>>And you presume quite a bit. You presume to know how I voted and as far as I know, when I cast my vote it is supposed to be private. You may tell me the results of elections if you like, they are a matter of public record, but the way that I cast my vote is not.

LOL. Even if anybody would believe for a moment that you'd vote Democrat or Green- governments of every colour over the last 40 years have allowed this deficit to grow. Wonks like Ron Paul who did understand the dangers of systematic deficit, were eliminated early on every time.

>> So you know where you can take your judgmental holier-than-thou attitude and put it.

Sorry if truth hurts, but "facts" have no bias. Fact: a $47T Medicare deficit. Fact: new workers that you expect to pay for it, are not responsible for this deficit. Fact: you said you refuse to take responsibility for things you did not cause. But it appears you expect the young to do exactly that and you get angry at the thought that they might share your own beliefs about responsibility.

Some basic math: if the annual per capita cost of healthcare is $10K in the US, for people over 65 it would be considerably higher. So lets imagine that you live to 82 years old as the average for the US, or 86-88 for middle class healthy women. You will consume healthcare for more than 20 years after you become eligible at 65. Assuming that your spend doesn't increase (as we know it does after 65) and that medical inflation miraculously drops to zero - your Medicare spend will be more than $200K. Which sounds a lot, except that my figures say that Medicare spend is more likely to approach $25K during your eligibility in which case your Medicare spend is $500K. Since there's a 2.9% income tax to fund this, you only needed to earn $17,241,000 over your working career to fund this predictable spend. So you only needed to earn $377K per annum to cover your own Medicare spend, though the ACA did introduce a higher Medicare tax for people earning that much that would drop your earning target by $10K or so.

No doubt you were earning $377K from age 20 to cover your Medicare spend as you insist, but what about all those lazy others who only earned, say, $150K per annum from age 20? Their contributions were nowhere near enough, even if their inadequate contributions weren't being sucked into a Ponzi scheme to pay the lucky initial recipients who contributed very little but receive the most, as with all Ponzi schemes. In the days of housewives it was even worse since her spend wasn't being covered at all. Basic underwriting says that the tax on those earning $150K ought to have been 10% to cover costs. But it wasn't; it was 2.9%.

Which is why there is a deficit, and why holier-than-thou attitudes towards the plight of the young seen from some of the people who did this, is so objectionable.

It's not all doom and gloom, since not all demographic groups extract as much from Medicare as white women. For example, millions of African American working class men die in their 60s, often without extracting a single penny from the Medicare contributions they paid diligently from the age of 16. Thank goodness for their generosity towards a scheme that seems mostly to advantage other groups.

Obviously the above doesn't refer to you if you earned $377K per annum to cover your own spend, but there were an awful lot of others who systematically underpaid and now believe that some other chump should cover the bill. If you ever hear those others smugly lecturing about their personal assets and exhorting the young to match this performance: please remind those people how they accumulated this wealth and that they're now adding insult to injury. At some point, the young should be expected to cry "enough. and exit the Ponzi scheme, so lets not provoke them just yet...

I accept that people may not have realized what was happening, but it did happen and decent people presumably want to make it right. As an idea: if somebody who earned $150K per annum and only paid 2.9% rather than 10% used the saving to purchase real estate, which would have been very easy before the inflationary 1990s: reasonably they could contribute back say $200K as an acknowledgement of where the purchase price came from. I think this would make it a lot easier for the young who are realizing the size of the millstone placed around their necks by asset-rich oldsters.