By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
curl-6 on 04 May 2021
Edit Thread
Mr Puggsly said:
curl-6 said:

That's just not accurate.

In a ponzi scheme new investors are acquired to funnel profits to old investors, with the new either seeing no benefit or hardly any. Universal medicare benefits anyone who needs it, and society as a whole because it is in the best interests of a country to have a healthy population.

"In a ponzi scheme new investors are acquired to funnel profits to old investors." That's actually exactly what's happening with medicare. Again, the "old" are getting much more than they put in and the "new" pay to keep it afloat. Here in the US it starts at 65, but people weren't expected to live much longer than that when it was designed.

Taxes on medicare and social security have frankly not increased enough based on trends. The only tax increases that are popular though are on the rich. There is also the argument retirement age should be increased. Obviously that's not a popular thing for a politician to suggest. Given those circumstances its a popular system, but may lose some praise if taxes increased.

So again, just clarifying its a popular system that's arguably undertaxed and at this point very funded by the "new." Also, its not like medicare money is just sitting around. The "new" have to pay for it. Which is why I use the term ponzi scheme.

The new benefit just as much from it when they need it though, unlike in a Ponzi scheme where new investors do not get a fair share of the benefits.

If you get injured in a car crash at age 18 or are born with a lifelong congenital disease, you still get the full benefits. When I got cancer at age 30 I didn't have to go broke or go without treatment as a low income earner because of it.