3 ms·
In the absence of Medicare/Medicaid there would not be universal coverage for the elderly. The elderly do not advocate dismantling this coverage. The coverage
by sykh 8y ago
In the absence of Medicare/Medicaid there would not be universal coverage for the elderly. The elderly do not advocate dismantling this coverage. The coverage is a government program. We are in agreement that a U.S. government program can cover lots of people and maintain the property that those people don’t want to the program to be dismantled. It’s not, then, hard to imagine everyone being covered by such a program.
- Andre_Wanglin 8y agoI did not support the ACA but I use the healthcare exchange because it is in my best interest to do so. I get free money from others to pay for my family's health insurance. In fact, I get a 100% subsidy. But the reason I get a 100% subsidy is because I am affluent enough to live comfortably on only a small portion of my income and funnel the rest into tax-advantaged accounts that reduce my AGI to a fraction of my actual income. It would thus not be in my interest to advocate the ending of the ACA. This is the same reason the elderly (who are the wealthiest cohort) do not wish to see Medicare/Medicaid dismantled. But is this what's best for society? Everyone gaming the system to benefit at the expense of everyone else?
- sykh 8y agoI feel sorry for you that you think this way. There’s a reason Medicare came into being. It simply isn’t profitable to treat people near the end of their lives. One illness, calamity is enough to wipe out a lifetime of savings and leave one penniless. The absence of a government program for providing healthcare to the elderly would be horrific and immoral. Some things ought not be profit driven. You wish to make our already horrible system into something worse. I’m glad your view does not prevail. I would hate to live in a country in which the majority shared this opinion.
- Andre_Wanglin 8y agoHow can it both be unprofitable to treat people near the end of their lives yet also wipe out a lifetime of savings? If end of life care transfers the life savings of the elderly to the providers, that sounds quite profitable. Why shouldn't the elderly pay for these services? They have most of the money! And the dying have the least use for it whereas the young (whom you would tax for these services) have plenty of life and obligations yet to pay for. How is taxing the poor to pay for the healthcare of the rich moral?
- sykh 8y agoHow can it both be unprofitable to treat people near the end of their lives yet also wipe out a lifetime of savings? It's unprofitable for an insurance company to insure someone near death and still provide a decent level of services. It's why there used to be pre-existing condition exclusions and why health insurance companies like Aetna went out of their way to try to deny claims. Also, if the expense of coverage is greater than the amount of money a person has then it won't be profitable to treat them whilst still bankrupting the person.
- cfadvan 8y agoI doubt that people actually doing this are concerned with the morality of it, just the profitability. It’s not moral, but it’s easy, because they’re old and dying and desperate. I don’t think there’s more to it than the usual greed and expediency.