Doing yoga makes me happier and doesn't cause harm, spending time with my family makes me happy and doesn't cost money. Being healthy makes me happy.
Time with family and time to spend on myself and my health would cost me money. People on lower wages often have to work long or unsociable hours, often with less annual leave - in my case I have to work most of my hours at opposite times to DH and take holiday at different times because childcare is so expensive. If I could afford to spend more time as a family I would love to do so, or go to a yoga or exercise class just for me.
I understand why comments about the bereaved billionaire have been criticised, but I think the original point was not that being rich made the pain less, or whether poorer families would swap places, but more that poorer families have also lost multiple children and then have to deal with issues of poverty on top of that grief. It doesn't mean either type of family is more or less affected, and of course that loss will be the single most devastating thing in their lives, but those poorer families may have to deal with additional issues that they would not have to face if they had money.
As others have said, money can buy healthcare, which is not the same as health but can make a big different in outcome. Do we really think the Royal family just have long-living genes, or are they able to access the type of care and live the type of life that enables them to reach their nineties in good health? Of course it doesn't protect them against accidents or all illnesses, but it's certainly going to give them a good chance.
I love the Ogden quote - here is the famous Dickens one:
"Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery."