>>Why is it positive?
>>The insurers could have done that on their own a long time ago but opted not to in order to keep premiums low for people with lower risk of incurring catastrophic costs.
It's normal to exclude or risk-load pre-existing conditions or risks in all the health (and life) insurance jurisdictions I know of. The difference elsewhere is that there is a national health system on which people still can fall back, they're not simply cast adrift.
This isn't just a healthcare issue. E.g. after recent forest fires on your other coast, numerous US householders lost their home insurance and struggled to find more without this risk excluded.
>>Give than logic, I suppose that life insurers should be required to issue policies on hospice residents.
And there you have it. Of course hospice residents usually are older than 65.
"... They ne'er cared for us
yet: suffer us to famish, and their store-houses
crammed with grain; make edicts for usury, to
support usurers; repeal daily any wholesome act
established against the rich, and provide more
piercing statutes daily, to chain up and restrain
the poor. If the wars eat us not up, they will; and
there's all the love they bear us."
-- Shakespeare: Coriolanus, Act 1, scene 1
