I was surprised to see an article run in a newspaper recently, with the headline saying that medical aids were heavily suffering purely because of an “ageing population.” The story was supported by quotes from a corporate. The journalist jumped onto that angle. It is obvious that the publication is catering to a specific, corporate readership—but let’s get our facts straight here.

To claim that medical schemes are under pressure simply because people are living longer is not the whole truth. It is much more nuanced than that, and it masks a deeply discriminatory reality.

The Myth of the Burden vs. The Reality of Modern Longevity

First, let’s bust the health myth. The so-called “aging population” or older persons today are vastly more fit, healthy, and vigorous than generations decades ago. Their retirement lifestyles are far more active, and their eating habits are often far healthier than the average stressed-out worker in their 30s, 40s, or 50s.

While it’s a generalization, we see it with our own eyes every day: older adults who eat their main, larger meal at lunchtime, keep it light before bed, drink plenty of water, exercise regularly, and stay mentally sharp with active hobbies. They aren’t simply sitting back and draining resources; they are taking proactive care of their health.
Conversely, look at what is happening to younger generations. There is an absolute explosion of chronic diseases being treated in the 30-to-50 age category. Worsening modern lifestyles, severe economic stress, poor diets, and mental health crises mean that younger cohorts are drawing heavily from medical aids for chronic management earlier in life than ever before.

Who Can Actually Afford Medical Aid?

The “experts” who spout whatever they want to please journalists completely forget the real elephant in the room: unaffordable cost.

Medical costs have risen sharply, outpacing general inflation year after year. Medical aids are trying to maintain fat profit margins and build massive reserves, and when the model strains, they cry foul. The real problem isn’t that older people are living longer; it’s that younger people cannot afford to enter or stay in the private system.
Younger people in South Africa are facing a brutal economic landscape with high unemployment and flat wages. Many cannot even afford basic hospital plans because they are outrageously expensive. Because the younger generation is priced out, the “community rating” model—where healthy, younger members are supposed to cross-subsidize the risk pool—is collapsing.

Older adults, having worked conventional jobs for decades, are often the ones who actually have the money to pay these exorbitant monthly premiums. In reality, they are the ones financially anchoring these funds, yet they face severe age discrimination within the system. They are charged excessively high premiums, and if they try to apply for the newer, lower-cost digital or entry-level plans, they are immediately excluded based on their age.

The Language of Exclusion

This discrimination isn’t just financial; it’s social, starting with the very language used by corporate schemes and repeated blindly by journalists.

The terms widely thrown around in society, such as “the aging population” or “the aged,” are inherently discriminatory. They create a paternalistic narrative that reduces complex individuals to a single, stereotyped burden. A more neutral, accurate term is required.

According to Google’s inclusive communication guidelines:

The most inclusive and non-discriminatory terms are “older adults” or “older people.” These descriptors are neutral, promote a positive narrative of aging, and avoid the negative stereotypes or paternalistic connotations often associated with other titles.
Words to avoid include “elderly,” “senior citizens,” or “the aged,” which can feel patronizing and reduce individuals to a single stereotyped group.

Follow the Money, Not the Scapegoats

If researchers want to find the real source of the medical aid crisis, they need to stop looking at the demographics of the beds and start looking at the glass towers.
The real figures on specific drawdowns between younger and older cohorts are notoriously hard to come by because medical aids closely guard their micro-data. But we don’t need a spreadsheet to see the blatant corporate excess. While premium hikes crush members of all ages, look at the big medical aid administrators:

• They operate out of luxurious, palatial, hyper-modern offices located in the smartest, most expensive business districts in the country.
• They pay reams of corporate executives obscene, multimillion-rand salaries and bonuses.
  

Medical schemes are not suffering because older people are living active lives. They are facing a structural crisis driven by sky-high administrative costs, executive greed, and an inflation model that has priced the youth completely out of the market. To blame this on older adults—who paid faithfully into the system for half a century—is lazy journalism, factually wrong, and ageist. It needs to be shown for exactly what it is.

Editorial Disclosure & Disclaimer

Financial News Daily does not directly hold shares in any of the companies it covers, and no information in this article should be construed as investment or financial advice.

Financial News Daily is a wholly owned subsidiary of Idea Accelerator, specializing in producing ready-to-publish, high-quality financial and business content for websites, chambers of commerce, NGOs, community newspapers, international foreign newsfeeds, and the environmental sector.