4 ms·

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

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
This feels like a needlessly unkind and uncharitable response to someone pondering something.
- psunavy03 3y ago
  My point is they're tilting at windmills talking about "transformative" healthcare as if Jimmy's death was some indictment of the US healthcare system that could be used for whatever partisan ends that poster wants. Jimmy had functionally unlimited resources at his disposal. He just ran into the inconvenient fact that eventually, we all still die. That should be humbling for all of us, not an excuse to go on a rant about US healthcare. He was lucky enough to be a person who would have had access to the best care money could buy . . . but it turned out money still can't buy immortality. Again, that should be humbling, not an excuse to "fight the man." At least he wasn't stupid enough to pull a Steve Jobs and try to fight cancer with fruit juice. I got introduced to his music when I went on a High Adventure trip with the Boy Scouts to the Florida Keys with my dad in the 90s. I won't claim his catalog is Beethoven, but it was a fun bond to have with my Mom and Dad. And when now and then he dropped the cheeseball "island" act, he wrote some very heartfelt ballads. I'm sad he's gone, because he brought some joy to my family over the years. But when it's someone's time, it's their time, and I'll take more time to be glad he had the musical career he did than I will to hijack his death for a policy rant.

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

This feels like a needlessly unkind and uncharitable response to someone pondering something.

psunavy03 3y ago
My point is they're tilting at windmills talking about "transformative" healthcare as if Jimmy's death was some indictment of the US healthcare system that could be used for whatever partisan ends that poster wants. Jimmy had functionally unlimited resources at his disposal. He just ran into the inconvenient fact that eventually, we all still die. That should be humbling for all of us, not an excuse to go on a rant about US healthcare. He was lucky enough to be a person who would have had access to the best care money could buy . . . but it turned out money still can't buy immortality. Again, that should be humbling, not an excuse to "fight the man." At least he wasn't stupid enough to pull a Steve Jobs and try to fight cancer with fruit juice. I got introduced to his music when I went on a High Adventure trip with the Boy Scouts to the Florida Keys with my dad in the 90s. I won't claim his catalog is Beethoven, but it was a fun bond to have with my Mom and Dad. And when now and then he dropped the cheeseball "island" act, he wrote some very heartfelt ballads. I'm sad he's gone, because he brought some joy to my family over the years. But when it's someone's time, it's their time, and I'll take more time to be glad he had the musical career he did than I will to hijack his death for a policy rant.