>>The 47 trillion dollar deficit has nothing to do with me personally.

Of course it does. You and yours made the decision to make a total 2.9% contribution of income towards Medicare. That wasn't enough and sorry but you squandered the investment heydays of the 60s-90s when invested premium surpluses could have set Medicare up forever. Meanwhile the US healthcare market achieved world-beating cost inflation and the deficit went from bad to impossible. Perhaps you recall a few brave politicians who tried to be responsible and were punished because the electorate knew tax is bad and government interference in markets is worse and individuals can invest more effectively than government. Meanwhile the Japanese government set its sights on healthcare cost inflation and ended up for example with costs for CT and MRI scans that are an order of magnitude lower than the US: $160 vs $1700-$2400 would be one example. Google to see for yourself.

Social Security is just as bad: a 12.4% contribution sounds OK, except that that firms and self-employed people claimed half as a business expense and it was capped at a relatively low income with too many exemptions.

>>We will just have to continue to disagree about this one. You obviously believe in big government solutions and think that the government is better equipped to take care of people than the individual people are of taking care of themselves.

Unfortunately you may get the opportunity to practice what you preach if (as KG has pointed out) there's no obvious solution to that Medicare deficit and the young aren't willing to prop up that Ponzi scheme for your benefit when it's obvious there's nothing there for them. Ditto Social Security: what youngster with a student loan or baby wants to pay 12.4% of their income into a scheme that's due to go broke in 2027 or 2033 depending who you ask. Presumably you'll agree that they can invest that 12.4% far more effectively themselves?