But in the meantime, you can impose great pain on the public, unrelated to disease. We face very large problems, one of them being how actually to pay the cost of medicine; the second, how to pay for it without stultifying young and middle-aged Americans' lives.
The conceptual problem is ever so easy to describe. In a society in which people stop working at, say, age 65, the longer they live, the greater the drain on those who are less than 65. Medical costs and Social Security are paid for in part by contributions while under 65, but after a while, the elderly are wanting subsidies. These the Democratic Party would profusely provide, the GOP more sparingly, with certain inducements to shop around for cheaper care.
But as the bulletin from the heart specialist reminds us with a thunderclap, we can't keep this up for very long. The penalty on the productive quarter of the working force would be intolerable. If our lifespan increased by 13 years, the burden of maintaining the elderly would be roughly the equivalent of the cost of raising the young. A newborn does nothing except create expenses for his parents until about age 16. Children are passive economic members of the community during that period, and when they reach 65, they will again become passive economic members of the community.
For how long, is the question. Will our political leaders suggest serious revision in the retirement age? Let us say, to 72?
Run on that platform in the next election, and you'll be ready for one of those killer pills.