[mgh95]

> Once one decides to ration healthcare based on estimated remaining QALY, the same logic says we shouldn’t subsidize, e.g., healthcare for people who suffer from cystic fibrosis, or HIV, or aggressive cancers, or. . .

Those are risks. Risks are insurable. However, death is a certainty. It is very reasonable to discuss what we believe society should subsidize for end-of-life care as it will impact everybody, myself included.

> Or if you’d rather, there are millions of children without healthcare in the United states. Would you forgo your access to healthcare for them?

I don't see what pediatrics has to do with end-of-life care in the context we are discussing (Medicare), but I would much rather subsidize pediatrics than elder care.

> That’s all? Musk alone is worth twice that, and who knows how many QALYs he has left but it can’t be that many. He seems pretty miserable most of the time.

Musk is worth 244B [1]. Even if we could tax wealth 100% into cash, we would fully exhaust the wealth of the 25 wealthiest American families within 7 years. These expenses, however, will likely continue for the next ~20 years. We need to discuss benefit cuts or tax hikes on the American population writ large.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wealthiest_Americans_b...