Editor's Note: Paul Kleyman, the esteemed Editor at The American Society of Aging, recently spoke about the news media's failure to report accurately on issues related to aging and its tendency to rely on tired stereotypes about older Americans. RedwoodAge.com is publishing his speech, delivered Dec. 13 to the Marin (California) Commission on Aging, with minimal editing as a special four-part series. We hope his viewpoints will help provide balance to other reporting on these critical issues. We welcome your comments, which may be entered below his remarks.

RedwoodAge.com

Changes certainly need to be made to shore up Social Security and Medicare – especially, in my view, getting control of healthcare costs overall, not just within the Medicare program alone. 

Kleyman (ASA)

And regarding Social Security, economists have proposed a menu of fixes for the long-term. And those choices don’t require gutting or privatizing Social Security.

Congress could lift the ceiling on how much income is subject to payroll taxes each year. Right now the wealthiest Americans don’t contribute a dime above $97,500 of earnings. You could increase that amount very slightly over the next 20-25 years and make up about half the needed amount.

Also, Congress could invest a portion of the Social Security trust fund in stocks and bonds to improve the income picture. 

Those are just a couple of examples. Yet, media reports continue to repeat the conventional wisdom [that the system is going broke], denigrating the boomer generation along the way. 

What’s interesting is that this boomer-bashing is hardly new. Back in 1988, "The New Republic" ran an infamous cover story titled “Greedy Geezers.” That probably includes some of  the people we now call “The Greatest Generation.” (Thank you, Tom Brokaw.)

These slurs and repeated allegations come from the same well-financed quarters - often the same people, the same conservative think tanks, and the same lobbyists as 20-25 years ago. 

And the media have failed - with some notable exceptions - to do the ear-to-the-ground reporting that we all need - regardless of one’s political persuasion -  in order to understand both sides and judge the arguments for ourselves.

But let me review some of the good news about the Longevity Revolution.

In the space of only 100 years, modern society has added 30 years to our average life expectancy at birth. In 1900, Americans lived on average to age 47. Today, mass longevity means that a child born now can expect to live to age 77. That’s almost an additional two generations of life. And that changes everything in our personal lives and social institutions. 

Another way to look at this is that at the time of the American Revolution, only 2 percent of the population was 65 or older. Today, it is 13 percent. In fact, almost 4 percent of Americans today are 85 or older. The 65-plus population will double in the US to 20 percent by 2030 - 70 million people compared 35 million today.

And the fastest growing age group in this country -  can anyone guess? Centenarians. The US Census Bureau now estimates that there are 72,000 people 100 or older on our shores, and some population experts predict there will be a million centenarians in the US by 2050. 

One more statistic along these lines: According to the American Academy of Actuaries, when a couple reaches 65 today there is a 63 percent chance -  that’s a two-out-of-three chance -  that at least one of them will live to age 95. Another 30 years of life or more at 65? Just think of the implications for retirement finances or healthcare coverage. 

Remember, at present Medicare - with limited exceptions - only covers care for acute illness, not the most prevalent kind of healthcare needed by elderly people - long-term care for chronic illness.
The longevity gains that have come with better medical science, public health, education and social organization have been an astonishing human achievement - and it’s being repeated worldwide.

But does this mean a world of dependency and woe -  a society crippled by decline and burden? 

The answer is: not if our leaders and the public take heed of the challenges, take stock of our considerable resources, and make plans for a productive new approach to the aging of America. 
Greater public understanding is critical to this process -  but so far the media have largely failed in this task. I say largely because there are notable exceptions – and I’ll talk about the hopeful signs later.

First, though, I’d like to discuss what’s closest to the heart of any journalist – where the stories are. That is, where are the stories that remain untold or at least under-covered -  the low-hanging fruit for any reporter?

Among the most positive developments is that disability levels for older people are actually on the decline. In fact, longitudinal data from the National Long-Term Care Survey show that more than half of Americans ages 85 or older experience no disability at all. 

The oldest Americans might have aches and pains, of course, but many continue their daily activities without assistance. So even for the oldest people among us, aging is not necessarily an inevitable downhill slide. 

There will certainly be more older people with health problems, but that will be in proportion to the growth of the entire population. In the long run, the overall economy will grow, too. 

A recent report from the International Longevity Center shows that aging contributes only about 6 percent to the growth of all US healthcare expenditures.

Most healthcare inflation comes actually from things like new drugs and other medical technologies -  and from the uncontrolled healthcare inflation in this country. It’s not from having too many old people -  who are so often presumed guilty of draining the healthcare system of resources. It’s not true.