> because dying with $7 million in savings means that she could have spent about $7 million more on enjoying herself in life The point of much of the article i

> because dying with $7 million in savings means that she could have spent about $7 million more on enjoying herself in life The point of much of the article is that dying with $7 million in savings means that she could have instead spent about $7 million more on enjoying herself, not in life, but on the day before she died. She probably couldn't have even enjoyed children and a car "in life".