The whole point of the rest of your post was to describe how income redistribution is neutral to the greater society. This sounds good in theory but has always proven to be false. Communist societies have a lower standard of living for almost all their "citizens" while capitalistic societies have a higher standard of living for all thier citizens. Government transfer of wealth (communism) always hurts the society it is inflicted upon.
Your previous posts used the term "loss" without defining the scope. Loss to society or loss to the individual. It is obvious that a transfer from one individual to another is ALWAYS a loss to the "donor" individual. He no longer has his assets.
It is less obvious, but equally true, that a forcible transer from one individual to another is a loss for society. Communism never works. (The negative incentives of communism cannot be overcome. Remove the profit motive and people no longer work.)
If social security and medicare and medicaid were abolished tomorrow, would the net worth of the US population change in any way thereby? No.
Does either add a scrap of value to anything? No.
Do both at the margin and in the long run, involve some loss of efficiency and incentive? Sure. But nothing like the destruction of $1.35 trillion a year, which is the amount spent on them.
Does the prospect of spending that sum every year and the amount rising every year with inflation plus, mean that the American people are bankrupt? No, because they aren't paying that sum to Martians.
Stop deliberately confusing people about the differences between the effects of transfer and transfer accounting, and outright expense or immediate loss.