> The boomers represent an irresistible pile of money. But they don't smoke. They don't have new households to start. They're getting wise to the whole sugar th

> The boomers represent an irresistible pile of money. But they don't smoke. They don't have new households to start. They're getting wise to the whole sugar thing. What is left to tempt them with ? > What if there were a clear imperative on the part of a variety of industries to keep this population as unhealthy as possible - so they can stripmine their assets for "healthcare" ? It's not clear that living a healthy lifestyle reduces healthcare costs, it can actually make you more expensive to care for.[1][2][3] Diabetes medications and death from sudden heart attacks are cheap. Healthy people who live into their 80s/90s are the biggest drag on the healthcare system. They spend more of their lives as retirees. They end up needing 24-hour care. And then they still incur the same end-of-life causes as the obese/smokers... they get cancer, they get heart disease, alzheimers, etc. Smokers and obese are inexpensive to care for in terms of lifetime cost. The best-case scenario for an insurance company is that you get hit by a bus or something. Barring that, I think they might actually prefer that you be a smoker or become obese. [1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9359212/Obese-and-smokers-less-of-a-burden-on-the-NHS-than-the-healthy-who-live-longer-report.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9359212/Obese-an... [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.97488... [3] https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/03/22/alcohol-obesity-and-smoking-do-not-cost-health-care-systems-money/#647df5ab64aa https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/03/22/alcohol-...