What do you mean "not really"? It seem you just posted what I was saying for lower rates of many chronic diseases.

"significantly lower MRs over the age of 40, due primarily to lower rates of cancer (MR = 0.44, age 40-69), and cardiovascular diseases (MR = 0.65, age 40-69)"

As they said, cause differs. When looking at costs, causes are very important. Things like cancer and cardiovascular diseases tend to cost a lot of money to treat as they drag on. If you die young in an accident, it's likely to cost less.

Women had literally zero benefits. And young boys die more. There is only one segment of population that is getting some benefit and that benefit is small.

The Amish suffer from genetic disorders due to inbreeding. From the Wikipedia article someone linked to:

Some of these disorders are quite rare, or unique, and are serious enough to increase the mortality rate among Amish children.

I criticized the practice of inbreeding in my first comment.

We're talking about costs, not mortality. You also can't equate mortality with healthy or unhealthy lifestyle. Many of the things in the lifestyle are healthy, the two biggest being more physical activity and less processed foods. You can "live" in a nursing home for a long time. But quality of life is an important factor not captured in your mortality figures, including things like some of the lowest obesity rates (and chronic illnesses that go with that).

Your quote agrees with the thing you are rebutting:

Rates of many chronic diseases are lower.

Amish males had ...significantly lower MRs over the age of 40, due primarily to lower rates of cancer (MR = 0.44, age 40-69), and cardiovascular diseases (MR = 0.65, age 40-69).

Also, mortality rates and costs are not synonyms.

Women had no such benefit. Women got more issues as their aged. Health of children mattter too and costs too. Young males dying more often is not healthy for them.

The men over 40 subset of population has slightly lower mortality and no one else. The numbers even out.

That is not consistent with "healthier lifestyle overall" as if they generally got benefits.

You: Women had no such benefit. Women got more issues as their aged.

Also you: Amish females MRs for all causes of death were lower from age 10-39, not different from 40-69, and higher over age 69.

Women only "got more issues as their aged" after age 69. Before that, they were either better off or about the same. This also agrees with the point the parent comment was making that they generally have healthy lifestyles and don't go into long-term care facilities in old age. Instead, they accept death when the time comes.

Women got no benefit after 40. Healthier lifestyle as cause would had them having this benefit at that age range too. It is exactly that age when men started to have benefits. In case of women you have slight benefit at the age range when men are dying more.

69 years old women are not in the long term facilities for that matter eitminor Nor are men. In UK, 66 years old is retirement age. This is age when strength and health declines, but nowhere near the level necessary to be in some kind of facility. These are self sufficient people, able to care about themselves, able to care about relatives or animals.

None of that are numbers that overall superior healthier lifestyle. Just a minor shifts around.

I see that as direct evidence contrary to your point. Achieving comparable mortality with less Healthcare and Associated cost would imply that they are in fact healthier.

Part of the confusion is that you are conflating mortality with health.