Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Stop Blaming the Boomers

By Dean Baker, Common Sense. Posted September 20, 2007.


Skyrocketing health costs, not the Baby Boomers, are the real problem.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Dean Baker

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Over the last two decades, there has been an effort by the enemies of Social Security and Medicare to demonize the baby boomers as a threat to country's prosperity and the well-being of our children and grandchildren.

They have repeatedly warned of the enormous projected cost of Social Security and Medicare and called on the current or future elderly to sacrifice their benefits under these programs for the common good. We heard endless tales of $70 trillion dollar-plus deficits and how our children and grandchildren would face crushing tax burdens unless the greedy soon to be geezers accepted large cuts in their Social Security and Medicare benefits.

Those of us who challenged this story now have an important ally in Peter Orszag, the new director of the Congressional Budget Office. Orszag has made a point of distinguishing the extent to which costs are projected to rise due to aging and the extent to which they are projected to rise as a result of the rising cost of health care in the United States. As he recently said at a press event, "The long-term fiscal problem truly is fundamentally one involving the rate at which health care costs grow and much less about the aging of the population."

This is hugely important. The way to deal with scary long-term budget projections is to fix our health care system, not to gut Social Security and Medicare. While aging will impose some additional costs in the future, this is not new; life expectancies have been increasing ever since the United States came into existence. The new threat is a health care system that is projected to consume more than 30 percent of gross domestic product in just over three decades. If health care costs in the United States looked more like those in any other wealthy country, we wouldn't have to look at scary budget projections.

The moral of Orszag's analysis is that those who are concerned about the huge deficits projected for future decades should be working first and foremost on reforming the health care system. If we fix our health care system, then our other budget problems are manageable. If we don't fix the health care system, we can look forward to a future of bad health care and a weak economy. We will also have insoluble budget problems.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: healthcare costs

Dean Baker is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. TomPaine contributor.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Duh. Blame people for getting old?
Posted by: CJC on Sep 20, 2007 11:23 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One of these years the country will come to its senses and institute some kind of universal health care system.

Attributing a national "health care crisis" to any generation that had the nerve to be a large, healthy, and relatively prosperous one, is ridiculous.

Of course, human beings in a rich country - even if we're less rich compared to other industrialized countries than we imagine ourselves to be - have a right to good health and medical care.
Society should share the burden. We have publicly funded education. Why not public funded health care?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We need Universal Healthcare
Posted by: norascats on Sep 26, 2007 3:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Medicare/Medicaid system already covers the sickest, most chronic patients. How can adding the healthier people increase the costs?
I don't have any coverage. When I retired, I took the chance of going without for three years because I've had forty years of paying into a system that gave back very little.
Universal healthcare may help doctors to focus on helping people stay healthy, rather than rushing to decide which drug to prescribe. Will it be perfect? No. But the system we have is so broken, that it needs to be completely replaced.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]