But, even some mostly educated folk buy the myth. So, let's do a bit of a thought experiment, a la Einstein. If it was good enough for him, it's good enough for me. And you.
What if... Grifter In Chief gets his mail balloting ban gift from The Gang of Six©, so keeping both the House and Senate in 2026. Next, he claims national security in 2028 to suspend the election, and The Gang of Six© goes along, as one would expect. Either he, if he's still kinda alive, or DJT Jr. takes the throne. With Grifter In Chief demonstrating that the Constitution is no impediment to dictatorship by election, just like 30s Germany, and present day Turkey and Hungary, Grifter In Chief names hisself President for life ("we shouldn't even have an election") and RFK HHS Secretary for life. Along with the rest of the cocksucking Cabinet, naturally.
Whichever Grifter In Chief is on the throne orders that RFK implement that So Much Better Than Obamacare right away. And, miracle, it happens; life expectancy shoots up like a rocket. There is a catch. There always is. It's really just a kinder, gentler "Logan's Run" scenario. Everybody manages to get to 50, say, alive and kicking. Last Day with the black crystal doesn't happen until 65 and it doesn't mean you get zapped. You just don't get any more healthcare. But how does that meet Grifter In Chief's demand for better healthcare? It doesn't, of course; but it can be made to look sorta, kinda like it.
The answer is simple arithmetic: by eliminating the remaining early death causes (a major miracle, btw), the mean/median of the life curve shifts bigly to the right. However much results from use of chronic disease drugs, or the growing advent of gene therapies (at eye watering fee, of course), getting to 65 in very good health will be the result. Geezers don't live longer as a cohort, some fraction will die earlier than when Medicare existed since they no longer get chronic medicines or hip replacements or those nifty gene therapies (what's the point of a life long cure if your life is 5 or so years) and such. But So Much Better Than Obamacare is ruled a rousing success, and the innumerate rejoice. "Life expectancy at 65 went up by 5 years!!!" Thanks, actually, to all those therapies they got before entering the Land of the Geezer, not because So Much Better Than Obamacare lifted a finger for the geezers.
And, the fact is, we're not all that far from such now. There doesn't appear to be much geezer specific healthcare in existence; life extenstion in your Medicare years appears to be mostly the residue of better health/death avoidance garnered until then; esp. with continuance of all those chronic disease meds that got you to your Medicare years.
Here's one report on the "residue" effect of statins and heart disease. It's paywalled, alas, but here's the lede:
Not long after guidelines shifted to considering statin therapy as early as age 30, new research from France suggests there may be no harm in stopping the cholesterol-lowering drugs at age 75 in people with no history of cardiovascular disease. The lessons, however, may not translate elsewhere.And, of course, here's one for BP
The mean survival benefits — estimated using differences in areas under the curve — associated with the use of intensive vs standard BP control ranged from 0.5 to 3 years. At age 50 years, estimated residual survival was 37.3 and 34.4 years with intensive and standard treatments, respectively (difference, 2.9 years; 95% CI, 0.9-5.0 years; P =.008). At 65 years, residual survival was 24.5 and 23.3 years with intensive and standard BP control treatments, respectively (difference 1.1; 95% CI, 0.1-2.1 years; P =.029)Now, it wouldn't be quite fair to infer that BP medicines in your Medicare years don't mean much compared to having them since decades earlier. But almost.
Middle-age, at-risk patients were found to benefit the most from intensive BP control treatment.
IOW, once again: the under 65 crowd have been slurping these meds for some decades before they reach their Medicare years. Many/some would have croaked well before then, but because they didn't, the life expectancy curve shifts (bigly, mayhaps?) to the right. Whether any of them lasts longer in their Medicare years than the unmedicated. It's just the arithmetic of mean/median and (quasi) normal distribution.
