5 ms·

I'm still surprised by how bad our "transformative" healthcare remains. People worth a billion dollars can afford extreme extravagances in day-to-day life (and

I'm still surprised by how bad our "transformative" healthcare remains. People worth a billion dollars can afford extreme extravagances in day-to-day life (and frequently indulge in them), yet when it comes to extending lifespans, billionaires don't seem to live much longer than anyone else. Regardless, RIP Jimmy Buffet. Some great songs and a seemingly very savvy businessman.

thfuran 3y ago
>I'm still surprised by how bad our "transformative" healthcare remains You're comparing it to itself and surprised that it doesn't look exceptional in comparison. But in 1800, 46% of people in the US died before the age of six.
- fastball 3y ago
  The reduction of infant mortality is kinda the low-hanging fruit of modern medicine.
  - mgiampapa 3y ago
    Yet we still can't get our population reliably vaccinated for whooping cough, or a myriad of other diseases that children are most susceptible to.
    - fastball 3y ago
      But that is a coordination / buy-in problem, not a problem of ability.
diydsp 3y ago
Nothing like exercise, good sleep, and a good diet for healthspan and longevity. Those are a state of mind and mostly available to anyone. Money could buy a good personal trainer, chef and a quiet, dark sleeping room, but you still have to want it and do it. No purchaseable intervention can build muscle and stability. Some pills can help with memory though at least. And money can buy a decent doctor. Vampiring blood from the young is a possible financial advantage.
psunavy03 3y ago
So the state of the art is bad because it only goes so far even for billionaires. It's as if technology can't let you live forever. What a silly take. "Modern technology isn't good enough because it's only modern." You can't write a check for a treatment that doesn't exist yet.
- kortex 3y ago
  I don't think they are saying "live forever". I think they are wondering why such a wealthy individual died in his 70s, where living into your 90s isn't entirely uncommon.
  - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
    I think substance abuse in his younger days could have been a contributing factor.
    - tssva 3y ago
      You think substance abuse in his younger days was a contributing factor to his skin cancer?
  - doubleg72 3y ago
    Of course it has nothing to do with environmental factors, life choices, or just bad luck.
  - psunavy03 3y ago
    As someone whose parents are pushing that age, and whose grandparents did years ago, it's not that simple. Someone's personal medical situation and what they do and don't have matters a lot more 70+. Diabetes, cancer, and heart disease in particular; I've lost colleagues to the last two as young as their 40s and 50s. When the dice of fate come up snake-eyes, whether due to an undiagnosed problem that got missed or wonky genetics, it's your time, and no one is entitled to live into their 90s.
- xu_ituairo 3y ago
alanbernstein 3y ago
If what you say is true, then another way to say it is that access to health care is relatively uniform. Surely that would be a good thing?
doubleg72 3y ago
Perhaps how you take care of yourself plays a part, like life choices and all..

thfuran 3y ago

>I'm still surprised by how bad our "transformative" healthcare remains You're comparing it to itself and surprised that it doesn't look exceptional in comparison. But in 1800, 46% of people in the US died before the age of six.

fastball 3y ago
The reduction of infant mortality is kinda the low-hanging fruit of modern medicine.
- mgiampapa 3y ago
  Yet we still can't get our population reliably vaccinated for whooping cough, or a myriad of other diseases that children are most susceptible to.
  - fastball 3y ago
    But that is a coordination / buy-in problem, not a problem of ability.

diydsp 3y ago

Nothing like exercise, good sleep, and a good diet for healthspan and longevity. Those are a state of mind and mostly available to anyone. Money could buy a good personal trainer, chef and a quiet, dark sleeping room, but you still have to want it and do it. No purchaseable intervention can build muscle and stability. Some pills can help with memory though at least. And money can buy a decent doctor. Vampiring blood from the young is a possible financial advantage.

psunavy03 3y ago

So the state of the art is bad because it only goes so far even for billionaires. It's as if technology can't let you live forever. What a silly take. "Modern technology isn't good enough because it's only modern." You can't write a check for a treatment that doesn't exist yet.

kortex 3y ago
I don't think they are saying "live forever". I think they are wondering why such a wealthy individual died in his 70s, where living into your 90s isn't entirely uncommon.
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  I think substance abuse in his younger days could have been a contributing factor.
  - tssva 3y ago
    You think substance abuse in his younger days was a contributing factor to his skin cancer?
- doubleg72 3y ago
  Of course it has nothing to do with environmental factors, life choices, or just bad luck.
- psunavy03 3y ago
  As someone whose parents are pushing that age, and whose grandparents did years ago, it's not that simple. Someone's personal medical situation and what they do and don't have matters a lot more 70+. Diabetes, cancer, and heart disease in particular; I've lost colleagues to the last two as young as their 40s and 50s. When the dice of fate come up snake-eyes, whether due to an undiagnosed problem that got missed or wonky genetics, it's your time, and no one is entitled to live into their 90s.
xu_ituairo 3y ago

alanbernstein 3y ago

If what you say is true, then another way to say it is that access to health care is relatively uniform. Surely that would be a good thing?

doubleg72 3y ago

Perhaps how you take care of yourself plays a part, like life choices and all..