It's basically the opposite. Health care for old people is very expensive, precisely because they're old. Reversing or preventing aging to the point where everyone has the health profile of a 30 year old would save a fortune.

The idea that our collective human society is going to be handing out everlasting life to anyone who wants it is, even in light of this, something I can't begin to fathom. Perhaps if the arrival of the immortality drug also coincides with the arrival of a utopian society that actually cares about people beyond their basic (and incredibly power-imbalanced) economics that are skewed to benefit corporations not only over people, but over governments, then I can accept it.

But in context of the way the world currently works, this is an incredibly optimistic or naïve assertation to me. People die every day even in the most developed nations due to a lack of access to healthcare, food and/or shelter.

So in the end, a cure for death is also a cure for myriad amount of ailments.

It certainly makes a lot more sense for people to plan their lives around our current understanding of mortality than an increasingly hard to believe pyramid of hypotheticals as the GP has contended.

I believe currently only 3) is a bit controversial, but since there are biologically immortal organisms I find it plausible that it's possible.

Not if you're an amputee. There's a certain amount of damage to the body that isn't due to just aging.

We'll probably figure out how to regrow limbs and organs soon.

So, no, not soon. Unless we introduce dedicated lanes where only self-driving cars are allowed.