...[C]utting Social Security is one of those things you’re for if you’re a Very Serious Person....
But why Social Security? There was a telling moment in 2004, during one of the presidential campaign debates. Tim Russert, the moderator, asked eight or nine questions about Social Security, trying to put the candidates on the spot, while asking not once about Medicare, which serious people – as opposed to Serious People – know is the real heart of the story. Why the focus on Social Security? ...The answer, I suspect, has to do with class.
When medical expenses are big, they’re big; even the very affluent are grateful when Medicare pays the bills for their mother-in-laws bypass or dialysis. The importance of Medicare, in short, is obvious to all but the very rich.
Social Security, by contrast, is something that matters enormously to the bottom half of the income distribution, but no so much to people in the 250K-plus club. ...
So going after Social Security is a way to seem tough and serious — but entirely at the expense of people you don’t know.
Dec 5, 2010
A Class Act
From Paul Krugman's blog:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
You may have a good point.
Medical insurance benefits the upper classes more than the middle and lower classes, for the upper classes have more assets to protect.
I agree that Social Security is in less financial trouble than Medicare, strictly from a trust fund perspective.
From the budget perspective, the funding of benefits is the same - out of current revenues and debt.
(just like battleships). Medicare Part D is particularly expensive,as is Part B, for 75% of the premiums are funded by general revenues, and come right out of the current budget.
Don Levit
A very interesting perspective. I never thought of it that way. Thanks.
Post a Comment