December 28, 2003
TOUGHEN UP, GRANNY
A Young German’s Broadside. He questions pensions and becomes a celebrity (Mark Landler, International Herald Tribune, 27/12/03)
Five months after he heaved a big rock into the murky water of German politics, Philipp Missfelder still professes not to understand why it set off such waves of protest. "I didn't say anything racist. I didn't say anything unfriendly to people from other countries," said Missfelder, a husky 24-year-old in a V-neck sweater who looks like anything but a rock-thrower. "I was only talking about things that are important to people in my generation."What Missfelder said, in an interview published in the Berlin newspaper Tagesspiegel, was that old people were soaking up Germany's financial resources with lavish pensions and gold-plated health care plans. Such largess, he said, came at the expense of young Germans, who he warned would be strangled by the burden of supporting an ever-larger population of retirees. The other day, as he sat in a café near the Technical University of Berlin, where he studies history, Missfelder described what he regards as the systemic abuse of Germany's welfare system.
"In every town in Germany, old people go to the doctor to socialize or talk about the weather," he said. "If every appointment cost E10, they would say, 'It's not so bad, I'll stay home.'"
In Tagesspiegel he was even less polite, complaining about 85-year-olds getting costly hip replacements. Why, he mused, couldn't they just make do with crutches, like in old times? For a well-spoken, disciplined college student who runs the youth organization of Germany's largest conservative party, the Christian Democrats, it was a conspicuously intemperate debut. Elderly voters are a powerful force here, not to mention the bedrock constituency of his party.
Herr Missfelder has joined the issue with the compassion and sensitivity young Germans have always been famous for. An aging population expecting early retirement and generous state pensions and healthcare will eventually be insupportable. The cause of euthanasia appears to have a bright future in Germany.
But this story also shows how stark and selfish individualism and free-enterprise can be when they are not buttressed by commitments to faith and family. One might well forgive those elderly Germans who spit scorn on their grandchildren for not raising large enough families to support them. More delightful is the thought that one day the German government will tell Herr Missfelder it intends to implement all his suggestions gratefully and that his grandparents will be moving in with him shortly.
But it is a problem they,and we,will have to deal with.
I also find it darkly amusing that the rationalizations used by baby boomers to justify abortion(personal convenience)will be used to rationalize euthanasia of the boomer generation.
Mr. Burnet;
It hardly seems fair to blame the effects of massive state controlled pension and health plans on the free market.
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at December 28, 2003 11:17 AMAOG:
I'm not. I'm challenging libertarianism to state what it proposes to do about unproductive, dependent citizens.
Posted by: Peter B at December 28, 2003 12:11 PMFolks, there is a middle ground between gold-plated healthcare and euthanasia! As Missfelder pointed out, even a nominal copayment can greatly change the economics of the system, partly by the money it brings in, and partly by the incentive (or disincentive) it creates.
Posted by: PapayaSF at December 28, 2003 3:35 PMMr. Burnet;
What conservatives would do - family support or charitable organizations. Individual savings. Cooperative organizations, which are the sinew of a civil society.
Libertarians believe that individuals, families and communities will come up with better solutions with fewer ill consequences than a government solution.
It's a common misconception that libertarinism requires that individuals be completely autonomous. The actual belief is that people can't be forced to be cooperative. You can't make a society care about its dependents by government fiat and in fact, such a thing is likely to make things worse, as this article demonstrates.
AOG:
Thanks. But if the law mandates we support children, why not the aged? This is all occurring against the backdrop of demographic changes that MAY (As a conservative, I'm paid to be gloomy) prove overwhelming and unmanageable. It is great to talk about 401K's, etc., but to work for thirty-five years, raise and educate a family and also save enough to live comfortably for twenty-five years and provide for several years of assisted care may be unrealistic for most people. And what do we tell them if they don't? Tough, you are on the street?
Add to this the postponement of wealth transfers, very tough medical ethical questions and the desire to honour elders with more than money and social benefits, and you have one thorny challenge, no?
Posted by: Peter B at December 28, 2003 6:53 PMPeter:
Excellent post, BTW.
However, the problem revealed has much to do with Ponzi schemes. The beneficiaries are spending OPM, not their own, and when there aren't enough OP, then the system collapses.
PapayaSF makes a good point about copayments. Adjusting the retirement age upwards to reflect the longer productive lives people have now would also make a huge difference.
But the fundamental thing is to get away from Ponzi schemes.
Which is why Pres. Bush's ownership incentives are so vitally important to our society's long term health.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at December 28, 2003 9:51 PMOoops, meant to say "...ownership initiatives..."
Although, I have the feeling the real term has eluded me entirely.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at December 28, 2003 9:52 PMAOG:
I agree with you that nothing in libertarianism requires completely atomistic social organization; it's a shame that more libertarians seem not to realize this. When Reason magazine recently lumped Madonna and Dennis Rodman in with Milton Friedman and Margaret Thatcher as defenders of liberty (unbelievably, Reagan was excluded), it was simply showcasing the desire for absolute societal anarchy that many libertarians seem to periodically swoon over.
Libertarians ought to realize that their real argument is with governmental coercion, and not the existence of moral codes that everybody is free to reject and even flaunt (although others retain the perfectly reasonable right not to associate with such people). THAT is the kind of libertarianism that conservatives can love.
Posted by: Matt at December 29, 2003 3:47 AM