The solution to medicare isn't to remove younger, cheaper people from eligibility, it's to remove older, more expensive people from eligibility. The math is shockingly obvious on this point.
Medicare and social security were intended to ensure that people who were too old to work (at a time when the majority of work was manual labor) had a certain minimum standard of living. It was not intended to give healthy people a 30 year end of life vacation nor be a source of funds to futilely try and prolong the last few years of life.
I'm not against social services for the elderly. I don't think my gardener should have to work until he dies. But I also don't want the government to spend millions of dollars so my grandmother can live to 94 instead of 92. It's not even a matter of not wanting to pay the taxes to make that happen, it's a matter of priorities. I'd much rather see that money go to health care for children, for younger people who are still in the work force, and to education. I don't think medical care near the end of life is a particularly useful way to spend public resources.
Are you against private resources being spent by a rich person to live to 94 instead of 92, or just public resources?
I really like the UK NHS "QALYs" system for public spending, but I think it's reasonable for individuals to spend their money as they please (and, as a benefit, if it were paid by 100% private insurance or out of pocket, late stage medical care would be more in touch with needs. An extra 6 months of high-quality life might be worth more than 2y of coma, etc.)
> Are you against private resources being spent by a rich person to live to 94 instead of 92, or just public resources?
I'm against using public resources to do it.
I think it's irrational to use private resources to do it too, the equivalent of burning your house down before you die, but hey people are welcome to do that.
Except that runs counter to (a large portion of) the point of Medicare, which is to provide assistance to the old. (Yes it's also for low income households, but it's also a lot aimed at the elderly as well.)
I'll take a stab at guessing what you were trying to say though.. For a large number of the US jobs 65 is getting a bit on in years, think manufacturing, service, etc. also known as a large number of the , at 65 a large number of jobs aren't much of an option anymore.
Right. Cutting off the level of support for "old" people doesn't mean cutting off support for a 65. For example, why isn't social security structured as a 20 year term (the distance from 65 to average expectancy) , to be claimed whenever someone decides to retire?
