•February 3, 2016•

By Trudy Lieberman
Rural Health News Service

When the presidential race begins to focus seriously on issues, you’re likely to hear a lot about Social Security and to some extent Medicare. The nub of debate will center on two questions: Should we cut Social Security or expand it? Should Medicare beneficiaries assume more of the cost of their healthcare and reduce the government’s obligation over time? The questions are connected.

In a recent op-ed in the Los Angeles Times, Andrew Biggs, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a right-of-center think tank, argued that a broadly expanded Social Security program is not necessary and nor can the country afford it. He used a lot of numbers to show the case for expansion “rests on misunderstood data and a willingness to ignore Social Security’s rising unfunded liabilities.” One study he cited showed “about 71 percent of individuals ages 66-69 are adequately economically prepared to retire, given expected consumption.”

Others such as Teresa Ghilarducci, an economics professor at The New School in New York City, challenges that thinking. Ghilarducci says that income declines with age. As assets are used up, she says, it’s not uncommon for people in their mid and late 70s to make ends meet by skimping on food and medications. She adds that her own studies show “there’s a generation of near retirees, age 55 to 64, who will be worse off than their parents or grandparents in terms of maintaining their standard of living in retirement. Sources of income are more limited and less secure (than they were in the days of fixed pension plans) because they are attached to stock and bond markets.”     Login or Subscribe to read the rest of this story.