I don't understand this point of view. would you rather them have a poor standard of living? Or be unable to afford their health care and have a highly reduced quality of life? Or die because they can't afford their medicine? Not all of these people have family who are able (or willing) to pick up whatever slack might be there without the medicare system you don't want to pay for. By saying "Fuck you I've got mine", you're condemning these people, as well as setting a bad precedent for when you come to retirement age.I for one do not want to pay for it. Costa Rica here I come.
No. Of course not. I do not want any one to have a poor standard of living. That said, it's unfair to burden the working generation at a rate that holds them back significantly. Public policy is about compromising between different interests. Social Security and Medicare may not be able to support the coming retirees in its current form. Bankrupting social security or unfairly taxing the working generation should be seen as just as big as priority as ensuring the living standards of retirees. We need to look at the situation currently and say how can we provide benefits to retirees with the resources that are going to be available at the time. As the replacement rate of the population slows down we have less productive workers providing the same benefits for a larger proportion of retirees. Changes will have to be made.
Had you posted this comment instead of your first one I think we would be entirely in agreement with one another. It is unfair that the coming generations are going to be burdened with a level of support that the boomers never had to, and not only that, that the shockwaves of that support are going to echo out for generations. This is a problem that someone should have figured out in the 1990s, when we still had a chance to do something about it.