A "society for all ages": saving Social Security and Medicare.

In 1999 Sharon Keigher dedicated the National Health Line to a discussion of how the United States might build a "society for all ages," the theme of the United Nations' International Year of Older Persons. This is not an academic exercise. The aging of the baby boomers presents difficult and unprecedented challenges. Ironically, our ability to respond to these challenges may depend on the outcome of a battle many believe we have already won. I refer, of course, to the battle over social security and Medicare and the effort by conservatives to privatize these social insurance plans (Barker, 1999). For social workers, the importance of this battle should be clear (Hudson, 1999; Keigher, 1999; Takamura, 1999). Social Work Speaks (NASW, 1997) stresses the "intergenerational stake in providing adequate support for all dependent populations" and the need to obtain "public support" for "the most needy, regardless of age" (p. 19). Social security and Medicare are our most important forms of "social capital," and privatizing them would grievously damage our social fabric (Wilkinson, 1996). They also represent, in latent or embryonic form, our "society for all ages?" Unfortunately, we cannot assume that our colleagues, much less the public at large, understand the importance of these issues. As Hudson (1999) points out, the very success of social security and Medicare, and the difference they have made in the lives of older adults have fostered the illusion that most elderly people no longer need these programs. Moreover, the differences between those who support these programs and those who oppose them have become muddled. Frank Luntz, a well-known Republican pollster and the architect of the Contract with America, has advised his clients to stress their commitment to strengthening Medicare. Both political parties also have promised to protect social security. Conservatives now frame their proposals in terms of compassion, right to choose, and bipartisanship (Starr, 1999). They no longer "ignore completely elderly people who are poor and sick" and in some cases actually advocate expanding "means-tested programs directed to these individuals" (Hudson, 1999, p. 156). In a sense, the debate has shifted from whether to preserve these programs to how to preserve them. However, we must not be fooled. The conservatives' fundamental goal--the privatization and "systematic erosion of... social security"--has not changed (Hudson, 1999, p. 156). The problem for social workers and for progressives generally is developing a strategy for defending social security and Medicare. The admitted complexity of the situation should not deter us from acting. The stakes are high for both sides. Defeating privatization would not only preserve social security and Medicare but also open the door to a "society for all ages." Conversely, victory for the privatizers could throw us back a generation. This battle is one neither side can ignore. MYTHS ABOUT PRIVATIZATION It would be presumptuous to try to summarize the case against privatization in a few paragraphs. However, I will discuss briefly a few of the myths about privatization. Those interested in a full discussion of these issues should consult such important works as Social Security in the 21st Century, edited by Eric Kingson and Jim Schulz; Social Security and Its Enemies by Max Skidmore; Social Security: The Phony Crisis by Dean Baker and Mark Weisbrot; and Straight Talk about Social Security by Robert Ball and Thomas Bethell. Other important sources include Families USA (http://www.familiesusa.org); the New Century Alliance (NCA) (http://www.ourfuture. org); the Century Foundation (http://www.socsec.org); the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare (http://www.ncpssm.org/menu.html); the National Campaign to Protect, Improve, and Expand Medicare (http://www.Health-Access.org); and the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation (http://www. …