Question

Is it ethical for the federal government to pay the costs of kidney dialysis for all patients, regardless of age or income, as it now does, but not to pay the costs of other illnesses? Which would be more reasonable and more feasible: extending benefits to those who have other illnesses or withdrawing them from those who need kidney dialysis?

Answer 1

Kidney dialysis is a procedure in which machine removes the deoxygenated blood cleans it and circulate the oxygenated blood back to the body. This is the sole medical service Medicare pays for to the person regardless of the age. Its been the case since 1972. So every individual who require recieve dialysis even with end stage renal disease. That's a good thing bit it consumes a huge amount of medicare spending. Since there have been no change in the rule since 1972 medicare still handles the patient with kidney disease the same way and still so many people take dialysis in clinics rather than home which is much cheaper and a very few performs kidney transplant which is long lasting and healthier solution .While in-home dialysis is far cheaper and more comfortable, as it can be delivered while patients sleep, just 12 percent of patients receive the procedure in that type of setting.The law was meant to keep young and middle-aged people alive and productive. The kidney expert says many of the patients who take advantage of the law are old and have other medical problems, often suffering through dialysis as a replacement for their failed kidneys but not living long because the other chronic diseases kill them.

It should be better to extend benefits for those who have other illness withdrawing is not a great option as some people are really in need of dialysis.