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

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.

I tend to be a bit pessimistic about programs run unsustainably. At some point the "new" are gonna have to get hit with a large tax increase. While the "old" will say, "I am entitled because I paid!" Hence, its not gonna be fair at this rate because the old are getting more than they put in, the new will pay more because the program is no longer sustaining itself. We are already at that point by the way, there just hasn't been a tax increase.

Medicaid and social security are different. I'm fine with safety nets for people that truly need them. Primarily if they have real problems, not just a series of dumb life choices. I want people with cancer and other serious conditions to be socialized for the poor. It would take only fraction to pay for that versus every little need that many working people could pay out of pocket. Everybody needs the small things, but a much smaller number of people need help with bankrupting medical issues.

Universal Medicare was established 37 years ago here in 1984 and seems to be sustaining itself just fine. 

Personally, even if I hadn't gotten cancer and ended up needing it, I'm fine with paying a little over time not just in case I need it, but so that a kid with cancer can get life saving surgery or a granddad with a bad heart can get the transplant he needs. Of all the things my tax dollars could be spent on, I'm fine with them going towards helping others.

Last edited by curl-6 - on 04 May 2021