Universal Health Care For Wealthy Androids

Let me ask you something. Consider a future scenario in which:
1) Robotics, nanotech, and human-machine-interface technology had sufficiently advanced to a point where we could upload our consciousness into solid-state memory and become Intelligent androids. This process is really expensive, and
2) Replacement parts, double redundant backup of your memory (aka brain), upgrades, etc are all readily available to enable your android self to achieve immortality. However these things are also really expensive.

In short, immortality and complete freedom from health issues is now possible...but expensive. Would you say that only the wealthy deserved the right to become immortal? Do you think that the middle class and poor should be resigned to normal mortal ills like cancer and gum disease and tetanus while the wealthy look on with timeless, perfect, robotic eyes? It seems like the right thing to do is to have the wealthy be required to subsidize the immortalization of the poor, for everyone's benefit. Right? Society would be maximally benefitted from maximum numbers of immortals; that's a huge number of productive workers paying income and capital gains taxes! Forever! So I think it's pretty safe to say that everyone - and I mean everyone except the rich - would want to tax the rich to subsidize the immortalization of the poor.

Now let's try another scenario:
1) Medicine has advanced to a point at which you can take a "universal cure pill" that, if taken once a month, will cure every ill in your body, flushing out cancer, plaque (both tooth and arterial), etc. thus maximizing your health, and
2) the universal cure pill is really expensive.

Would it really benefit society if only the rich were able to cure their ills in this convenient way? Would society really be tolerant to the idea that the middle class and/or poor would need to suffer through conventional medical treatment (or no treatment at all)? The case for immortalization was more obvious; an ethical society wouldn't let the rich live forever while the poor died in piles. But this is simply a less extreme case of the same thing. The rich would be afforded a level of health care that pushed them as close as a human could go to immortality, while the poor would be doomed to mortal ills. Ancient wealthy would go skydiving while poor people half their age suffered through dementia and died. Yet if the society subsidized the universal cure pill, everyone could achieve the stratospheric health for their entire lives. People could have 80-120 year careers, and pay income taxes that whole time!

Eventually you could imagine these scenarios backwards from the future until you arrive at present day, where a high level of medical care is available if you can afford it. If you can't, you die. And yet, the wealthy in this country seem to see their subsidization of health care for the poor as an affront to their personal liberty. And bad for the country. And an enabler of laziness in the lower classes.
But in the case of immortality via Singularity, or near-immortality via super-drugs, the argument seems pretty clear to me: the more healthy people we have in this country the more the country benefits. Why is this so hard to accept in the present tense?


_