Our current US healthcare system has a better cost control method than killing old people: kill them off before they get old

From Firedoglake here.

It is interesting to note that for those age 65 is where the US performs best (though not the near the best among other high income countries). The average growth rates in life expectancy for all age groups in other high income countries seems to be accelerating, while it is stagnating for younger groups in the US, except for young women. However, both elderly men and women have accelerating growth rates in life expectancy, though, again, the growth rate is not among the best.

This relatively better performance among the elderly gives evidence in favor of healthcare reform. Two of the three groups with accelerating life expectancies in the US are the elderly, who have near universal coverage. The high levels of life expectancy and the accelerating growth rates give evidence that more regulated government financed universal health care system does not mean poorer care for the elderly.

Remember that other high income countries provide universal care for all ages, and perform better at all ages and for both sexes, and at lower cost.

If people are going to sling disgusting charges of euthanasia and eldercide around, then I propose the following response, backed up by data. The current US system has gone one step better than eldercide and has adopted a policy of saving money by killing off people before they get elderly. The current system shows more variety and sparkle than a glum gray socialist dystopia that would kill all of the elderly. The US system was killing off old women for twenty years, until around 2000. Since then it has switched modes into killing off old men, who seem to have had it too good for a long while, and perhaps were getting swelled heads. . . .