Don Foreman wrote:


Since the government imposed the plan with mandatory payroll deduction
of taxes to support it, it is incumbant upon the government to make
the plan work when claims occur and are paid as promised. This is
only a "cost to society" if the government or bureaucracy
administering the plan is incompetent or malfeasant.

That arguments is a descent into childish absurdity. The beneficiaries
of Medicare have received as or more competent services than the health
care recipient population in general and at a cheaper cost.

The government is elected by the people. If the people come to the
conclusion that Medicare is not a good idea and they elect politicians
to pass laws to eliminate Medicare there is really not much you could do
other than try to persuade the majority to not go that route.

I see your point in trying to not paint Medicare as "cost to society" as
part of your strategy to convince society that Medicare benefits should
not be curtailed. You have a point, but I don't see it as a useful
point. I don't think the problem will be solved by simply dressing it up
as something that it really isn't. That doesn't address the real
issues.

The issue of Medicare (and social security) solvency is really an issue
of the health of the economy as a whole. The current method of paying
for Medicare has created huge distortions in the entire economy and the
labor markets in particular.

Consider this: Goods and services that are available in the US economy
have a labor component to their cost. If that labor was performed
outside the US then it is exempt and doesn't contribute anything to
Social Security and Medicare. If the labor costs occurs inside the US
then it is taxed and it does contribute.
Can you see how this might create a distortion that drives the economy
in an undesirable direction? And what's worse is that the current
payroll tax structure has the potential of creating a vicious downward
death spiral. As the US labor component of the US economy becomes a
smaller percentage of total GDP you have even more pressure on that
smaller component to pay the "cost to society" which in turn contributes
to further atrophy of that sector.

Now if you look at the rest of the industrialized world they also have
social contracts that provide benefits as good or better than the US
does, but they have also worked out ways to finance those programs so
that they are less likely to cause harmful distortions to the economy.



More to my point, a legitimate claimant should not be labelled as a
"cost to society" before paid services per social contract exceed the
present value of mandated periodic investment and accrued interest of
self and supporting spouse over 45 years.

But it never worked like that. You want to pretend you made an
investment and interest accrued on that investment. The reality is you
paid for the benefits of others while you were working and now others
are paying for any benefits you might now be receiving. Your calculus of
saving, investment, interest accumulating you insist upon has never
existed.
Had you broke your neck and been paralyzed in 1966 you probably would
have contributed little to Medicare and instead may have received
benefits for all those years.

-jim