Old People Vs. Sick People

Ezra points out a serious flaw in the usual debate about entitlement programs as a proportion of GDP. Namely, while Social Security is expected to rise in the near term but level off in the long run, healthcare entitlements, namely Medicare and Medicaid, are going to rise off into the future like some sort of Himalayan pile of oxygen tanks and erectile-dysfunction drugs.

Ezra points this out as a way of belittling the Political Jesus (a.k.a. Barack Obama) and his statements that he is open to changing the way Social Security benefits are handed out. While I agree with Ezra that Social Security isn't going to be the bank-buster, I'm still quite open to changing the benefit structure; namely, it's about damn time we up the government-funded retirement age, to 70 or maybe even a bit higher, and it's also time to means-test those benefits.

To my mind, the whole point of Social Security is, ummm, security. All people, by virtue of being human beings, are due certain inalienable rights and minimal standards of living. If you reach 65, or 70, and have nothing to your name, then the government will give you enough to get by with a frugal lifestyle. If you have enough to provide yourself that frugal lifestyle already, then good on you; congratulations and good luck. Some people will be bitter about the fact that they, for saving, end up living a similar lifestyle to someone who was a spendthrift and acted irresponsibly. Oh well; suck it up. You both still get to live in a pretty damn good country, so count your blessings and enjoy the shuffleboard.

But of course, Ezra's point is that this won't make the big difference in saving the federal budget. For that, we need healthcare entitlement reform. And here, of course, the answer is more government-run health care. But that's a point for another post.