It's children, not seniors, who are ailing (Where's the real Cynthia Tucker?)

The Atlanta Journal Constitution ^ | Sunday, July 21, 2002 | Cynthia Tucker

[where's_the_Outrage?]

Pity the poor retirees.

If conventional wisdom is to be believed, America's elderly struggle to get by on limited incomes, sometimes forced to choose between buying groceries or essential prescription drugs. As the U.S. Senate debates competing proposals to add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare, you will hear lots of sob stories about the stereotypical grandmother reduced to eating cat food.

Don't believe it. That impoverished grandmother forced to eat Whiskas tuna because of her high prescription drug bills may exist somewhere --- but she is a very rare case. The simple truth is that the nation has done a good job of providing for its senior citizens, so much so that many of them have the money not only for their medications but also for those geezer bus tours to Atlantic City or Dollywood.

The vast majority of elderly citizens have manageable pharmaceutical bills. Sixty-eight percent of seniors spend less than $1,000 per year in out-of-pocket costs on prescriptions. Fifteen percent spend between $1,000 and $2,000 a year.

The other 17 percent have soaring out-of-pocket expenses topping $3,000 a year and may genuinely need help, if they are poor. But the massive drug benefit proposed by Democratic senators would cost $500 billion in the first six years and aid all seniors, wealthy and poor alike.

There is no doubt that the cost of prescription drugs has escalated sharply, squeezing the budgets of Americans of all ages. But the Senate's mawkish concern for the elderly has less to do with their finances and more to do with their political clout: Senior citizens are the nation's most reliable bloc of voters.

(Unhappily for me, they also have the spare time to write or phone not-yet-retired newspaper columnists. I will no doubt spend the next week fending off their criticisms. To my mother: Please stop reading here; it doesn't get any better.)

Because of their political activism, the elderly have received a substantial share of the nation's welfare spending. (Yes, Social Security is a welfare program. Retirees consume the equivalent of funds they and their employers paid in within the first few years. Medicare is a welfare program, too.) Measured in 1990 dollars, total federal spending on a social safety net for older Americans amounted to approximately $13,190 per elderly resident in 1995, according to Martha Ozawa, a social scientist at Washington University in St. Louis.

By contrast, the nation has allowed many of its children to languish in poverty --- without the housing, educational opportunities or health care they need. In 1995, total federal spending on a children's safety net amounted to about $1,400 per child, according to Ozawa.

Here's why older citizens, including baby boomers like me, should worry about that: Younger workers support retirees. Social Security and Medicare are paid from taxes collected by people still working. If the nation doesn't properly take care of its children, they will not have the skills to shoulder the massive burden of paying for the next crop of retirees --- the huge baby boom cohort.

"America's future is being jeopardized by the country's inability to invest effectively in the education and financial well-being of its children. It is critical for policy-makers to keep in mind that children have lost substantial economic ground in relation to adults and elderly people since the late 1960s," Ozawa has said.

Of course, if children could vote or give huge donations to political campaigns, politicians would jump to accommodate them. Since they cannot, a course correction toward more spending on impoverished children will require great political courage and sacrifice.

What the nation needs is for a few geezers in Congress to stand and speak frankly to their own generation. They ought to say, "It's time for us to allow children to receive a larger portion of the nation's affluence."

cynthia@ajc.com

[dalereed]

"If your kids hate you, and you have no friends willing to see you sheltered, warm and fed, you were a rat bastard who oughtta eat a bullet and quit wasting our air."

No matter how anyone "feels" about me, the day that I can't totally provide for my own support is the day that I should stop taking up space on this planet.

[Aedammair]

You do make an excellent point.

But I do see it as my responsibility to provide for my parents if they need me to. Fortunately my parents are more than capable of financially providing for themselves. But I am determined to see to it that they never see the inside of a nursing home. They took care of me when I was dependent, and I will do the same for them if they need me to.

[another cricket]

Unfortunately no, she wants more Goverment spending, but instead of to Seniors, to the children.

Sigh. No surprise. The flame of enlightenment seems to flare only for a split second before it gets snuffed out.

a.cricket

[happygrl]

LOL!! You're so right. This generation's mothers wish they had it as good as that generation. All that Social Security contributed by their husbands !

[Plutarch]

Some would say that she shows just how bad a newspaper the AJC has become.

That doesn't explain her widespread syndication. It shows how bad nearly all newspapers have become.

[Spirited]

" This whole problem could have been fixed thirty years ago by converting Social Security to private accounts that the govt. could not touch. Even CDs and six percent interest over forty years yield alot of money"

Congratulations for being able to "see" the problem most clearly. Only it should have started much, much earlier. The "masters" took good, hard earned money away from working people by law. The Reserve has inflated the money supply so that the dollar now buys almost nothing by comparison; it is unrecognizable by comparison. Had the "geezers" you malign been given the right to invest for themselves instead of the government raiding the fund for your benefit you might have the moral right to turn your back on them. Unless, of course, you were the recipients of their scrounging for your college education or health care, cars or fancy weddings.

My parents both paid the SS bill and scrounged to save for the "rainy day'. That meant that they lived very frugally and took care of their parents and children. No vacations, little clothing and raising food. When retirement came the government decided they had "too much" so they received nothing for what they put into the SS fund. The same government benefactors dictate that they cannot use just any doctor they choose, it must be a medicare man who uses high priced pharmaceuticals which field side affects worse than the original problems. They cannot go to a doctor who will "first, do no harm" and even pay him out of their pocket for his services in orthomolecular medicine or homeopathic medicines (used by the Royal family of Great Britain). If a doctor tried to treat them outside of the medicare regimen he would be prosecuted and relieved of his license. Do you know that many "geezers" don't do medicare for this reason, so that they get gouged by doctors who have them help pay for other, less able patients and "charity" illegals? That "extra" should rightly go to help their children pay for medical care for their grandchildren, but we won't talk about that.

I figure we don't have to worry. They will shortly approve euthanasia and the "useless eaters" and handicapped (like perhaps our FR host and his wife) will be flushed. Many children will be brought up, benefitting by the increased largess, more selfish than the generation which brought them up and they will deny you the right to live or breathe in their turn whether or not you are useful.

Perhaps the most vile organization there is is AARP. They are government lackies and if you do a study on what they espouse and where their money goes you will understand that it is as bad as the NEA or worse. Many "geezers" thoroughly disagree with them. However, that is the government anointed power base which, along with the politicos, deserves your approbation. This double-harnessed pair foisted on "the geezers" the loss called Social Security care.

[dinasour]

That impoverished grandmother forced to eat Whiskas tuna...

 

This is nonsense. Calorie for calorie, cat food is much more expensive that human food.

 

Believe me, I know.

[dagtaggart]

"Hey, what if their parents were lousy SOBs all their lives? Should their kids be required to support them?"

Not at all. It should be individual choice. But because the child makes that decision does not mean i should support them.

[speekinout]

Cynthia makes several good points about the elderly, but then proceeds to squander them in the end. The simplest way to increase the money available to children is to quit taxing the bejabbers out of young parents.

Exactly right. I was enjoying the article until I got to the end. To her credit, she accurately identified a problem.
But then she had to say that it was the gov'ts responsibility to spend OUR money.

[speekinout]

But I am determined to see to it that they never see the inside of a nursing home. They took care of me when I was dependent, and I will do the same for them if they need me to.

Have you checked with them? Nursing homes are not the dumps they used to be. And there are a lot of people who would rather be among contemporaries with activities and food suited to their ages than living with their children who are gone all day and changing their diapers at night.
Letting your parents spend your inheritance on the best nursing home or assisted living facility they can afford might be much more to their liking.

[Aedammair]

Listen, you stick your parents in a nursing home if you'd like, and wax on about how lovely it all will be for them. It doesn't matter to me; they're your parents. But rest assured that I'll be taking care of mine, God willing, and they will be loving every minute of the loving care I will give them. But I can see that you don't understand the value of that, and maybe that's because you had the parents you had and I had mine.

[speekinout]

All I was saying was to have the conversation with them. My stepmother wanted very much to be in a situation where she would have activities with peers all day. There's no way, even with adult day care, that we could have provided that from our house - esp. with working schedules.
If you're home all day, and can provide social activities for your parents, good for you.

[Sabertooth]

But the massive drug benefit proposed by Democratic senators would cost $500 billion in the first six years and aid all seniors, wealthy and poor alike.

There is no doubt that the cost of prescription drugs has escalated sharply, squeezing the budgets of Americans of all ages. But the Senate's mawkish concern for the elderly has less to do with their finances and more to do with their political clout: Senior citizens are the nation's most reliable bloc of voters.

Oh, this is way too funny. Cynthia Tucker is doing a better job of articulating a conservative position on prescription drug benefits for seniors than President Bush and the GOP Senate did with their $320 billion boondoggle.

I'd love to hear the "We're taking the Democrats' issues away!™" crowd spin this.

[Sabertooth]

Correction: GOP House.

[Sandy]

What the nation needs is for a few geezers in Congress to stand and speak frankly to their own generation.

No. What this nation needs is millions of younger voters screaming at the top of their lungs, telling the bleepin geezers that enough is enough; it's OUR freekin money, not theirs. Until enough people vote to put a stop to it, the Socialist Generation will continue to take and take and take. I really can't imagine what goes through the mind of a person who actually votes to force other people to pay his way. I will die before I ever allow myself to be that way.

[FreedomFriend]

A very bad newspaper.

[FreedomFriend]

While I can understand seniors' concerns, the majority of what you hear from them at townhall meetings are "prescription drugs", "medicare", and "social security". Other things, such as illegal immigration, taxation and abortion don't appear to be on their concern radar.

[FreedomFriend]

That's a terrible thing to say. Everyone's life is precious.

[FreedomFriend]

At one of the town hall meetings that I attended, and older man (around 70), stood up after other seniors had discussed prescription drugs, and said, "I don't think I should be entitled to anything. After all, they already pay enough money to the government. I don't think that's fair. I don't think that they should have to pay for me". That's basically the gist of what he said.

[where's_the_Outrage?]

"I don't think I should be entitled to anything. After all, they already pay enough money to the government. I don't think that's fair. I don't think that they should have to pay for me".

After learning about welfare in school and knowing my Grandfather was poor, I asked my Dad if they had gone on welfare?

He said no, his dad was too proud.

At the time I thought it was kind of dumb. Years later I understood. This nation need more proud people.