Potentially controversial comment:

rich people with no morals live longer, because they’re entirely self interested, and being entirely self interested they can afford healthcare, thus living longer than non-conservatives on average.

From a philosophical point of view, everyone with absolutely no exception is “self interested.” I believe the idea you’re talking about is whether bettering the lives of other has been incorporated in your identity at a young age making your self-interest ultimately beneficial for others. It’s a complex topic, but the idea is that you don’t really truly do anything for others, ever, but if someone convinced you that if you don’t do good by others, then you should be ashamed or that if you do, you’re a better person, then you do good for others for your own sake, to view yourself in a better light.

I’m a bit confused about your comment though. Are you arguing that the study found that rich people skew the data because of their longer life? If so, I find that hard to believe given the proportion of “rich people,” and the consequently negligible ability to statistically skew a population if it were actually randomly sampled.

It’s almost as if life is different for everyone. I tried to do exactly what the adults told me, except I grew up poor with learning disabilities and got booted out of the house at 18, therefore I do not get to have the “good life”?

Now I’m 38 with 2 kids and way too much student debt just to be able to even get the slightest leg up and be able to start a career. I will never own a home and I will not retire, even though I did everything the boomers set out for me.

Screw your pity, no one wants it. Society is against them and it is against you too, you’re just too blinded by your “good life” to see it so you’ll contribute to making it worse instead.