by Patrick Appel
A reader writes:
Many analysts assume there will be a war between the generations regarding who benefits and who pays for social programs like medicare and social security, both programs open to the vast majority of elderly, retired, or disabled Americans.
This misses a key point of both programs.
My own case as an example. I get both medicare and social security now that I'm 67 years old. But my first benefit from the programs came when I was 19. My parents sent me off to college, and sent my sister the next year. This would not have been possible without social security and medicare, which were available to my grandparents – the first generation to come of age under these programs. Without these programs, my family's money would not have stretched to cover my college costs. It would have gone, as it did in countless generations before, to taking care of elderly parents and grandparents.
When I was in my 50s, both of my parents died after relatively long illnesses. My sister and I worked hard to ensure that our parents died with dignity and compassion; however, without the supplements provided by medicare and social security, we would have had to "rob" the next generation to cover costs of aging parents.
These two programs have broken the chains that bound younger generations with the health and welfare of parents and grandparents. So, if you give the younger generation the option of paying into social programs or having their parents, grandparents, old maid aunts and uncles move in with them, the choice is easier.
The Dish 