The 2006 Social Security Trustees Report, which includes the
Medicare program, was recently released. The trustees projected the year 2040
as the depletion date of the Social Security trust fund versus 2041 in the 2005
report.
Thanks to the Greenspan Commission in 1983, the trust fund
is running a surplus of Social Security taxes collected. Contributors include
employees, their employers and the self-employed.
As in the 2005 report, the trustees still project 2017 as
the year that the costs of the Social Security program will exceed its tax
revenues. The trust fund is designed to address this estimated shortfall.
The New York Times ran a report (5/2/06) and the Washington
Post a column (5/9/06) that ignored the non-partisan Congressional Budget
Office�s projection of 2052 as the year for the depletion of the Social
Security trust fund. This slip shrinks the context of Social Security�s future.
Further, the Post columnist wrote the bonds held by Social
Security were �IOUs from the U.S. Treasury.� That is an odd description of such
interest-bearing certificates.
In serious business journalism, bonds are called bonds. Apparently,
such journalistic standards do not apply to the Post columnist�s coverage of
Social Security.
The federal government is legally obligated to repaying the
bonds in the Social Security trust fund. A default would be illegal and drop
the credit rating for other government bonds.
The Times reporter and Post columnist also did a poor job of
explaining the financial crisis facing Medicare, the government program that
provides health care to Americans age 65 and up, plus some disabled recipients
of Social Security. In the new report, Medicare�s hospital insurance trust fund
is projected to run short of cash in 2018 versus the 2020 date projected by the
trustees a year ago.
In brief, Medicare�s cash crisis is being driven by the
rising cost of U.S. health care, which is exceeding the rate of inflation. For
example, the Consumer Price Index (minus energy and food) rose at a 4.1 percent
annual rate during the past three months versus a 5.2 percent annual rate of
increase for medical care prices.
In 2003, the U.S. spent 15 percent of its gross domestic
product on health care versus five percent in 1960, according to the
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Meanwhile, the U.S.
lacks a national health care program for all of its citizens.
Canada spent 9.9 percent of its GDP on health care in 2003
compared with 5.4 percent in 1960. Crucially, Canada provides universal
health-care coverage to its populace.
Corporate monopolization is one process driving up the cost
of U.S. health care. When the federal government grants patent monopolies to
pharmaceutical corporations, they hike by triple digits the prices of
prescription medications that dominate the market place in the absence of
competition from low-cost generic drug producers.
Such a process and not Medicare itself is helping to cause
its projected shortfall of funds. Repairing the U.S. health care system is the
solution for what ails Medicare and Social Security.
Seth
Sandronsky is a member of Sacramento Area Peace Action and a co-editor of
Because People Matter, Sacramento's progressive paper. He can be reached at ssandron@hotmail.com.