Social protection Vs Economic Growth

In the course recently I came across this topic wherein we were taught that the government expenditure which she spent over social (monitory) protection for elderly and senior citizens actually takes away a huge chunk of disposable income from government and hindrances the economic growth.

The later is justified as the disposable income which government is suppose to invest further so as to generate loops of income in employing young generation or present workforce is actually diverted to a non earning and physically non productive population of the country.

In Indian context the above argument holds true as well as not significant. It holds not significant in the sense that in western countries (I'm mentioning western scenario since this thought was proposed by a professor from west), the medical expenses for elderly/ senior citizens are borne by government. This expenditure amount is apart from the payment government would make to ex-employees in form of pensions. This dual expenditure mount taller as the advances in medical science allows a person to live a longer life than anticipated (pardon me if the word sounds rude; but the meaning explicitly remains the same). This situation causes the burden on government to feed a non productive population and I'm sure the problem persist in the present context when the government (essentially from west) is unable to cater the proper renumeration for present set of employees or productive population due to stroke of recession.

Talking in Indian context, the problem have a different face altogether. The Indian government apart form public health services (though it makes up to a substantial part of government expenditure) does not formally spent on senior citizens. Indian systems I'm not very sure how well maintains a separate budget for senior citizens. But standing in today's age when we are observing Human Development Index more than figures of GDP, it bound to invest more upon improving health services. This development could pop up two facet change. 1. life expectancy would increase and 2. may avail free services (based on the policies then applied) to elderly people.

In both the cases, we are actually heading towards what problem is being presently faced by the west. I, by any mean do not subscribe to the thought that government shall not intervene in subsidizing health services to senior citizens. But the concern is over how a country like India would cope up with the dilemma of what to prioritize; investment vs. services. Let me disclaim in the first place that I'm discussing a scenario which would calenderly arrive say 10-15yrs down the line, when Indian economy would have gone matured enough to take care of civic amenities in a more responsible manner.

Said that its a portrayal of a decade or so in future, my prime concern is, India who is called the youngest democracy in the world today, would produce a generation of senior citizens (adhering to the definition a senior citizen = 60yrs+) in the following years. Would exert a high pressure on government treasury.

I hearty wish that our economy should grow in a manner that government would willing take up the health care services as public amenities accessible to citizens free of cost. It shall also enhance more social protection measures by initiating micro-policies encouraging investments in insurance, providing lucrative incentives to insurance company to provide medical/financial support to lower/weaker economic section. But while doing all that we have to do a quantitative analysis of the expenditure that government make over productive Vs non-productive population, which I'm afraid may overtake the former by next decade. This issue needs to tackle by developing a model of funding health services in such a manner that the machinery goes autonomous i.e. its processes and functioning itself would generate revenue to the system and it will stay independent from the government subsidies and mature enough even to support elderly and vulnerable sections of society.