Question of the Day: Is Medicare the "Monster in Our Future"?

An anonymous blogger alerted me to an interesting article published by Robert J. Samuelson in The Washington Post. In the article, Samuelson asserts that Medicare is the "monster in our future." He takes to task economists who believe that increased health care spending is worthwhile and nonthreatening. Essentially, Samuelson questions whether Americans really ought to prefer health care spending, which purportedly results in longer lifespans, to "a third car [or] yet another television." After citing a few of the benefits of health care spending, including advances in Alzheimer's disease, Parkinsons and cancer, Samuelson writes, "But the present explosion in health spending is increasingly wasteful and socially corrosive. It may ultimately lower economic growth--a side effect of the high taxes needed to pay for Medicare and Medicaid--and already depresses take-home pay, squeezes other public services and redistributes income from the young to the old."

Is Samuelson correct? Is Medicare really the "monster in our future?" By helping those who are elderly to live longer lives, are we depriving the young? Is such spending "wasteful" and "socially corrosive?" How do we overhaul the system, but still nevertheless ensure that those needing health care receive high quality care and that research and development continues on effectively so that we find more cures to debilitating and life threatening diseases?