3 ms·

I 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 live

by sykh 8y ago

I 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 ago
How 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 ago
  How 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 ago
  I 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.

by sykh 8y ago

Andre_Wanglin 8y ago

How 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 ago
How 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 ago
I 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.