When analysts speak of a fiscal catastrophe some
50 years hence, what they are actually referring
to, strictly in terms of scale, is a public sector
analagous to the Euro social-democracies -- spending
in the neighborhood of 40 percent.
The bulk of this, again in terms of debatable
scenarios, is not from Social Security but Medicare.
The bulk of the Medicare run-up is not from more old
people, but from trends in the use of resources in
the health care sector.
Health care spending came in way lower than projected
between about 1995-2000, which is a factor in the improved
projections. Consequently, the method for projecting
such spending was revised to show faster increases.
Science marches on.
If the projections prove right, the shortcoming in
the public sector from a social point of view would not
be in its size, but in the share of resources devoted to
health care, as opposed to an allocation more balanced
towards a variety of purposes. In other words, it would
be a failure to construct a rational and fair system of
rationing.
mbs
Gar Lipow wrote:
>Also there is one other point. In the U.S, anyway the increase in the
>ratio of seniors to others is projected to occur alongside a drop in the
>ratio of children to population -- so that the total "dependency" ratio
>is projected to be a only a tiny bit higher than at present...
If you calculate the number of nonworkers per worker, even the rather
dire official Social Security calculations show only a minor rise, to
levels well below those of the 1950s and 1960s.
Doug
