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.