I think I see where you’re coming from, but not in full agreement about the $1M premise.
The USA, by virtue of the Constitution, accepted that there would be costs to “provide for the common defense”.
I don’t see the rest of the spending this country engages in anywhere in there.
That being said, should there be a revisit to the amount retirees pay? Probably, but this tactic is nothing more than spitting in the face of those who are “locked in”. All so that they are ultimately forced into 0bamacare since they would have no other option. Which is the ultimate goal here.
So in other words, as it relates to spending, what’s the diff? The gov’t pays either way.
“I think I see where you’re coming from, but not in full agreement about the $1M premise.”
I just posted the numbers for you. You can argue either way, but you are substantially on your way to $1M if not over it.
Again, I do not know what the answer is. But there is no argument over the basic premise - even if you vary the assumptions either way (higher interest will reduce the amount, COLA’s will increase the amount, medical inflation will increase the amount)
I think that the political will to do anything is non-existent - so your benefits will be eroded slowly, or quickly, until they are no longer what you expected them to be.