Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

bladerunner_35 t1_iuv8krl wrote

Sorry bud, you already said this almost verbatim.

Try again, please.

1

Responsible-Hat5816 OP t1_iuvctix wrote

Βecause I'm responding to the same comments, essentially.

1

bladerunner_35 t1_iuvfe42 wrote

You’re not tho.

I’ve given you several examples of healthcare inequalities if today.

You haven’t given a single example if why this technology would be different beyond that it would be cost-effective.

I’ll ask again. Why would this be universally provided when basic medicine and healthcare isn’t provided today?

Our current economical system isn’t cost-effective beyond the red line of a single corporation. Enormous resources are wasted because of this.

Come on now mate, you’re making us both look bad. You can do better. I am sure there is a point in there somewhere if you can only form it into a coherent thought.

1

Responsible-Hat5816 OP t1_iuvglux wrote

None of these examples explain why only the ultra wealthy would get this.

It makes economic sense to fund and subsidize, just like vaccines.

>We show that a slowdown in aging that increases life expectancy by 1 year is worth US$38 trillion, and by 10 years, US$367 trillion. Ultimately, the more progress that is made in improving how we age, the greater the value of further improvements.
>
>https://www.nature.com/articles/s43587-021-00080-0

1