The Phony Age Gap War

In “Politics and the Age Gap,” featured in yesterday’s New York Times, Adam Nagourney adds to the litany of recent articles that position old people as a primary obstacle to health care reform. In part, the target of these pieces is the tea party geezers who rant about socialism–but it goes well beyond that. Seniors tend to be depicted, explicitly or implicity, as obstinate or selfish because they fear cutbacks in Medicare will be made in order to provide health care for younger people. What’s more, they refuse to accept that Medicare must be cut back to keep it from going bankrupt before younger generations even get to use it. Thus, the argument goes, what’s really going on in the health care struggle is a fight by the old against the young, in which we miserly old coots are unwilling to give up what we’ve got for the sake of the greater good. “As the population ages and the nation faces intense battles over rapidly rising health care and retirement costs,” Nagourney writes, “American politics seems increasingly divided along generational lines.”

But the whole intergenerational conflict is a phony one. This health reform debate is about substituting a trumped up intergenerational war for what ought to be class war–pitting the old against the young, instead of pitting the rich against the poor, or the corporations against the little guy. 

If health reform moves forward, there surely will be cuts to Medicare–that isn’t some fantasy of demented old folks. And you can be sure the cuts won’t only apply, as promised, to “waste and inefficiency.” But the real scandal is this: The only reason that any cuts at all need to made to Medicare is because pols are unwilling to cut the profits of insurance and drug companies. That’s where the money to finance health reform really should be coming from.

In other countries, single-payer systems deliver better health care at far lower cost.  If we did the same here–or at least made moves in that direction–there would be enough for everyone. We could have Medicare for all–the young as well as the old.

But that, of course, wouldn’t serve the interests of corporations or their conservative cronies. The interests in question are not only those of the drug and insurance companies, but of the financial giants on Wall Street. As Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research wrote back in January:

The classic definition of “chutzpah” is the kid who kills both of his parents and then begs for mercy because he is an orphan. The Wall Street crew are out to top this. After wrecking the economy with their convoluted finances, and tapping the US Treasury for trillions in bail-out bucks, they now want to cut Social Security and Medicare because we don’t have the money.

And here’s what I myself wrote on the subject a while back:

Advocates for the preservation of so-called old-age entitlements have been warning for some time that Social Security and Medicare may be offered up as a sacrifice to offset the cost of the bailout and stimulus. This would suit conservatives, who for years have been looking for ways to undermine the popular programs. Leading that charge are the the “granny bashers” hunkered around the Peter G. Peterson Foundation. With an endowment of $1 billion, the Foundation pursues an agenda that consists mainly of bitching and moaning that greedy geezers are taking money away from poor young things with their unconscionable demands for basic health care and income support. With increasing support from the media, the punditry, and some members of Congress, they warn that aging boomers will soon bankrupt the country and destroy the lives of future generations.

These dire predictions are surfacing again–but what’s now driving the move toward entitlement cuts isn’ t the bailout, but health care reform. And because Democrats aren’t willing to stand up to the force that’s most reponsible for soaring health care costs–the U.S. system of medicine-for-profit–they are playing right into this hand, jumping on the Medicare-cutting bandwagon.

In the end, old folks are likely to end up getting screwed by Medicare cuts–right at a time when we’ve already been screwed from several other angles. More from Dean Baker

The recent collapse of the housing bubble and the resulting stock market plunge have reduced the wealth of older workers and retirees by close to $15 trillion. This is a transfer to the young, since they will be able to buy the housing stock and the corporate capital stock for a far lower price than they would have expected to pay just two years ago.

Remarkably, the granny basher crew has somehow failed to notice this enormous transfer of wealth from the old to the young. They just continue their crusade to cut Social Security and Medicare as though nothing has happened.

It should be evident that the granny bashers don’t care at all about generational equity. They care about dismantling Social Security and Medicare, the country’s most important social programs. It is important that the public recognize the granny bashers’ real agenda so that they can give them the respect they deserve.

In view of all this, it’s no surprise that old folks have started to get paranoid, feeling like our country is getting ready to sweep us out with the trash. Too bad so many old people are wasting their  time tilting at bogus adversaries like the death panels, instead of at their real enemies of their golden years.

5 responses to “The Phony Age Gap War

  1. Thanks for all those un-minced words. I snatched a few of them over to True/Slant.

  2. Your commentary is more balanced than some, but the facts remain…we are heading into a world where there will be 2 workers for ea retiree…unsustainable to say the least.

    I don’t think that the younger generation is unwilling to help seniors in need, but a line has been crossed here. The younger generations are paying more and more – fica and medicare taxes have done increased and are going to have to go higher. Still, they have literally no hope of receiving benefits anywhere close to what today’s seniors are getting. There is no disputing these basic facts.

    I understand the need for self preservation, but there is something perverted about parents and grandparents throwing their kids and grandkids under the bus so to speak. It would be one thing if we had elders living in abject poverty. The fact that in many cases, the elderly are better off financially than their kids. In terms of the transfer you mentioned in the form of real estate, I say bunk. To cry poor boomer when a market was severely overvalued due to the very financial maneuvering and game playing by the boomers finally gets half-way to reasonable is obscene. In the 60’s and 70’s, one could buy a reasonable middle class home for twice your salary. The median salary now is about $50K. Think you can buy a house today for $100K. Not where I live. Never mind ins premiums will cost you $6K for a family. Wasn’t that when you were young. You have to have dual income families and therefore need daycare – add another $20K at least to your budget.

    I just wish we could all get together and decide on what would be fair to EVERYONE.

  3. Your commentary is more balanced than some, but the facts remain…we are heading into a world where there will be 2 workers for ea retiree…unsustainable to say the least.

    I don't think that the younger generation is unwilling to help seniors in need, but a line has been crossed here. The younger generations are paying more and mor4 – fica and medicare taxes have done increased and are going to have to go higher. Still, they have literally no hope of receiving benefits anywhere close to wbat today's seniors are getting. There is no disputing these basic facts.

    I understand the need for self preservation, but there is something perverted about parents and grandparents throwing their kids and grandkids under the bus so to speak. It would be one thing if we had elders living in abject poverty. The fact that in many cases, the elderly are better off financially than their kids. In terms of the transfer you mentioned in the form of real estate, I say bunk. To cry poor boomer when a market was severely overvalued due to the very financial maneuvering and game playing by the boomers finally gets half-way to reasonable is obscene. In the 60's and 70's, one could buy a reasonable middle class home for twice your salary. The median salary now is about $50K. Think you can buy a house today for $100K. Not where I live. Never mind ins premiums will cost you $6K for a family. Wasn't that when you were young. You have to have dual income families and therefore need daycare – add another $20K at least to your budget.

    I just wish we could all get together and decide on what would be fair to EVERYONE.;

  4. Pingback: Time for Hell’s Grannies to Ride Again « Unsilent Generation

  5. Pingback: Deficit Commission’s Alan Simpson Denounces Fat Cat Geezers « Unsilent Generation

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s