On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 04:46:09 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote:

On Sep 27, 1:11*am, Don Foreman wrote:

If ever employed then he made some contributions before dropping out,
but his period of contribution was quite short so the aggregate was
small. *Medicare (and Obamacare) are not pro-rated based on
contribution. *

What kind of argument is that? Are you saying that if a twenty-
something person invents the next whiz-bang doodad and sells the
rights for a zillion dollars, pays the taxes on said zillion and then
declares himself "retired," that said twenty-something is now a
deadbeat? That one is required, in Don's world to continue to work
until he's 65? Even if continuing to work takes a job away from te
next guy in line?

Is that what you're saying?

No. I didn't say any of that, those are your words. I didn't use the
pejorative term "deadbeat" at all, it's wmbjk (whomever that might
be) that uses that term liberally and often. Try to read and
understand what I actually wrote. You're irresponsibly extrapolating
and attributing inferentially for sensational effect. Hey, it's
Usenet, enjoy!

I merely observed that if wmbjk (whomever that might be) dropped out
about mid-life or so, then if (s)he later draws on Medicare or
Obamacare rather than accumulated assets (s)he will be riding on the
backs of contributive, employed working people if taking more than
(s)he contributed.

That's quite legal and exemplarily liberal. Do you think (s)he will
pay for his/her medical care in later life from his/her asset base
rather than drawing far more from Medicare and Obamacare than (s)he
ever contributed? If in similar circumstances, would you?

This successful working of the system wouldn't be noteworthy if (s)he
wasn't so vituperatively (if anonymously) intent upon scathing others
who also "work the system" successfully with different approach.

Perhaps a matter of professional jealousy?