people, that means lots of time being supported by the government. A working life is now just a tedious interregnum between two long periods of comfortable dependence.

America's elderly have never had it so good. They enjoy better health than any previous generation of old people, high incomes and ample assets, access to a host of medical treatments that not only keep them alive but let them enjoy their extra years, and a riotous multitude of ways to spoil their grandchildren. Still they are not content. From gratefully accepting a basic level of assistance back in the early decades of Social Security, America's elderly have come to expect everything their durable little hearts desire.

They often get their way, as they did recently when years of complaints finally induced Congress and the president to agree to bear much of the cost of their prescription drugs. From the tenor of the debate, you would think these medications were a terrible burden inflicted by an uncaring fate. In fact, past generations of old people didn't have to make room in their budgets for pharmaceuticals because there weren't many to buy. If you suffered from high cholesterol, chronic heartburn, or depression, you were left to primitive remedies, or none. Today, there are pills and potions for just about any complaint—except the chronic complaint that many of them are pricey. It's not enough to be blessed with medical miracles. Modern seniors also want them cheap, if not free.

That's on top of everything else they get. Retirement benefits used to be just one of the federal government's many maternal functions. But in recent years, the federal government has begun to look like an appendage of Social Security. In 2000, 35 percent of all federal spending dollars went to Social Security and Medicare. By 2040, barring an increase in total federal outlays, they'll account for more than 60 percent of the budget. And that's before you add in the prescription drug benefit. Most of the projected growth is due to rising health-care costs, not to the aging of the population, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Retirees eyeing this bounty feel no pangs of guilt, thanks to their unshakable conviction that they earned every dime by sweat and toil. In fact, economists Laurence Kotlikoff and Jagadeesh Gokhale say that a typical man reaching age 65 today will get a net windfall of more than $70,000 over his remaining years. A luckless 25-year-old, by contrast, can count on paying $322,000 more in payroll taxes than he will ever get back in benefits.

Why do we keep indulging the grizzled ones? The most obvious reason is that they are so tireless and well-organized in demanding alms. No politician ever lost an election because he was too generous to little old ladies. A lot of people are suckered by the image of financially strapped seniors, even though the poverty rate among those 65 and over has been lower than that for the population as a whole since 1974. But it's not just the interests of old coots that are being served here. Young and middle-aged adults tend to look kindly upon lavish federal generosity to Grandma because it means she won't be hitting them up for help. Paying taxes may be onerous, but it's nothing compared to the cost, financial and otherwise, of adding a mother-in-law suite to the house. Working-age folks also assume that whatever they bestow upon today's seniors will be likewise bestowed on them, and in the not too distant future. It's not really fair to blame the greatest generation for this extravagance. They are guilty, but they have an accomplice.

It's surely no coincidence that the new drug benefit is being enacted just as the first baby boomers are nearing retirement age. Nor can it be forgotten that the organization formerly known as the American Association of Retired Persons—it's now just AARP—has lately broadened its membership to include all the boomers it can get its wrinkled hands on. AARP, to the surprise of many, endorsed the plan. And what a surprise it is that the prescription drug program, which will cost some $400 billion over the next 10 years, could balloon to $2 trillion in the 10 years following that—when guess-who will be collecting. You would expect taxpayers in their peak earning years to recoil in horror from a program that will vastly increase Washington's fiscal obligations for decades to come. In fact, they—make that we—can see that the time to lock in a prosperous old age is now, before twentysomethings know what's hit them.

Boomers have gotten our way ever since we arrived in this world, and the onset of gray hair, bifocals, and arthritis is not going to moderate our unswerving self-indulgence. We are the same people, after all, who forced the lowering of the drinking age when we were young, so we could drink, and forced it back up when we got older, so our kids couldn't. On top of that, we're used to the best of everything, and plenty of it. We weren't dubbed the Me Generation because we neglect our own needs, Junior. If politicians think the current geezers are greedy, they ain't seen nothin' yet.

But responsible middle-aged sorts may yet be brought to their senses when they realize that their usual impulse to get all they can will sooner or later collide with another boomer obsession: the insatiable desire to furnish our kids with every advantage known to humanity. Load Social Security with more obligations than it can bear, and our precious offspring will be squashed under the weight. To fund all the obligations of the Social Security system, payroll taxes will have to more than double by 2040—on top of whatever it costs to buy all those prescription drugs. At that point, our children will realize the trick we've pulled and start to hate our guts. That would be a cruel blow to a generation that thinks of itself as the most wonderful parents in history.

To avoid that fate, boomers need to recognize the need to stop writing checks that today's youngsters will have to cash. With the eager help of our own parents, we've created an entitlement that is fast becoming unaffordable. To bring Social Security into conformity with reality, we'll have to resign ourselves to a higher retirement age reflecting our prospective vigor and life expectancy. We'll have to accept more stringent controls on Medicare spending and take more responsibility for our own medical needs. We'll have to abandon our assumption that the point of the health-care system is to keep each of us alive forever. At some point—don't worry, not anytime soon—we will have to embrace a duty to stop functioning as a fiscal burden on our children and start serving as a nutritional resource for worms.

Cynthetiq

having visited my wifes grandmother to help her plan her estate and final years, I can tell you it's NO BALL OF WAX. You get old, you fall down, you break something, you don't heal in just a few weeks like you used to when a kid. Also, money does not last long. Where do you live? if you have no house that's the mortgage is paid, you still have property taxes, you still have electricity and gas to pay. Fixed incomes are hard to live on... and prescriptions aren't cheap. Heck, I'm employed and have insurance and some of my meds can cost me over $150 a month. WTF??? And add on top of that copays to the doctors visits.

I think that this author really has to STFU.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

denim

I agree. I see him griping about $70000. Uh, working people make that in one or two years, and he's bitching about them getting it over twelve years??? That puts them very much in the bottom of our money-earning society. This guy is clueless, or wants others to believe his lie.

j8ear

I disagree and think this author brings to light some very interesting dichotomies.

Just because a drug company creates a drug that will keep you alive for another 10 minutes or 5 years does not mean that you have 'a right' to this drug, and that your inability to plan for it's eventuality during your productive years means that the government should step in and pick up the tab. Does it? Compassion is one thing, aging gracefully and passing on peacefully is another, but being kept alive, because it's possible, is unreasonable, imho. The only ones who profit are the pharma companies, and do so on the backs of the tax payer.

We should all realize at this point that life expectancy will only increase as the medical sciences progress, MORE and MORE 'life saving' drugs will surface, and people will continue to improperly prepare for these actualities. What is the solution? Additional government entitlements, again on the backs of future generations?

Are our resources unlimited? Is there a point in this process where needs will outnumber capability. I believe there is. Not sure when, but it will come.

JAFO,

-bear

gabshu

I don't personaly identify with this, because I have wealthy grandparents. But I do agree that we have to take care of the elderly, because they are responsible for building up the country we have, they put in the sweat and tears necessary for it to work. When we get older, it will be the same about us.

You can't just forget the contribution that these people have made to the economy and because they aren't useful anymore just set them aside. The elderly deserve a good life and whatever will make them live longer and healthier, IMHO.

__________________
Go Kool Aid. OH YEAAHH

http://www.retrocrush.com/archive2003/koolaid/

Cynthetiq

I guess you miss the part where I said I was paying for my insurance AND had large copays. It's inconvenient even for me.

As for people on fixed incomes there is just your average worker who still has to pay for this type of stuff.

I never said that the pharmaceutical manufacturer (which I've worked for Pfizer, Nycomed, and Elf Sanofi) and they pend lots of money on research and they do deserve profitablity. BUT there is something called "protected profitablity" that the governement allows where the "original" company has exclusive rights to manufacturing before the "secondary" companies are allowed to make similar generics, which as we all know generic is always cheaper than brand name.

Open your eyes and look at what it costs for you to live, then think about how much your CURRENT nest egg will last you if you were incapacitated and couldn't be gainfully employed, and maybe it will allow you to walk in someone else's shoes for a moment. I have been earning for some time, I've saved lots of money, and I tell you I'm ALREADY worried about my retirement.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

j8ear

I didn't miss it as I am in exactly the same boat. Just as inconvenienced, just as burdened. They grow every year, regardless of how I behave.

And I am...

Just as concerned about my retirement as well.

What is the solution? Hope and pray that while I struggle to house, feed and educate my burgeoning family, that somehow a tax payer funded, governement managed entitlement will be available to make up the difference? I don't think that will be effective. Do you?

My deal about the pharma's...I have no problem with them inventing, researching, marketing and bring drugs to market. I have no problem with them making huge profits on their products. I have a problem with people believing that because something to save or prolong their life exists they have a RIGHT to it.

Hopefully, I will be able to do good things in the future to eleviate these concerns...if I fail, well...hopefully I will have raised a family able to care for my wife (she for sure will survive me), because I do not believe a federally managed entitlement is a viable alternative.

I'm at a loss. Not looking to argue or ruffle feathers. I'm calling it like I see it, and interested, as always, in learning.


-bear

Cynthetiq

the problem lies within your statemet, you could behave differently then just acquiescing to the corporate lobbyists.

they should be allowed a fair shot at profits, because their product is partly intellectual property. I never said that they should give it to me or anyone else for free. They should have to play in a fair market system with rules and regulations that benefit the people not the corporation.

But the healthcare system debacle is as much a problem they created. Why in America the cost is so much drastically different than in Canada? Mexico? Great Britain? Why is it that another manufacturer in Africa cannot make a AIDS treatment drugs without infringing upon intellectual copyrights and pay percentage franchise fees? The difference in generic vs. name barnd is huge.

from my insurance company:
OXYCODONE W/APAP TAB
2 per day $24.00
vs.
PERCOCET 10/650MG TABLET
2 per day Your Answer
$50.00


that's my copay not what the ACTUAL cost is if I did not have insurance. I'd say around proabaly $30 vs. $100

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

analog

Yet another reason I am never, never, NEVER EVER EVER having children. I work, I make money, I keep money. Spend money on my woman and some "things" (material luxuries), and that is that. I save for "later".

I will manage my own money, use the system to make my money grow with the times (CD's, IRA's, things of that sort), and keep it OUT of the stock market where I can get fucked and OUT of the government's hands whenever possible.

When I get old- whatever will be, will be. I either prepared for it, or I didn't. Don't preach.

Besides, I plan on being rich by then, so I won't care.

*sits back and allows everyone else to continue their debate*