Bloomberg says a 95 yo with cancer should be denied treatments

Ok, mini mini Mike. When you get cancer just ignore it and don’t seek care. Put your money back in your wallet.

He’s right and wrong.

He’s demonstrating very clearly why government shouldn’t be the actuarial and the insurer for the people.

If you think insurance companies will frick people over, wait until they’re replaced by the government.

I was told death panels were kooky. This smells like death panels.

I DO agree that the taxpayer shouldn’t pay for cancer treatment for a 95 year old, but I also think the taxpayer shouldn’t pay for anyone’s treatment at any age.

frick socialized medicine.

Yeah, because the very minute percentage of the population that makes it to 95 years old is the group that’s fricking up healthcare.

Maybe if he said “we should cut off healthcare for the junkies” you’d have a different tone.

Is that the cut off age you want? So we will aggressively treat the 94 year old with cancer until she turns 95 - no exceptions? Go ahead. Lay it all out for us how this will logistically work.

Tell me, what’s the age where you stop getting care?

84, we can help, 85? No we can’t.

quote:

---

Bloomberg says a 95 yo with cancer should be denied treatments

---

Not a Bloomberg supporter by any means but Medicare already does that...

My dad is 95 and recently found out he has cancer in his lungs. Recommendations are for nature to take its course and hospice when needed. TBH he is not strong enough to survive Chemo.

My mom (91) has severe back pain from osteoporosis effects. No surgery solution recommended. She gets to live out rest of her life on morphine/dilaudid. Problem here is she has the wit and mental capacity to make it worthwhile to fix her. Medicare says no.