• toast@retrolemmy.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    78
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Unethical and counterproductive. Having a prosthetic limb would almost invariably lead to a less sedentary lifestyle, which is strongly correlated with better health. Paying for a prosthetic today has to be cheaper than paying for a heart attack or diabeties later.

    • ggppjj@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      2 days ago

      You’re making the assumption that they’ll pay out for a heart attack or diabetes later. You just said that they were caused by the pre-existing condition of not having a prosthetic limb.

    • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 days ago

      Depends on how you measure productivity. The hope is that by the time long term care is required for things like diabetes or heart disease, the patient would be eligible for Medicare.

      That or the sedimentary lifestyle will so negatively affect the more than likely diabetic patient, that they go into renal failure and qualify for disability through social security. Effectively removing their cost onto a socialized network.

      Paying for a prosthetic is much cheaper in the long run, but not for private insurance. The vast majority of the cost of not providing a prosthetic will be absorbed by Medicare.