Virtually all of the legislators that brought us Medicare are dead and gone now. All of the legislators who brought us social security are dead and gone. This is no coincidence, for these men realized that it was politically much more popular to give away government goodies paid for by the young and unborn than to tax the very same people who were to “benefit” from their “ideas” and “programs.” Dead now, these criminal politicians have largely escaped the harsh judgement they deserve for buying votes with property that would belong to future generations. Currency depreciation (the current political class’s favorite way to rob the young for the benefit of their current constituents) has the same effect on future generations.

I asked Senator Orrin Hatch at a physician’s roundtable years ago, why I couldn’t punch out of social security, happy to leave all that I had paid “into the system” on the table. Why couldn’t anyone, I asked, willing to leave behind all they had paid in, be allowed to walk away from these entitlements, as long as they were willing to forego a future claim to these “benefits?” He wouldn’t answer me. The answer is obvious, though, isn’t it? Without the current “contributions” of the young (and yes, draws on the credit line of the unborn), the current beneficiaries would discover that these programs were bankrupt.

This is the essence of a Ponzi scheme. If you think about it, all government programs are Ponzi schemes. It is becoming increasingly clear, I think, that the same can be said about TUCA (The Unaffordable Care Act). Here is a quote from an editorial by Nina Owcharenko and Alyene Senger from the Heritage Foundation:

“The need for young enrollees to participate stems from rules that force insurers to charge them more than they actually cost to help offset the higher cost of insuring older and sicker people. If the young don’t sign up, premiums for everyone in the insurance pool will dramatically increase, as will the cost to the government.

Here, too, the authors of the law must have feared young adults and others would not voluntarily purchase this more expensive coverage. They therefore included the individual mandate to penalize those who don’t purchase coverage.

But young adults are beginning to see the reality as the health law takes shape, and understand how they wind up losing from every angle.

The costly benefit mandates, plus paying artificially higher premiums solely because of their age, will make their coverage costs higher than the penalty for not purchasing government-approved coverage. Thus, many young adults will simply pay the lower-priced penalty instead.”

Sound familiar? It sounds as if the success of TUCA hinges on the successful fleecing of the young people. This is the same immoral basis for Medicare and social security, “programs” that are still alive due to the nature of the involuntary participation of these Ponzi schemes. With Bernie Madoff, at least people could take their lumps, having learned their lesson and move on. They didn’t have to continue to give him money after they learned what he was up to.

If the authors of the above piece are correct, many young people won’t participate and will pay the penalty instead. This will cause the price of “insurance” to escalate, exactly what the central planners are hoping for, as this price “crisis” will generate more calls for single payer. That is the nature of the game with Uncle Sam, isn’t it? Win or lose, you lose.

HHS’s K. Sebelius has recently come under fire for soliciting donations from those who stand to profit the most from TUCA. As unethical as this is, isn’t it worse to use the taxes of the young to fuel the propaganda machine that HHS will use to peddle this snake oil to the very same young people? I am optimistic that the extremely libertarian young people today will reject the shackles that many of their elders have embraced.

G. Keith Smith, M.D.