There are many parts of what you're saying I disagree with. Here's some work from Harvard establishing that obesity does incurr a higher healthcare cost burden

There are many parts of what you're saying I disagree with. Here's some work from Harvard establishing that obesity does incurr a higher healthcare cost burden (https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/obesity-prevention-source/obesity-consequences/economic/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/obesity-prevention-source/obesi...) I can cite similar articles for excessive smoking/drinking as well, and as anecdata the physicians in my family firsthand support the statements in the above. You're absolutely right re: asymptotic end of life costs, and I would be in full support of a rethink to the ROI on those costs (especially if they're being footed via e.g. medicare/other tax based resources) But if anything I think this is _more_ reason for healthy people to be angry, as I'd argue that the upper bound on marginal benefit to keep a 90 year old alive another year as opposed to proactively treating smoking/obesity is probably far lower. (just by the empiricism that even in a best case the 90 year old probably doesn't have as much time left) At the end of the day, the amount of money that my employer reports as paying for insurance is _astounding_ and I've yet to see any data to support that it's being used effectively, especially given trends of increasing rates without commensurate gains in QOL/life expectancy (there has absolutely been gains but most of the recent cost hikes have been political and divorced from a more needs based cost growth, assessing "need" as per net long term outcomes) As I said in another post, I've had to surmount a few stress based/sedentary based injuries, and to be bluntly selfish, I'd rather that money to buy myself more stability/a faster retirement so that I may better take care of my own body and not incur a heavy cost on others later in life. (or worse, cut years off my own)