>You've repeatedly claimed that making young people pay now means that there will be money for them (collectively) when they are old.
Nope, I didn't say the "collectively" part. I keep explaining this.
>Are tomorrow's older folks going to be able to do the same?
Sure, if the young keep paying. But as I explained, there is no fact of the matter about which young people are subsidizing which old people. One way of looking at it is that young people are subsidizing their older selves, while the current generation of older people are being subsidized by their earlier payments when they were young. There's money going in and money going out, but when it comes to the question of "who's subsidizing whom", it largely depends on how you look at it. It's not as if John Smith's dollar bills are marked so you can see exactly who he's subsidizing.
You didn't use the word collectively, but we are talking about groups and you kept insisting that I was talking about individuals.
> >Are tomorrow's older folks going to be able to do the same?
> Sure, if the young keep paying.
Hold that thought.
> One way of looking at it is that young people are subsidizing their older selves, while the current generation of older people are being subsidized by their earlier payments when they were young.
More money is being spent on old people healthcare than old people are paying for healthcare. From that we know that their heathcare is being subsidized. We also know that young people are paying more for healthcare than they're receiveing AND that the surplus is going to old people healthcare. In other words, young people, as a group, are subsidizing old people, again as a group. (Yes, within each group, some folks are going against the flow.)
Since the young people's surplus is being spent today, it's absurd to say that their surplus is going to their future selves. If it was, there'd be money available when they got old even if tomorrow's young didn't keep paying more than they cost collectively.
> It's not as if John Smith's dollar bills are marked so you can see exactly who he's subsidizing.
I'm not talking about individuals. I'm talking about groups.
However, now that you've said "if the young keep paying", I'll ask how that's any different from social security. (SS payouts aren't strictly determined by contributions - there's a huge "insurance" portion.) Yes, the variance within a group is larger, but both are intergeneration wealth transfers.
If you don't think that tomorrow's young are going to be willing to pay for your generation's SS, what makes you think that they'll be willing to pay for your healthcare? (If you do think that they'll pay for your SS, it's probably reasonable to assume that they'll also pay for your healthcare.)
Nope, I didn't say the "collectively" part. I keep explaining this.
>Are tomorrow's older folks going to be able to do the same?
Sure, if the young keep paying. But as I explained, there is no fact of the matter about which young people are subsidizing which old people. One way of looking at it is that young people are subsidizing their older selves, while the current generation of older people are being subsidized by their earlier payments when they were young. There's money going in and money going out, but when it comes to the question of "who's subsidizing whom", it largely depends on how you look at it. It's not as if John Smith's dollar bills are marked so you can see exactly who he's subsidizing.